Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas during operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing. Rossi says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data. Celani: I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25 NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3623rf-celani.shtml He would sneak into the bathroom and take measurements. Snake! T
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Lou, On your first point - Electron Capture events [energy+p+e -- n+v] occur in the nucleus and respect conservation laws. Are we sure they cannot also occur in extremely energetic complex plasmons? EC cannot occur with hydrogen, period. Never, Nada, No way. Not in QM, not in classical, not in plasmons. Even in a relativistic beam line, where the require energy near an MeV is available, that reaction is NOT a variety of EC. EC is not even a good analogy, since it occurs in unstable heavier nuclei (a beta emitter) with excess neutrons - and hydrogen (protium) has no neutron at all. Excess neutrons are the sine qua non for EC. There is no EC candidate in the nickel reactant at any rate. Most importantly the neutrino in EC is emitted, not captured ‼ It needs to be captured for W-L theory to work properly. One cannot conflate two fundamentally different phenomena like this and then reverse the reaction vectors to prove a point. That is why I called the theory brain dead wrt nickel-hydrogen, which it is. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
why need capture of neutrino, they don't talk of capture, but like you say of emission... except the energy, nothing is lost. as usual if one of the particle is very energetic/heavy, it solve the equation about the needed energy scale, far from the thermal level, the key factor is group behavior. they cite an old experiment with x-ray cannon, filled with H2 gaz, showing transmutation. Einstein seems to have worked on the subject and proposed it should be collective quantum effect of electrons, overriding weak interaction potential... of course there are holes in W-L, but not yet any impossible!... just some how? 2012/2/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Most importantly the neutrino in EC is emitted, not captured ‼ It needs to be captured for W-L theory to work properly. One cannot conflate two fundamentally different phenomena like this and then reverse the reaction vectors to prove a point. That is why I called the theory brain dead wrt nickel-hydrogen, which it is. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
From: Alain Sepeda why need capture of neutrino, they don't talk of capture, but like you say of emission... except the energy, nothing is lost. as usual if one of the particle is very energetic/heavy, it solve the equation But Alain - we are talking about hydrogen here, in the context of conservation of spin… Do you not appreciate that there is no neutrino in hydrogen to emit! How can a proton emit something that is never there to begin with? No matter how heavy an individual proton is, relative to the average atomic weight of hydrogen (and I agree that there can be a small variation), it still has a half spin. The neutrino also has a half spin, so it CANNOT be “in the proton” waiting around in order to be emitted, to form a neutron. This does not happen as it violates conservation of spin. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Jones, There too many theories to be partisan. They all may be wrong. First - E-C cannot occur in hydrogen. Probably true, but plasma is not hydrogen. Plasma e-p wave functions are not stationary. Second - I agree - relativistic collisions can be ruled out. That's why I conjectured direct conversion of potential energy might occur. Third - E-C occurs in heavy atoms. Yes. That does not prove it cannot happen with different dynamics in other circumstances. W-L cite examples of anomalous neutron production that MAY be explained by E-C. I am not sure. The March 22 Celani-Srivastava presentation at CERN probably will cover this - and W-L theory makes testable predictions. Fourth - Why is neutrino capture is required? Jones Beene wrote on Tue, 21 Feb 2012: Lou, On your first point - Electron Capture events [energy+p+e -- n+v] occur in the nucleus and respect conservation laws. Are we sure they cannot also occur in extremely energetic complex plasmons? EC cannot occur with hydrogen, period. Never, Nada, No way. Not in QM, not in classical, not in plasmons. Even in a relativistic beam line, where the require energy near an MeV is available, that reaction is NOT a variety of EC. EC is not even a good analogy, since it occurs in unstable heavier nuclei (a beta emitter) with excess neutrons - and hydrogen (protium) has no neutron at all. Excess neutrons are the sine qua non for EC. There is no EC candidate in the nickel reactant at any rate. Most importantly the neutrino in EC is emitted, not captured â¼ It needs to be captured for W-L theory to work properly. One cannot conflate two fundamentally different phenomena like this and then reverse the reaction vectors to prove a point. That is why I called the theory brain dead wrt nickel-hydrogen, which it is. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
in don't understand your idea that a neutrinon cannot be produced. the neutrino can be produced with the neutron, because it transports the leptonic number. about the spin, electron an proton holds 2 half spins, and the neutrino and the neutro holds the same. the only big and real problems is energy, and it is why WL assume energetic electrons, not really electrons but pseudoparticles whose mass is huge, that hold the usual coulombic charge, leptonic charge, half spin, but is in fact an excitation of the surface lattice (a difference between two allowed states, with or without it) in fact this excitation of coherent electron lattice, could interact with the excitation of coherents proton lattice, to produce an excitation of coherents neutrons in the lattice, and an excitation of coherent neutrino flux a kind of schrodinger zoology and sexuality. by the way science have proved that schroedinger kitten can exists : atoms can be excited or not, and for some time, befor an random photon hit it, it can interfere between its two version... as if the living cat was reacting to the dead cat. for WL what is hard to accept is coherence at medium energy level, but it is observed (explained in slides) in similar condition by normal science... the bet of WL is that it can happens with their environement... it is not impossible, but not yet proved. 