On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote:
> W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick and > choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might explain > a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be > way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory > of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It > is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N > transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number > of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another > target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The > probability of a second reaction in the "cycle" would be the square of N/T. > That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero. Can you further explain this calculation? Are you assuming a low flux, where N/T << 1? You're also thinking that T is large and includes the Palladium atoms in the lattice? > The intermediate product would be left. If neutrons are being created in > significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not > observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this. I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing observable in addition to gamma radiation. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are known from previous experience with fusion? I have no reason to doubt this approach, I'm just trying to understand. What are the other missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays? > Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is > searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory > *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis. I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not too long ago, but point taken. > There is an absence of clear experimental prediction. A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking. > This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to > suggest avenues for exploration. Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a result, but we should strive for better. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong evidence against it. For there to be sufficient flux to have a "carbon cycle" and so on would entail effects that aren't seen experimentally, such as high levels of heat. You don't see a strict requirement for a D+D -> He reaction, but you see compelling reason not to give serious consideration to alpha decay. Regarding transmutations, such as that of Barium into Samarium reported in Iwamura et al. [1], you either find evidence for them to be unreliable and ultimately untenable, or, alternatively, something that arises by a process other than neutron flux. Have I misunderstood anything? Eric [1] Iwamura et al., "Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions Induced by D2Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes," http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cmns...11..339I (I'm having trouble finding the lenr-canr.org version, but I have a copy of the PDF if you'd like one)
