On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> wrote:
Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's > (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to > understand the paper. > I wonder about this. I suspect that people are just relying on Widom and Larsen to rationalize (maybe to themselves) the existence of an effect that is difficult to contemplate if Coulomb repulsion is in any way involved. Widom and Larsen talk about neutrons, which are comprehensible to hobbyists (like me) and non-physicists. But there are many difficulties that Widom and Larsen do not appear to even seek to address. One of them is the absence of neutron-emitting radioisotopes after a reaction. Another is that in order to generate the observed power, you would expect many more of the hypothesized ultra-low momentum neutrons to thermalize and escape from the system, which is not something that is seen. I suspect that W&L is being used as a placeholder by some until something comes along that is comprehensible to physicists. I would not be surprised if that replacement ended up looking a lot like known physics, with a small twist here and there. For this reason, I see not even the smallest consequences in the definitive disproving of W&L. Eric