2012/2/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net From: Alain Sepeda why need capture of neutrino, they don't talk of capture, but like you say of emission... except the energy, nothing is lost. as usual if one of the particle is very energetic/heavy, it solve the equation But Alain - we are talking about hydrogen here, in the context of conservation of spin… Do you not appreciate that there is no neutrino in hydrogen to emit! How can a proton emit something that is never there to begin with? No matter how heavy an individual proton is, relative to the average atomic weight of hydrogen (and I agree that there can be a small variation), it still has a half spin. The neutrino also has a half spin, so it CANNOT be “in the proton” waiting around in order to be emitted, to form a neutron. This does not happen as it violates conservation of spin. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Alain, I am trying to find minimal semi-classical models for W-L theory. Quantum W-L theory requires intense local e-m fields. Metallic nano-structures can super-focus coulomb and magnetic fields. Surface probes show huge amplifications at nano-sized hotspots - even after 2-Dimensional filtering which smudges and attenuates peaks. Does a hotspot electron passing free protons (with equal, opposite momentum) or an immobile proton experience enough ampere force long enough to overcome the 780 KeV barrier, producing a ULMN? Using classical physics, the two references I cited indicate that in nanostructures, conduction electrons' momentum, inertial mass and magnetic energy can be vastly larger than in macroscopic circuits. Maybe a semi-classical analysis can yield reasonable results - if actual field strengths, charge densities, electron velocities,... are used? Are entanglement, nonlocality, Bose condenscation, ... really needed? I'm uncertain. Good data is hard to find. Thanks for the reply, Lou Pagnucco On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: if you red WL theory, they say that the neutrons are generated from coherents pairs of p+e, and the result is a group of possible neutrons widely distributed among the coherents p, thus slow and delocalized a kind of schodinger cat gang most are alive, but one is dead, but nobody knows which, so the dead cat is wide, thus slow 2012/2/16 pagnu...@htdconnect.com W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created - quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions. Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV. Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs? As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is kinetic. Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons. On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions . -- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together -- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically: --- PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY' MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE INCREASES MIN AMPERE FORCE AMPERE FORCE RISES MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES ^ ^^ ^ . .. . \ . \ .\ .\. \ .\. \ . \ e \.+-+ +-- \ . +-+ +- \ . +-+ +- |:+- \ .| | | ^ \ . | | |\.e| | ||:| \ .| | | |\ . | | | \_| | ||:| \ .| | | | \ | | | | ||V| \ | | |780 \ e| | | | || | \| |u|KeV \_| |u| |u||u| \ | |d| | |d| |d||d| -- ULMN (ddu) \ e| |u| | |u| |u||u| + neutrino \_| |_| V |_| |_||_| --- An electron arriving at a potential wall is pushed forward by the magnetic coupling to millions of conduction electrons and back-reacts by borrowing some of their collective momentum (Newton's 3rd Law). Ref[2] shows that electrons in nanowires can acquire enormous inertial mass from this coupling - distinct, I believe, from relavistic mass - which may make the surface plasma appear as an extremely viscous fluid to gamma rays, and could trap most high-energy gammas. [1]How Much of Magnetic Energy is Kinetic Energy? - Kirk T. McDonald http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf [2]Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Microstructures http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/lfplslet.pdf Comments/corrections very welcome, Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now and maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e to become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? By this I refer to a material that is not currently generating LENR reactions until the conversion is met. I ask this question because it appears that the actual LENR reactions release much more energy than that required to initiate the next one. Why are we not able to steal some energy and be on our merry way? My assumption is that the first reaction is a result of an external effect such as a cosmic ray trigger. Thanks for advancing my understanding of the phenomenon. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory Alain, I am trying to find minimal semi-classical models for W-L theory. uantum W-L theory requires intense local e-m fields. Metallic nano-structures can super-focus coulomb and magnetic fields. urface probes show huge amplifications at nano-sized hotspots - even fter 2-Dimensional filtering which smudges and attenuates peaks. Does a hotspot electron passing free protons (with equal, opposite omentum) or an immobile proton experience enough ampere force long enough o overcome the 780 KeV barrier, producing a ULMN? Using classical physics, the two references I cited indicate that in anostructures, conduction electrons' momentum, inertial mass and magnetic nergy can be vastly larger than in macroscopic circuits. Maybe a emi-classical analysis can yield reasonable results - if actual field trengths, charge densities, electron velocities,... are used? re entanglement, nonlocality, Bose condenscation, ... really needed? I'm uncertain. Good data is hard to find. Thanks for the reply, ou Pagnucco n Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: if you red WL theory, they say that the neutrons are generated rom coherents pairs of p+e, and the result is a group of possible neutrons idely distributed among the coherents p, thus slow and delocalized kind of schodinger cat gang ost are alive, but one is dead, but nobody knows which, so the dead cat is ide, thus slow 2012/2/16 pagnu...