Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Dear Horace, Even if you concur with Storms that the WL theory suffers from so many basic problems, you have every right to discuss the merits or lack thereof of any theory (WL, Storms/Scanlan, or your own) without being subject to intimidation to suppress discussion. Is Storms intimidating you? In my opinion, yes. Did you feel the need to defend yourself to him? Apparently so. As far as I know, only open science and open discussion is the to sort these things out, not suppression. Dear Ed, I bring the theoretical ideas of Lewis Larsen (later developed with the help of Allan Widom and Yogendra Srivastava) because it is the first theory that I see that has - in my opinion - a high probability of explaining most of the LENR experimental phenomena. Of course, I could be wrong and I'm completely willing to be wrong. You and I have disagreed on this matter for several years now and, as you know, I have been intransigent in my view, despite your numerous attempts to discourage me and New Energy Times from paying attention to it. But if WL is as bad as you allege, it will die on its own accord and nobody will pay any attention to it. It needs no help from you to discourage me, Horace, or the CMNS field from talking about it. Steve CMNS: Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR Date: 12/12/2009 9:23:25 From: mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com Reply-to: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com To: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com CC: mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com [STORMS] As for WL, this theory suffers from so many basic problems, in addition to the one you noted, I'm at a loss as to why it is even discussed. [HEFFNER] I didn't bring it up. I merely responded to other posters on vortex-l, especially Steve Krivit...I looked back at the thread and see it was begun with a question directed at me by Steve Krivit. The thread can be viewed from the beginning here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg36350.html [STORMS] Yes I know. I should have said I'm at a loss as to why Krivit brings this up.
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Steven Krivit wrote: Dear Horace, Even if you concur with Storms that the WL theory suffers from so many basic problems, you have every right to discuss the merits or lack thereof of any theory (WL, Storms/Scanlan, or your own) without being subject to intimidation to suppress discussion. Is Storms intimidating you? In my opinion, yes. Did you feel the need to defend yourself to him? Apparently so. I have enormous respect for Ed Storms, even if we might disagree on fundamental points regarding cold fusion and our theories in particular. Our disagreements are technical in nature, and I don't see them as either personalized or intimidating. I am grateful for Ed Storm's criticism and questions because these things have pointed out to me questions that should be answered by my paper, or which I thought were already well answered but which needed clarification, references, or examples, and expect to recognize him by name in my acknowledgements. Any scientist should be consoled that nature is the ultimate arbitrator of scientific truth, even if not in his lifetime, and intimidated by the fact his theory might not reflect reality. I expect there is a level of frustration that I can not see clearly his point of view is correct, and vice versa. This problem is pervasive in the field. I think a conflict of views is useful though, and the more views the better until things get solved. As far as I know, only open science and open discussion is the to sort these things out, not suppression. Agreed! However, there certainly has been plenty of discussion!! 8^) Perhaps too much for me at the moment because I have to get busy on the Holidays and taxes. I think I'm headed for lurk mode soon. Spending so much time on all this has me in bad stead at home! I actually had to recently put Ed Storms off on discussing things due to being overwhelmed. Dear Ed, I bring the theoretical ideas of Lewis Larsen (later developed with the help of Allan Widom and Yogendra Srivastava) because it is the first theory that I see that has - in my opinion - a high probability of explaining most of the LENR experimental phenomena. Of course, I could be wrong and I'm completely willing to be wrong. You and I have disagreed on this matter for several years now and, as you know, I have been intransigent in my view, despite your numerous attempts to discourage me and New Energy Times from paying attention to it. But if WL is as bad as you allege, it will die on its own accord and nobody will pay any attention to it. It needs no help from you to discourage me, Horace, or the CMNS field from talking about it. Steve CMNS: Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR Date: 12/12/2009 9:23:25 From: stor...@ix.netcom.com Reply-to: c...@googlegroups.com To: c...@googlegroups.com CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com [STORMS] As for WL, this theory suffers from so many basic problems, in addition to the one you noted, I'm at a loss as to why it is even discussed. [HEFFNER] I didn't bring it up. I merely responded to other posters on vortex-l, especially Steve Krivit...I looked back at the thread and see it was begun with a question directed at me by Steve Krivit. The thread can be viewed from the beginning here: http:// www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg36350.html [STORMS] Yes I know. I should have said I'm at a loss as to why Krivit brings this up. The CMNS list still leaks like a sieve I see, promptly and voluminously! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Well, I had a good early night's sleep but I see the conversation train has moved well on down the tracks! 