Re: [Vo]:A clarification about the W-L theory and a reminder that the word is not the thing
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 29 May 2010 17:09:20 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Hi Robin, > > > >As I pointed out to Larsen in private email, this reaction is silly. Why start >with Li-6 when you can start with Li-7 which is far more abundant in nature >anyway? > >I suspect that the answer which will write wrote back, if he does so (which I >doubt)is that the cross-section for thermal neutrons with Li-7 is orders of >magnitude less. In fact this isotope is used as a coolant in molten salt >reactors (LiF) which indicates how few fast and thermal neutrons are absorbed. >But only in the Li-7 isotope. Note that he gives this reaction as the *second* reaction himself (he just uses the Li-6 + n reaction to produce the Li-7). However I think the real answer is that he is looking for a cycle that starts with D and ends up with He-4 while utilizing neutron addition in the process. As in: D + 2*n => H-4 H-4 => He-4 He-4 + 2*n => He-6 He-6 => Li-6 Li-6 + 2*n => Li-8 Li-8 => Be-8 Be-8 => 2 * He-4 Unfortunately there are a few holes in this process, certainly the way he presents it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:A clarification about the W-L theory and a reminder that the word is not the thing
Hi Robin, As I pointed out to Larsen in private email, this reaction is silly. Why start with Li-6 when you can start with Li-7 which is far more abundant in nature anyway? I suspect that the answer which will write wrote back, if he does so (which I doubt)is that the cross-section for thermal neutrons with Li-7 is orders of magnitude less. In fact this isotope is used as a coolant in molten salt reactors (LiF) which indicates how few fast and thermal neutrons are absorbed. But only in the Li-7 isotope. However, the fallacy with that argument for LENR, if it is indeed what he would respond, is obvious. Subthermal neutrons are not thermal - and can be as different from thermal in cross-section as are fast neutrons from thermal, in various elements. There can be a "trend" based on kinetic energy, but it is not guaranteed and is often wildly variant. In fact there is no scientific rationale to expect a continuation of low cross-section at lower average temperure, with lithium in particular, due to its low atomic mass ... and AFAIK, Larsen cannot justify that argument based on any numbers which are published. I hope that this is not putting words in his mouth -- and yes I may have missed something which is published but not widely distributed. However, Larsen's glaring past failure to rationalize and differentiate subthermal from the well-known field of ultra-cold neutrons is documented on this forum, and makes me think the guy is not a serious and zealous scientist intent on finding "truth" - but in fact seems to be most intent on raising funding ... (perhaps from Dardik's funder:) ... which is understandbale to some degree, so long as integrity is not compromised with what could be a poorly concieved (but expedient) hypothesis/theory that has as many holes as a sieve ... ... but which is perhaps a slightly better moral predicament to be in than 'borderline dishonesty' ... that being what a few others seem to be hinting at privately. Of course, if he is proved correct in experiment, then some of that inuendo is jealousy. And there is a lot of sci-envy in any nascent field (especially one which could change the course of history) for sure. There is a lot at stake for the first one to get it right. Time will tell, but the experimental results coming from his group can best described as a joke. I hope he gets his big funding, and can then "stand and deliver" with convincing experiment - but so far this looks as much like a PR stunt as serious science. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A clarification about the W-L theory and a reminder that the word is not the thing
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 27 May 2010 11:09:24 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>I finally got a chance to finish the W-L article and subsequent series of
>neutron absorptions and beta decays following the ULM neutron formation. I
>would agree with Eds assessment that a rose by any other name is still a
>rose. If a neutron absorption is normally considered fusion then this
>Should still be considered fusion even if the wave length is longer and the
>fusion is colder.
>Regards
>Fran
>
>
>Li-6 + n -> Li-7 + n -> Li-8 -> Be-8 + e? + {neutron absorption, then
>betadecay} (4)
As I pointed out to Larsen in private email, this reaction is silly. Why start
with Li-6 when you can start with Li-7 which is far more abundant in nature
anyway?
>
>Be-8 -> He-4 + He-4 {perfectly symmetric, green fission of a beryllium-8
>nucleus} (5)
>
>He-4 + n -> He-5 + n -> He-6 {neutron absorption, making neutron-rich
>helium} (6)
This is also silly. He-5 decays to He-4 and a neutron with a half life on the
order of femtoseconds, so the chance of going on with a second neutron to form
He-6 is miniscule.
>
>He-6 -> Li-6 + e? + {final beta decay of helium- 6 that regenerates
>lithium-6} (7)
>
>The above series of nuclear reactions comprise a reaction cycle in that
>lithium-6 is regenerated as the final reaction product [2]. Lattice has also
>uncovered other LENR reaction cycles that release varying amounts of energy.
If you really want to make Li-6, the simpler reaction is:-
He-4 + D => Li-6 + 1.47 MeV, but oops, no neutrons involved. ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:A clarification about the W-L theory and a reminder that the word is not the thing
I finally got a chance to finish the W-L article and subsequent series of
neutron absorptions and beta decays following the ULM neutron formation. I
would agree with Ed’s assessment that a rose by any other name is still a rose.