@htdconnect.com W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created - quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions. Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV. Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs? As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is kinetic. Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons. On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions . -- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together -- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically: --- PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY' MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE INCREASES MIN AMPERE FORCE AMPERE FORCE RISES MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES ^ ^^ ^ . .. . \ . \ .\ .\. \ .\. \ . \ e \.+-+ +-- \ . +-+ +- \ . +-+ +- |:+- \ .| | | ^ \ . | | |\.e| | ||:| \ .| | | |\ . | | | \_| | ||:| \ .| | | | \ | | | | ||V| \ | | |780 \ e| | | | || | \| |u|KeV \_| |u| |u||u| \ | |d| | |d| |d||d| -- ULMN (ddu) \ e| |u| | |u| |u||u| + neutrino \_| |_| V |_| |_||_| --- An electron arriving at a potential wall is pushed forward by the magnetic coupling to millions of conduction electrons and back-reacts by borrowing some of their collective momentum (Newton's 3rd Law). Ref[2] shows that electrons in nanowires can acquire enormous inertial mass from this coupling - distinct, I believe, from relavistic mass - which may make the surface plasma appear as an extremely viscous fluid to gamma rays, and could trap most high-energy gammas. [1]How Much of Magnetic Energy is Kinetic Energy? - Kirk T. McDonald http://puhep1
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
A NiH reactor will dissipate any electric potential required to meet the 750K Ev constraint for P+E to N production as fast as it is formed. The reactor walls are grounded and EMF will flow through the hydrogen plasma to the grounded reactor walls. W+L may happen in some systems but I can’t see how it could happen in a Rossi reactor or it’s like. Hydrogen plasma will short circuit the entire L+W process. The heavy electrons will follow the heat through the hydrogen plasma right out the reactor vessel walls into the coolant. I like coherence as an explanation of cold fusion because such a system is responsive to decoherence as an energy production mechanism. In a coherent system, a cosmic ray trigger like a million other things, is an interface or interaction to the external world. This interaction is called in QM terminology decoherence. Anytime a coherent system interacts (i.e. produces energy) with the outside world, decoherence occurs. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now and maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e to become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? By this I refer to a material that is not currently generating LENR reactions until the conversion is met. I ask this question because it appears that the actual LENR reactions release much more energy than that required to initiate the next one. Why are we not able to steal some energy and be on our merry way? My assumption is that the first reaction is a result of an external effect such as a cosmic ray trigger. Thanks for advancing my understanding of the phenomenon. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory Alain, I am trying to find minimal semi-classical models for W-L theory. Quantum W-L theory requires intense local e-m fields. Metallic nano-structures can super-focus coulomb and magnetic fields. Surface probes show huge amplifications at nano-sized hotspots - even after 2-Dimensional filtering which smudges and attenuates peaks. Does a hotspot electron passing free protons (with equal, opposite momentum) or an immobile proton experience enough ampere force long enough to overcome the 780 KeV barrier, producing a ULMN? Using classical physics, the two references I cited indicate that in nanostructures, conduction electrons' momentum, inertial mass and magnetic energy can be vastly larger than in macroscopic circuits. Maybe a semi-classical analysis can yield reasonable results - if actual field strengths, charge densities, electron velocities,... are used? Are entanglement, nonlocality, Bose condenscation, ... really needed? I'm uncertain. Good data is hard to find. Thanks for the reply, Lou Pagnucco On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: if you red WL theory, they say that the neutrons are generated from coherents pairs of p+e, and the result is a group of possible neutrons widely distributed among the coherents p, thus slow and delocalized a kind of schodinger cat gang most are alive, but one is dead, but nobody knows which, so the dead cat is wide, thus slow 2012/2/16 pagnu...@htdconnect.com W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created - quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions. Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV. Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs? As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is kinetic. Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons. On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions . -- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together -- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically: --- PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY' MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE INCREASES MIN AMPERE FORCE AMPERE FORCE RISES MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES ^ ^^ ^ . .. . \ . \ .\ .\. \ .\. \ . \ e
