I don't know Jones. I read it differently.
Unless there is some subtle sarcasm which is obscured by the jargon of nuclear physics, at least they, being hot fusion mainstream physicists and affiliated with CERN, have taken one of many LENR theories and provided polite, professional criticism. This is good, even if it raises concerns for just one LENR hypothesis! It may break down the 20+year impenetrable wall put up by the few 'respectable' journals; might even cause authors to resubmit papers to those journals. Let me note a few specifics about the paper: - they actually stated several times that the W-L proposal is a 'very intriguing effect'. Why use that verbiage in a scientific paper if you really didn't think that? If this isn't sarcasm, then they find W-L intriguing. for mainstream nuclear physicists from CERN to be intrigued is a good thing! - just after equation (1) is the statement, "This process cannot, of course, take place in a Hydrogen atom in vacuum." Are they thinking that W-L assumes this condition, or are they stating that their analysis is NOT in a vacuum? This is unclear. - After equation (6) they state, "the proton localized in our lab and the electron on Mars. We present a calculation of the rate of (1) done in two independent ways." WTF? I'll assume it's my lack of knowledge of nuclear physics that wonders why the distance between Mars and their lab has anything to do with nuclear physics! There has to be at least 20 orders of magnitude difference. Perhaps it's a, 'Starting from an Infinite separation' sort of thing? - After equation (7) they state, "where σ is the unpolarized cross section for process" OK, so do that calculations and then look at the polarized condition. - After equation (10) they state, "the electron should be confined within its Compton radius, which is completely unrealistic." Is it all that unrealistic to propose that packing H/D atoms into a rigid metal lattice could easily restrict the electron's radius? I can see why this would be 'unrealistic' in hot fusion; in plasmas where things are much less dense and free to fly about. But this is rigid condensed matter, so does their analysis apply here? If it is realistic in vacuum conditions, then have they thought about the space in microfractures which could provide that condition. - After equation (25) they state, "Values of β (beta) of the order or even larger than twenty are certainly unusual in condensed matter physics, especially for bound electrons." Unusual, but not impossible. They could have easily said 'highly unusual' or some such verbiage, but they didn't. - Finally, the conclusion seems to indicate that there is some remote possibilities which they feel might be possible, but to come to a definitive conclusion would require a detailed analysis. "it is questionable that values of β can be realized, in particular for bound electrons, so large as to give rise to useful nuclear transmutation rates. A more detailed analysis of the attainable values of β is needed to obtain more definite conclusions on this interesting phenomenon, should it exist at all." Again, they refer to it as an 'interesting' phenomenon. are they just being polite here? They could have just left that verbiage out, so I read this to be they are truly intrigued by the W-L hypothesis, and although they see some issues with it, they are intrigued by its 'framework' and feel it worthwhile to explore in a more detailed manner. I may have missed the sarcasm in this paper, but I think not, so it appears to me to be a sincere and polite critique. ***Isn't this what the LENR community has asked for, for decades?*** Let's all hope now that it will get published in a 'reputable' journal (likely, considering the authors' affiliations?), ALONG WITH THE REBUTTAL. With the attention and support that LENR has had over the past few years, I seriously doubt that the rebuttal would not be published. Can't wait to read it! -Mark Iverson From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof .merely 200x fewer neutrons . but that does present a "very strong objection," no? Even the guillotine did not provide instant death. http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php From: Daniel Rocha It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which are merely 200x smaller. Gigi DiMarco wrote" The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1> , L. Maiani <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1> , A. D. Polosa <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1> , V. Riquer <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1> , G. Ruocco <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1> , M. Vignati <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1> has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as:
