From: David Roberson
I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan
of the Widom Larsen theory.
Well - all of us on vortex would love to be able to focus on a consistent
theory that works. W-L theory seems to be a continuing waste of our time for
understanding Ni-H - for many major reasons (I have combined Ed Storms'
objections with my own here):
1) No neutron activation seen - neutron activation could not be avoided if
the theory was valid.
2) The technology and literature on "ultra low temperature" neutrons is well
known and bears no resemblance to the Larsen invented species: "ultra low
momentum" neutrons. How could the two be different?
3) Energy cannot spontaneously concentrate on an electron to levels of in
excess of 760,000 eV to provide a minimal basis for a neutron. (Second Law)
4) Electrons at moderate temperatures cannot store energy beyond the energy
levels available in a chemical systems, far below 0.76 MeV.
5). Energetic electrons at less than relativistic energies do not react with
protons to make neutrons. (Conflict with observation and violation of
conservation of spin)
6). Neutron addition to nickel produces well-known nuclear products that are
not observed. (Conflict with copious observation)
7). Neutron addition requires emission of gammas of known energy, which is
not observed. (Conflict with experience and theory)
8). Radioactive transmutation products should be present and are not seen.
These are all major objections, and there are dozens more minor objections.
Any one of these will invalidate W-L.
It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to
figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a good
idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. There is
more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to
initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy in
a location which has excess energy?
No problem there. This is QM - and energy can be "borrowed in advance of
being repaid", as they say. But there are no neutrons. That much is
completely clear.
What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts
that are not correct?
First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas during
operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing. Rossi
says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data.
If we knew the spectrum, and the net energy of gammas relative to the
thermal output - there is little doubt that a workable theory could be
framed.
But it will not include anything from W-L - unless neutron activation is
documented.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