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all is it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin. Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise hydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons. From: David Roberson I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now and maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e to become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily convert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to carry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is so lop-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes. Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
don't forget the neutrino, that take away the half spin and the leptonic number. this reaction happens in some condition. people interested in WL should read ALL their papers and slides, because many critics here and on nextbigfuture are addressed. the slides refers to many recognized resulst showing that proposed SPP, proton entanglement, betadelayed alpha,... about why LENR should not apear in many materials, it seems their arguments is that it need coherents protons that you can only find at the surface of hydrides, and linked to graphene... place where they present LENR proofs. also in NBF they argumet against proposed transmutation, but they seems not to have read the larsen slides, and mills experiments. the 5 peak mass spectroscopy is an argument for neutrons absorption, and not fusion. the experiments where LENR are triggered by IR laser talk for surface, quantum and SPP origine about neutrons ability to be absorbed, it is because those neutrons have a wide wave function covering many nucleus, since they are entangled population of neutrons created from entangled protons and electrons... of course it is not evident, might be wrong, but once you FP effects, and also suppressed results from previous experiments since 19th century (xray tube with H2 transmutation, oil arcing, coke factory N isotopic anomaly) , it became one of the possible theory, no less credible than other... about semiclassic approximation, be carefull because it can kill the key element behind the phenomemon, which is surely based on : - surface - local electromagnetic effects - quantum entanglement - no classic fusion for me the only other candidate agains WL are similar theory based on protons directly or indirectly merging with nucleus around. the miracle of nogamma is also a big problem, because the wide spectrum of condition for LENR (different metal, gaz, graphene, ), where no dangerous gamma is produced, call for a generic mechanisme, not to a lucky branching ratio... WL propose one with gamma screening, maybe there is another similar ... but there is such a mechanism. the WL transparents are really a must to read, because it gives constraints to what can be the solutions. maybe WL is wrong, but the solution is constraint to be similar, according to experimental results. 2012/2/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all is it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin. Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise hydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons. From: David Roberson I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now and maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e to become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily convert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to carry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is so lop-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes. Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan of the Widom Larsen theory. That is not a difficulty as far as I can determine since my question is mainly an attempt to approach the problem from another point of view. It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy in a location which has excess energy? The correct LENR theory may already exist in some form, but I have not detected anything resembling a consensus thus far. What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct? Are there any ideal tests that would prove a particular theory beyond reasonable doubt? Please understand that I am attempting to think outside of the normal box. Sometimes an alternate approach to problems ignites a fuse. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:49 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all s it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin. Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise ydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons. From: David Roberson I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now nd maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e o become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily onvert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to arry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is so op-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes. Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
From: David Roberson I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan of the Widom Larsen theory. Well - all of us on vortex would love to be able to focus on a consistent theory that works. W-L theory seems to be a continuing waste of our time for understanding Ni-H - for many major reasons (I have combined Ed Storms' objections with my own here): 1) No neutron activation seen - neutron activation could not be avoided if the theory was valid. 2) The technology and literature on ultra low temperature neutrons is well known and bears no resemblance to the Larsen invented species: ultra low momentum neutrons. How could the two be different? 3) Energy cannot spontaneously concentrate on an electron to levels of in excess of 760,000 eV to provide a minimal basis for a neutron. (Second Law) 4) Electrons at moderate temperatures cannot store energy beyond the energy levels available in a chemical systems, far below 0.76 MeV. 5). Energetic electrons at less than relativistic energies do not react with protons to make neutrons. (Conflict with observation and violation of conservation of spin) 6). Neutron addition to nickel produces well-known nuclear products that are not observed. (Conflict with copious observation) 7). Neutron addition requires emission of gammas of known energy, which is not observed. (Conflict with experience and theory) 8). Radioactive transmutation products should be present and are not seen. These are all major objections, and there are dozens more minor objections. Any one of these will invalidate W-L. It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy in a location which has excess energy? No problem there. This is QM - and energy can be borrowed in advance of being repaid, as they say. But there are no neutrons. That much is completely clear. What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct? First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas during operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing. Rossi says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data. If we knew the spectrum, and the net energy of gammas relative to the thermal output - there is little doubt that a workable theory could be framed. But it will not include anything from W-L - unless neutron activation is documented. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