If a neutron absorption is normally considered “fusion” then this
Should still be considered fusion even if the wave length is longer and the
fusion is colder.
Regards
Fran
Li-6 + n -> Li-7 + n -> Li-8 -> Be-8 + e− + • {neutron absorption, then
betadecay} (4)
Be-8 -> He-4 + He-4 {perfectly symmetric, ‘green’ fission of a beryllium-8
nucleus} (5)
He-4 + n -> He-5 + n -> He-6 {neutron absorption, making neutron-rich
helium} (6)
He-6 -> Li-6 + e− + •{final beta decay of helium- 6 that regenerates
lithium-6} (7)
The above series of nuclear reactions comprise a ‘reaction cycle’ in that
lithium-6 is regenerated as the final reaction product [2]. Lattice has also
uncovered other LENR reaction cycles that release varying amounts of energy.
[Vo]:A clarification about the W-L theory and a reminder that the word is not the thing
Clearly, I know nothing about the Windom-Larsen theory. I wrote: Roarty, Francis X wrote: . . . I think his point regarding "nuclear" vs "fusion" In the first interview may be the electron absorption transmutes a single nuclei vs the "fusion" of 2 nuclei. Ah. I guess that is negative beta decay. Well, that is the first plausible reason I have heard to quibble with the term "fusion" in this context. Ed Storms sent me a correction. The electron absorption is only the first step, according to the theory. Ed explains: "The issue about using the word fusion is the following: Fusion: two or more deuterons come together to make He-4. W-L: an electron and a deuteron come together to make a dineutron, This dineutron reacts with Li6 to make He-4 and a beta. The difference involves which nuclear reaction makes the helium and the heat. The evidence is only consistent with fusion regardless of what Larsen says." In other words, it is fusion between a deuteron and a lithium atom. It ends with a helium atom. Okay, I would call that fusion, but in any case what people call something does not define what it is. Nature does what it does. The label we give the phenomenon may or may not be accurate, and it can never be complete. That is why, for example, the urge to rename cold fusion "LENR" or "CANR" or "LANR" or some other name is fundamentally silly, and to argue whether it is "actually fusion" is pettifoggery. Cold fusion is what it is, and the scientists' job is to find out what it is, not to give it the best possible name. Things always end up being quite different from out initial impressions or notions about them. Even work-a-day technology such as computer components often go through multiple iterations and changes until we end up with etymologically absurd expressions such as "solid state disk" which is not a disk and does not rotate, and solid state disk folders that do not fold in any sense. There is no particular advantage to coining a more technically accurate term to describe a phenomenon, except for a narrow range of words used in mensuration or to describe specific instruments or techniques where confusion might arise. It is important to make the exact distinction between lumens and candela, and you should bear in mind that lumens are a measure of light as perceived by the human eye, but you can be less rigorous when discussing light or vision in general. If you want to call the subject "optics" that's fine, even though the subject area is not limited to the other meaning of optics: the hardware used in visible light instruments such as lenses, prisms and whatnot. "Optics" may not be defined quite as rigorously as "lumen," but the definition will do. And the fact that "lens" originally meant a lentil seed is completely irrelevant. There is no need to scavenge around looking for some new word to describe convex or concave lenses just because the word originally describes seeds, or just because there are no concave lentil seeds. A word is always a shorthand description, or an approximation. A word is never the thing itself. That may seem self-evident, but people both ancient and modern are often confused by this. There is an old joke about a German philosopher who makes up a word for something and then becomes convinced that because there is a word, the thing itself must exist. The above assertions are more about linguistics, or the philosophy of language, than about physics per se. I probably know more about that business than Larsen or Krivit do, since I have read large chunks of the aforementioned book by Samuel E. Martin and other stuff like it. So take it from me, pal: it's fusion. - Jed
[Vo]:a clarification
To any one who might be interested, Steve quoted me in the latest issue of NET as follows: For example, LENR researcher Ed Storms, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, recently discouraged me from reporting all of the key facts of LENR research. He wrote this to me in an e-mail recently: “You need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well-accepted that a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem.” The conclusion that Steve drew is not correct as I stated to Steve in a recent e-mail. Steve, The following statement from the latest issue of NET is not correct. I did not at any time discourage you from reporting ALL KEY FACTS about LENR. For you to get this impression is an example of your inability to accurately report what I say to you and is why I do not want anything I say to you quoted by you. The context of my statement was your report about Marianne Macy and the problems you created for yourself in not being sensitive to the context of your reporting. At the very least, I suggest you check with people to be sure you understand what they are telling you rather than distort your reporting to fit your own agenda. You can be a service, as you intend, if you are accurate in reporting the intent of a comment. In this case, you supplied your own interpretation of my intent, which was not correct. I attempted to encourage you to be sensitive to how you report facts about the subject, not to discourage you from reporting ALL KEY FACTS. I hope you see the difference. Ed