8^) I would like to say that I think WL's approach is very different from mine. Perhaps I should re-read their articles, but I haven't seen anything in their approach that resembles mine. As for attribution to my work, I am an amateur, and I write with amateurs in mind as an audience, though not for a popular literature audience. I use mostly advanced high school level math, so expect anything I write to be accessible to advanced high school or early college students. Being an amateur, I don't expect there will be any recognition or citations in journals, though that would be great if it happened. It has to be enough to stimulate the thinking of others. If that contributes to solving the energy problem then that is good enough. My product is ideas, with some synthesis and analysis. Ideas alone have a limited value. If you think about it there is really very little that can go on in hydrogen fusion. You have a limited number of isotopes which can interact in a very limited number of ways to produce a limited number of products, atomically speaking. You have a literature which has dealt with a very limited number of experimental approaches. For a field of this importance, there has been a very limited set of people dedicated to solving the problems. What distinguishes one theory from another is a fine line to a casual observer, especially if it happens to be one that dismisses the entire field. The principle problem in CF is how the Coulomb barrier is overcome, how two hydrogen nuclei can merge to become helium or tritium using chemical level energies. I think there are basically four camps on this: (1) the barrier is breached by actual neutrons only, singly or in clusters, (2) the barrier is breached by electrons and hydrogen nuclei bound strongly enough, well below ground state, that the Coulomb force can't tear them apart before they get close enough to fuse by tunneling, (3) the barrier is breached by a group action, principally by formation of a quantum condensate in which the wave functions are spread out enough to fuse, and (4) the barrier is breached by separate electrons and nuclei which remain bound only at chemical energy levels or less, but by a means in which one or more electrons catalyze the reaction through Coulomb screening. Another categorization is theories which describe CF as (A) as a surface effect only, or (B) a 3D effect within a lattice, or (C) both. WL fall into group 1A, though their pre-fusion neutron formation process might fall into group 3A. Deflation fusion is in group 4C. We are about as far apart in the spectrum of approaches as possible. Another categorization might be (a) theories that explain with hydrogen fusion only and theories which (b) also explain heavy element transmutation. I expect this would be a sensitive and possibly not useful categorization because there are about as many theories as theorists, and each theorist seems to think his theory, and only his theory, explains everything. I put WL in overall category 1Aa, and deflation fusion in 4Cb because the WL theory ignores neutron activation, and neutron absorption can not explain the lack of signatures for heavy element transmutations, the energy deficit that must be created in the newly fused nuclei. What sets my theory apart from most others is the recognition that an electron and hydrogen nucleus can overcome the Coulomb barrier by *jointly* tunneling through it. The electron doesn't have to be bound to the hydrogen nucleus at above chemical energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Another important principle is that a small wavelength electron is also necessary, even though its potential plus kinetic energy remains at near ground state. This necessarily involves the high kinetic energies of an electron when near a hydrogen nucleus. The small wavelength electron is key to creating the energy deficit that exists in the fused products and which changes branching ratios and eliminates almost all high energy signatures. Ultimately it may be revealed there is a host of things happening in CF experiments. However, it is likely that only one theory will open the flood gates of practical progress. It is only necessary to understand and control one robust mechanism for producing excess heat. I expect and hope the deflation fusion concept might help accomplish that. It yields two major design principles: (1) increase tunneling diffusion in the lattice, hopping rates, *as opposed to ordinary atomic diffusion*, and (2) increase the probability of the deflated state by orbital stressing. Achieving (1) involves using smaller lattice constant material, imposing diffusion barriers in the lattice that force tunneling, using lattice dopants which create
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Corrected response follows (replacement of NAA with NA where appropriate): On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Yes, I have considered it. Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. Neutrons produce neutron activation, i.e. make some nuclei radioactive. If neutron activation were occurring in lattice material elements it would have been discovered long ago, because neutron activation analysis (NAA) is a commonly used and well developed technique. The gamma spectra and delayed gamma production decay curves are well known and used in delayed gamma NA. This information is used to sense trace amounts of elements. Take a look at the sensitivity of NA for various elements in picograms (10^-12 g): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis Consider the fact that the NA sensitive elements are not only present in trace amounts in CF electrodes or electrolytes, they are primary ingredients in some experiments, e.g. Ag, Cl, Cu, Na, Ca, K, Pt, Ti, S. Also present in large quantities are sometimes: W, Ta, Th, U, V, Mo, Pb. These things are readily detectable in microgram order quantities. No matter how slow the neutrons, it is not credible NA is not happening when fusion and heavy element transmutation clearly is happening. The gammas should light up geiger counters even long after electrolysis is over. Further, the spectra and decay curves would be readily identifiable as to origin. One of the mysteries of CF is why significant high energy radiation doesn't happen as a general rule. Note that this is not to say that NA could not happen in certain environments, even from deflation fusion. It simply does not happen to a sufficient degree in typical CF experiments, so is not an explanation for the primary processes that produce the excess heat or heavy LENR that has been observed. I think the energy deficit which occurs in CF reactions, necessary to depress some He* fission channels, and the dissipation of the reaction enthalpy via multiple low energy gammas, can only occur via a free electron in the nuclear mix at the moment of fusion. What I have proposed is a means for that happening which might be confirmed by looking for rare but detectable strange matter decays from CF cells. This means not only explains the above effects, it explains how the Coulomb barrier is overcome as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Yes, I have considered it. Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. Neutrons produce neutron activation, i.e. make some nuclei radioactive. If neutron activation were occurring in lattice material elements it would have been discovered long ago, because neutron activation analysis (NAA) is a commonly used and well developed technique. The gamma spectra and delayed gamma production decay curves are well known and used in delayed gamma NAA. This information is used to sense trace amounts of elements. Take a look at the sensitivity of NAA for various elements in picograms (10^-12 g): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis Consider the fact that the NAA sensitive elements are not only present in trace amounts in CF electrodes or electrolytes, they are primary ingredients in some experiments, e.g. Ag, Cl, Cu, Na, Ca, K, Pt, Ti, S. Also present in large quantities are sometimes: W, Ta, Th, U, V, Mo, Pb. These things are readily detectable in microgram order quantities. No matter how slow the neutrons, it is not credible NAA is not happening when fusion and heavy element transmutation clearly is happening. The gammas should light up geiger counters even long after electrolysis is over. Further, the spectra and decay curves would be readily identifiable as to origin. One of the mysteries of CF is why significant high energy radiation doesn't happen as a general rule. Note that this is not to say that NAA could not happen in certain environments, even from deflation fusion. It simply does not happen to a sufficient degree in typical CF experiments, so is not an explanation for the primary processes that produce the excess heat or heavy LENR that has been observed. I think the energy deficit which occurs in CF reactions, necessary to depress some He* fission channels, and the dissipation of the reaction enthalpy via multiple low energy gammas, can only occur via a free electron in the nuclear mix at the moment of fusion. What I have proposed is a means for that happening which might be confirmed by looking for rare but detectable strange matter decays from CF cells. This means not only explains the above effects, it explains how the Coulomb barrier is overcome as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 06:43 AM 12/9/2009, you wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Yes, I have considered it. Excellent. Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. I think your reasoning is because of neutron activation. (correct me if I am wrong.) Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause NA, or very little NA? Steve
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Steven Krivit wrote: At 06:43 AM 12/9/2009, you wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Yes, I have considered it. Excellent. Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. I think your reasoning is because of neutron activation. (correct me if I am wrong.) Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause NA, or very little NA? Steve Yes, I have considered that. If ultra slow neutrons can not move far enough to effect NA then they can not effect heavy element transmutation LENR with the closest atoms, the lattice heavy elements. Fusion with a hydrogen atom that is typically even further away than the nearby lattice heavy elements is then also precluded. CF is known to happen below the surface, within the lattice. Whether it also happens on the surface due to collective surface oscillations as suggested by Windom and Larsen is immaterial. An explanation of CF needs to cover all observations, not just a select few. The distance between lattice sites, i.e. the distance from the potential well an absorbed hydrogen nucleus occupies (a lattice site) and the adjacent potential well another hydrogen atom can occupy, is less than the distance between a lattice site and the adjacent lattice atoms. Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in less than a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about 10 hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can make it 0.5 Å into a nearby hydrogen nucleus they can make it 1.79 Å into Pd or another lattice element just as well. There are no other nuclei in the way, so cross sections are not even an issue. Heavier atoms are not all that much bigger than light ones because atomic radius does not grow much with atomic number, e.g. radii in angstroms: Pd 1.79, Au 1.79, Ni 1.62, Li 2.05, K 2.77, Al 1.82, Cu 1.57, Pb 1.81. If fusion is occurring at a rate sufficient to account for excess heat then NA should occur at a huge rate also, one that could not possibly be missed. Heavy LENR is known to occur, has been observed, and thus requires just as much explanation as other CF results. The lack of high energy radiation signatures for both CF and heavy transmutation LENR, both of which are known to occur both very close to and below the surface, requires an explanation. The unusual branching ratios observed require an explanation. The presence of ultra-slow neutrons in the lattice provides no explanation for these things. Gammas from NA should be readily observed from heavy element transmutation if it is due to neutrons. The presence of hypothesized high mass electrons on a cathode surface, near surface hydrogen fusion reactions, were suggested to absorb fusion gammas in less than a nanometer. This explanation can not account for gamma absorption near heavy elements. NA gammas should be readily detectable. I think the presence of a free electron in the nucleus at the time of fusion is the logical explanation of all these things, how the Coulomb barrier is breached, why high energy particles and gammas are not seen from hydrogen fusion reactions, why the branching ratios are so skewed, and why almost no signature, including heat, is seen corresponding to nuclear mass changes from heavy lattice element transmutation. How this is proposed to happen is described in Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 02:05 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause NA, or very little NA? Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody. Thermal neutrons are neutrons which have momentum determined by thermal equilibrium. I.e., if a neutron were formed with ultra-low momentum (relative to what?), it would rapidly become a thermal neutron from interactions with other present species. And thermal neutrons fuse with lots of stuff, because there is no Coulomb barrier. Fusion lowers with higher energy, for some nuclei, because of elastic collision, the neutrons, so to speak, bounce off. One aspect of the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect is that the electrostatic repulsion of the target nucleus acting on the incident deuteron is that this slows the deuteron (and its bound neutron) to the point where that neutron can get close enough for the binding force between it and the target nucleus can start to act, resulting in the stripping of the neutron from the proton and the ejection of the proton with more energy than it came in with, the binding energy of the deuteron's proton and neutron are added to the incident kinetic energy. (This is all easy to visualize with classical physics, as if the binding energies were springs.) It is as if the neutron came in with negative energy (which might be part of what Horace is talking about) and it's possible that the target nucleus is left in the ground state. The materials available in the lattice are fairly restricted, as to primary reactions. There is palladium, there are dissociated deuterium ions, there are the electrons that are shared across the lattice, and there may be a certain incidence of deuterium molecules, undissociated, particularly near the surface. However, what could fuse with deuterium, in terms of ULM neutrons, could fuse with palladium. Now, if the neutrons are generated in some way such that spatially they wouldn't have time to get to the palladium before they fuse with deuterium, maybe. But such reactions would be expected to create a family of products, and I'm not aware of those products being detected in sufficient quantities. d + n would create tritium, and then what?
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
On Dec 9, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 02:05 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause NA, or very little NA? Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody. Thermal neutrons are neutrons which have momentum determined by thermal equilibrium. I.e., if a neutron were formed with ultra-low momentum (relative to what?), it would rapidly become a thermal neutron from interactions with other present species. The WL above refers to Windom and Larsen. Some background is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1 Some quotes from the above related to my prior post: Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low momentum neutrons and neutrinos. The required electron mass renormalization is provided by the interaction between surface electron plasma oscillations and surface proton oscillations. The resulting neutron catalyzed low energy nuclear reactions emit copious prompt gamma radiation. The heavy electrons which induce the initially produced neutrons also strongly absorb the prompt nuclear gamma radiation, re-emitting soft photons. Nuclear hard photon radiation away from the metallic hydride surfaces is thereby strongly suppressed. ... the mean free path of a hard prompt gamma ray is L ∼ 3.4 x 10 −8 cm. Thus, prompt hard gamma photons get absorbed within less than a nanometer from the place wherein they were first created. ... one finds a neutron mean free path of ∼ 10^−6 cm. An ultra low momentum neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers from where it was first created. The likelihood that ultra low momentum neutrons will escape capture and thermalize via phonon interactions is very small. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Ultra-cold neutrons can move relatively far. With a lifetime of 886 seconds, they could potentially move several miles before decay. Apparently, even at near absolute zero - they still achieve about the same velocity as a human running fairly fast. Wiki sez: The kinetic energy of 300 neV corresponds to a maximum velocity of 7.6 m/s or a minimum wavelength of 52 nm... and can be described as a very thin ideal gas with a temperature of 3.5 mK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve At 03:34 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Ultra-cold neutrons can move relatively far. With a lifetime of 886 seconds, they could potentially move several miles before decay. Apparently, even at near absolute zero - they still achieve about the same velocity as a human running fairly fast. Wiki sez: The kinetic energy of 300 neV corresponds to a maximum velocity of 7.6 m/s or a minimum wavelength of 52 nm... and can be described as a very thin ideal gas with a temperature of 3.5 mK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve Quoted from: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In terms of the ultra low momentum neutron wave length λ = (2π¯h/p), Eq.(7) implies: mfp = 1/(2 * n * lambda * b) The ultra low momentum neutron is created when a heavy electron is absorbed by one of many protons participating in a collective surface oscillation. The neutron wave length is thus comparable to the spatial size of the collective oscillation, say λ ∼ 10−3 cm. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of momentum by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Proceeding on with that anyway we have: lambda = h/p p = h/lambda = h/(10^-3 cm) = 6.626x10^-29 kg m/s p = m * v v = p/m = (6.626x10^-29 kg m/s)/(1.675x10^-27 kg) v = 3.96x10^-2 m/s = 0.0396 m/s Given a half-life of 886 seconds about half the neutrons move (0.0396 m/s)*(886 s) = 35 meters or less. Half of those move another 35 meters or less, etc. Freed into a vacuum, about 1 in a million neutrons could move 20*35 m = 700 meters before disintegrating into a proton, beta, and anti-neutrino. However, based on the huge wavelength chosen, and lattice density, WL say the neutron will quickly react, and can only move typically less than a nano-meter. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Steve, No difference that I can see. Unless, that is - that terminology is being used in a specialized way, and them it must be pre-defined for that usage. Otherwise, in both cases we are essentially talking about kinetic energy, and there should be no difference. Jones -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve At 03:34 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Ultra-cold neutrons can move relatively far. With a lifetime of 886 seconds, they could potentially move several miles before decay. Apparently, even at near absolute zero - they still achieve about the same velocity as a human running fairly fast. Wiki sez: The kinetic energy of 300 neV corresponds to a maximum velocity of 7.6 m/s or a minimum wavelength of 52 nm... and can be described as a very thin ideal gas with a temperature of 3.5 mK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
I wrote: The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of momentum by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Proceeding on with that anyway we have: That should have said: The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of neutron wavelength lambda by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Proceeding on with that anyway we have: ... Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Horace , The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of momentum by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Well, as I intimated in previous post, if you define a term in such a way that you cannot be wrong in the secondary calculations - then yes -- like WL you can make a case for almost anything. I gave up on them years ago when it became obvious that they were borrowing and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including yourself - without proper attribution. Jones
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
-Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve At 04:43 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Steve, No difference that I can see. Unless, that is - that terminology is being used in a specialized way, and them it must be pre-defined for that usage. Otherwise, in both cases we are essentially talking about kinetic energy, and there should be no difference. Jones Jones, Thanks for the translation to English. ;) Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 04:59 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Horace , The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of momentum by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Well, as I intimated in previous post, if you define a term in such a way that you cannot be wrong in the secondary calculations - then yes -- like WL you can make a case for almost anything. I gave up on them years ago when it became obvious that they were borrowing and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including yourself - without proper attribution. Jones Jones, Can you be clear please? Did you give up on them because your opinion of their science was low? Or because you judged them to be unethical? Or both, in which case, why would you care who they gave attribution to or not? Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Steve, Their science may or may not be adequate for this, we simply do not know for sure at this moment: 'time will tell' ... and no, they are not unethical in the normal sense of these things. Or should I say that there is an entrenched pecking-order in science, and it gives full credit where often it is not due. If you look hard enough, you can find a close or even an exact predecessor for many great ideas, in the prior work of little known neighbors of a famous scientist. As I mentioned a few years ago on Vo, the classic example is e=mc^2 ... which the great AE actually 'lifted' from an neighbor, as he was living within a day's walk of the first publisher, and he repeated it totally without attribution. That victim was a fellow named Olinto de Pretto, who published the identical formula in a local journal in 1903, fully two years before Einstein published his in a more famous and peer-reviewed journal. This documented revelation has been known in Italy, and on the internet for some time, and never denied by anyone - how can it be denied ? the evidence is absolutely clear... yet no major newspaper or scientific journal wants to pick up the story of this semi-injustice since the originator of e=mc^2 was, in effect what is called in the music industry a one hit wonder ... whereas the great AE had many feathers in his cap ... and so it goes. There are dozens of similar cases. BTW - the Nobel committee probably had suspicions back then... and Al was awarded the big prize in 1921 *solely* for his work on the photoelectric effect, which he did deserve. Of course, he is still remembered today mainly for his work on relativity and gravity, encapsulated in the one famous but borrowed equation. ... and so it goes (should I credit Linda Ellerbee for that phrase?) Jones, Can you be clear please? Did you give up on them because your opinion of their science was low? Or because you judged them to be unethical? Or both, in which case, why would you care who they gave attribution to or not? Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Given time ... which is not available now. It would involve comparing dates and details in hundreds of pages of text. No thanks. BTW - are you on a mission, or what? After all, this is an informal newsgroup, not the investigative arm of the anti-defamation league of oppressed unrecognized scientists ... -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, I take public character insinuation toward scientists and researchers very seriously. So when I see a comment such as yours, it gets my attention. Vortex is a forum which I find to be one of the more enlightened and intelligent discussion lists. I am also very enthusiastic about the Widom-Larsen theory. As a consequence, if there is something you know about WL that you think should be known publicly, I want to know about it. That way, I can best differentiate between important facts, feelings that some people may have, or smoke that some people may blow. Steve At 06:40 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Given time ... which is not available now. It would involve comparing dates and details in hundreds of pages of text. No thanks. BTW - are you on a mission, or what? After all, this is an informal newsgroup, not the investigative arm of the anti-defamation league of oppressed unrecognized scientists ... -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Steve, Well - you have effectively raised up on the www horizon, a large and fluttering call me flag - and every investigative journalist should do this on a cherished subject - and I suspect that if anyone out there has specific details that they would like to share with you, they will contact you off-list. Over the course of years, any good observer will get an impression of what is going on in the larger community, but this will often come without a time-stamp. If I read the ideas of x,y and z, and then notice that from my perspective z seems to be echoing the ideas of x and y over and over again - that is not proof of anything, without more. In fact x and y could have borrowed the ideas of z inadvertently (or not). However, if I personally know x and y from a long history, and at the same time heard negatives about z, this will slant the picture - yet it does not prove or disprove anything. The negatives could relate to something else. These things will usually tend to always work themselves out in the end - maybe it takes decades. In an age of 'instant messaging', however, many in the general public may want quicker answers. If you want to hasten the process as a cutting-edge reporter - all the better, so long as accuracy is not compromised. That is what the internet is for - but it is unwise to try to limit what is 'informed opinion' on newsgroups, even if it happens to contradict a preconceived notion that may be equally premature or ill-conceived. Heck they (meaning big-shots in general) let bimbos like Palin pretend to write OpEd pieces in a major newspaper, but that does not mean they don't care about truth (since they know the piece came from a staff of hired guns anyway). You seem to be leaning towards the WL theory, others may like some of it but not all; I may be leaning to a variation on the fractional hydrogen theory, and Horace has a good deflation model; and all theories have evolved considerably over time and often towards common focal points along the way. As a result, all theories develop crossovers and cross-connections. The general idea of an energy depleted neutron, however is very old (Mills and Dufour circa 1993?) ... but his was not a 'real' neutron YET neither is the WL variety, if it differs from the known 'cold neutron'. And that is a most apt example, and the reason for my original posting - this is to say - because the known ultra-cold neutron is very different from that of WL. Yet the important thing here Steve, is that you did NOT hear this bit of information from them. A top-rate scientist (in my dreams) always acknowledges not only the source of ideas he borrows, but explains the evidence going the other way. We (some of us) suspect that the proponents are far from top-rate, but they could still be close enough to get major credit. So it goes Let's hope that in the end, PF get the lion's share of the credit, even for the theory that they may have missed, since they took most of the hits in getting us there. Jones -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, I take public character insinuation toward scientists and researchers very seriously. So when I see a comment such as yours, it gets my attention. Vortex is a forum which I find to be one of the more enlightened and intelligent discussion lists. I am also very enthusiastic about the Widom-Larsen theory. As a consequence, if there is something you know about WL that you think should be known publicly, I want to know about it. That way, I can best differentiate between important facts, feelings that some people may have, or smoke that some people may blow. Steve At 06:40 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Given time ... which is not available now. It would involve comparing dates and details in hundreds of pages of text. No thanks. BTW - are you on a mission, or what? After all, this is an informal newsgroup, not the investigative arm of the anti-defamation league of oppressed unrecognized scientists ... -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 08:15 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Steve, Well - you have effectively raised up on the www horizon, a large and fluttering call me flag - and every investigative journalist should do this on a cherished subject - and I suspect that if anyone out there has specific details that they would like to share with you, they will contact you off-list. Over the course of years, any good observer will get an impression of what is going on in the larger community, but this will often come without a time-stamp. If I read the ideas of x,y and z, and then notice that from my perspective z seems to be echoing the ideas of x and y over and over again - that is not proof of anything, without more. In fact x and y could have borrowed the ideas of z inadvertently (or not). However, if I personally know x and y from a long history, and at the same time heard negatives about z, heard negatives about z Sometimes that's called the grapevine. Sometimes that's called gossip. Sometimes it refers to facts. Most often is character attack. You would not believe some of the negatives that *I* have heard about Larsen -- that are completely false, from Bev Barnhart of DIA, no less. The rumor mill about him is in a feeding frenzy. Larsen appears to have no shortage of enemies. this will slant the picture - yet it does not prove or disprove anything. The negatives could relate to something else. These things will usually tend to always work themselves out in the end - maybe it takes decades. In an age of 'instant messaging', however, many in the general public may want quicker answers. If you want to hasten the process as a cutting-edge reporter - all the better, so long as accuracy is not compromised. If my accuracy gets compromised, I'm sure (and I hope) you'll be the first to let me know. ;) You *do* get credit, by the way, for being the first to find the transposition error in my recent RSC paper. That is what the internet is for - but it is unwise to try to limit what is 'informed opinion' on newsgroups, even if it happens to contradict a preconceived notion that may be equally premature or ill-conceived. Heck they (meaning big-shots in general) let bimbos like Palin pretend to write OpEd pieces in a major newspaper, but that does not mean they don't care about truth (since they know the piece came from a staff of hired guns anyway). You seem to be leaning towards the WL theory, others may like some of it but not all; I may be leaning to a variation on the fractional hydrogen theory, and Horace has a good deflation model; and all theories have evolved considerably over time and often towards common focal points along the way. As a result, all theories develop crossovers and cross-connections. The general idea of an energy depleted neutron, however is very old (Mills and Dufour circa 1993?) ... but his was not a 'real' neutron YET neither is the WL variety, if it differs from the known 'cold neutron'. And that is a most apt example, and the reason for my original posting - this is to say - because the known ultra-cold neutron is very different from that of WL. Yet the important thing here Steve, is that you did NOT hear this bit of information from them. I think you are saying that WL did not disclose that an ultra-cold neutron doesn't work the way WL suggest it does? Am I understanding you? A top-rate scientist (in my dreams) always acknowledges not only the source of ideas he borrows, but explains the evidence going the other way. We (some of us) suspect that the proponents are far from top-rate, but they could still be close enough to get major credit. So it goes Let's hope that in the end, PF get the lion's share of the credit, even for the theory that they may have missed, since they took most of the hits in getting us there. Jones
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Subj: CMNS: Re: Jan Naudts' relativistic orbital solutions and the deflated state Date: 11/10/2009 12:12:47 From: mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.nethheff...@mtaonline.net Reply-to: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com To: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com Not true. For example, in a hot fusion model the approaching deuterons must overcome the Coulomb barrier until coming very close. This is one on the early mysteries of CF, how is the Coulomb barrier overcome. My answer is it is obvious, the barrier is tunneled through in its entirety, except not by a deuteron, but by a small neutral entity. Because it is neutral, and because it it is small, it can tunnel to the site of the another nucleus, or maybe more importantly vice versa, without having to achieve any F*d work overcoming the Coulomb barrier. The barrier is totally down. In fact, due to spin coupling, it is a downhill trip.
