I wish they wouldn't use Angstrom units. Come on. I think eq. (10) says R ~= 0.4 * 10^-12. But the text says "...that the electron should be confined within its Compton radius, which is completely unrealistic."
Various references say the Compton radius of an electron is more like 2.8 * 10^-15. So while it may not matter - I can't speak to that - isn't their textual statement off by three orders of magnitude? Jeff On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Akira Shirakawa <[email protected]>wrote: > On 2012-10-02 17:27, Moab Moab wrote: > >> mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ? >> What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ? >> > > Not really. To my point of view, this is the result of a personal quarrel > between one of the authors of this paper (the director of the Physics > Department of the Rome University "La Sapienza") and WLT proponent prof. > Yogendra Srivastava [1], who got one of his presentations at La Sapienza > canceled at the last minute as a result, a few months ago (in short, rude > emails when he was asked to clarify certain aspects of the Widom-Larsen > theory, which backfired). > > The conclusions of the paper linked in the OP might be correct (I don't > have the expertise needed to judge whether it is or not), but it certainly > doesn't look like the result of genuine interest to LENR by mainstream > scientists. > > Just my 2 cents, > S.A. > > > [1] You might remember Srivastava from the presentation last March at > CERN: > http://indico.cern.ch/**conferenceDisplay.py?confId=**177379<http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379> > >