I believe that W=L theory proposes that LENR is initiated by strong focusing of E-M fields on metal hydride surfaces. I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't activation energy loss be too small to detect in the energy released? I don't understand Jones Beenes' point. If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino? David Roberson wrote on Mon, 20 Feb 2012: I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan of the Widom Larsen theory. That is not a difficulty as far as I can determine since my question is mainly an attempt to approach the problem from another point of view. It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy in a location which has excess energy? The correct LENR theory may already exist in some form, but I have not detected anything resembling a consensus thus far. What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct? Are there any ideal tests that would prove a particular theory beyond reasonable doubt? Please understand that I am attempting to think outside of the normal box. Sometimes an alternate approach to problems ignites a fuse. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:49 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all s it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin. Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise ydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons. From: David Roberson I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now nd maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e o become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily onvert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to arry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is so op-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes. Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Too many points to address. Perhaps, the Celani-Srivastava presentation at the March 22 CERN LENR Colloquium will discuss them, since Srivastava is a proponent. Jones Beene wrote: Well - all of us on vortex would love to be able to focus on a consistent theory that works. W-L theory seems to be a continuing waste of our time for understanding Ni-H - for many major reasons (I have combined Ed Storms' objections with my own here): 1) No neutron activation seen - neutron activation could not be avoided if the theory was valid. 2) The technology and literature on ultra low temperature neutrons is well known and bears no resemblance to the Larsen invented species: ultra low momentum neutrons. How could the two be different? 3) Energy cannot spontaneously concentrate on an electron to levels of in excess of 760,000 eV to provide a minimal basis for a neutron. (Second Law) 4) Electrons at moderate temperatures cannot store energy beyond the energy levels available in a chemical systems, far below 0.76 MeV. 5). Energetic electrons at less than relativistic energies do not react with protons to make neutrons. (Conflict with observation and violation of conservation of spin) 6). Neutron addition to nickel produces well-known nuclear products that are not observed. (Conflict with copious observation) 7). Neutron addition requires emission of gammas of known energy, which is not observed. (Conflict with experience and theory) 8). Radioactive transmutation products should be present and are not seen. These are all major objections, and there are dozens more minor objections. Any one of these will invalidate W-L. It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy in a location which has excess energy? No problem there. This is QM - and energy can be borrowed in advance of being repaid, as they say. But there are no neutrons. That much is completely clear. What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct? First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas during operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing. Rossi says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data. If we knew the spectrum, and the net energy of gammas relative to the thermal output - there is little doubt that a workable theory could be framed. But it will not include anything from W-L - unless neutron activation is documented. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
-Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com I don't understand Jones Beene's point. If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino? Yes, that is correct - and spin is conserved on neutron decay. Since you are going from a more massive neutron to a less massive proton, the energy released is also conserved. BUT - there is a basic asymmetry here in that in addition to the large mass deficit, when you try to go the other way (P + e), there is NO neutrino with which to conserve spin, so it cannot happen in that direction - get it? Neutrinos are ubiquitous but cannot be captured to retain symmetry. Plus - even if spin were not an issue, you cannot go from low mass to higher mass without adding LOTS of energy from somewhere. Speed of light squared cannot be easily bypassed to suddenly create the deficit mass - as W-L apparently wish to do. As David mentioned, in QM - the deficit could potentially be borrowed in advance, but only IF it could be repaid immediately (sub-pico-sec). However, there is too much time delay for that since the neutron is not immediately absorbed following formation.
RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
Jones, On your first point - Electron Capture events [energy+p+e -- n+v] occur in the nucleus and respect conservation laws. Are we sure they cannot also occur in extremely energetic complex plasmons? On your second point - Energy must come from somewhere. The formulas in the two papers I referenced show that conduction electrons in nano-circuits can acquire far more momentum, inertial mass and potential magnetic energy than in macro-circuits. This is why I suggested that the electroweak barrier might be surmounted by direct conversion of magnetic potential energy by an ampere pinching together of an e-p pair - bypassing conversion of magnetic-to-kinetic energy. After all, exchanging electrostatic potential energy with gravitional potential energy at slow speeds is easy. The ampere force on an e-p plasmon pair is exerted by magnetic coupling to millions of electrons. Maybe an good analogy would be an arrow. Only the tip's electrostatic coupling to the rest of the arrow gives it piercing power. BTW, I am not sure of any of the above. Just speculating. I welcome corrections. Thanks for the reply, Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote on Mon, 20 Feb 2012: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com I don't understand Jones Beene's point. If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino? Yes, that is correct - and spin is conserved on neutron decay. Since you are going from a more massive neutron to a less massive proton, the energy released is also conserved. BUT - there is a basic asymmetry here in that in addition to the large mass deficit, when you try to go the other way (P + e), there is NO neutrino with which to conserve spin, so it cannot happen in that direction - get it? Neutrinos are ubiquitous but cannot be captured to retain symmetry. Plus - even if spin were not an issue, you cannot go from low mass to higher mass without adding LOTS of energy from somewhere. Speed of light squared cannot be easily bypassed to suddenly create the deficit mass - as W-L apparently wish to do. As David mentioned, in QM - the deficit could potentially be borrowed in advance, but only IF it could be repaid immediately (sub-pico-sec). However, there is too much time delay for that since the neutron is not immediately absorbed following formation.
Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory
if you red WL theory, they say that the neutrons are generated from coherents pairs of p+e, and the result is a group of possible neutrons widely distributed among the coherents p, thus slow and delocalized a kind of schodinger cat gang most are alive, but one is dead, but nobody knows which, so the dead cat is wide, thus slow 2012/2/16 pagnu...@htdconnect.com W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created - quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions. Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV. Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs? As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is kinetic. Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons. On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions . -- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together -- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically: --- PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY' MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE INCREASES MIN AMPERE FORCE AMPERE FORCE RISES MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES ^ ^^ ^ . .. . \ . \ .\ .\. \ .\. \ . \ e \.+-+ +-- \ . +-+ +- \ . +-+ +- |:+- \ .| | | ^ \ . | | |\.e| | ||:| \ .| | | |\ . | | | \_| | ||:| \ .| | | | \ | | | | ||V| \ | | |780 \ e| | | | || | \| |u|KeV \_| |u| |u||u| \ | |d| | |d| |d||d| -- ULMN (ddu) \ e| |u| | |u| |u||u| + neutrino \_| |_| V |_| |_||_| --- An electron arriving at a potential wall is pushed forward by the magnetic coupling to millions of conduction electrons and back-reacts by borrowing some of their collective momentum (Newton's 3rd Law). Ref[2] shows that electrons in nanowires can acquire enormous inertial mass from this coupling - distinct, I believe, from relavistic mass - which may make the surface plasma appear as an extremely viscous fluid to gamma rays, and could trap most high-energy gammas. [1]How Much of Magnetic Energy is Kinetic Energy? - Kirk T. McDonald http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf [2]Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Microstructures http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/lfplslet.pdf Comments/corrections very welcome, Lou Pagnucco
