Fly-in-the-ointment?
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSfurtherevi.pdf
There is a bit of a "turf-war" brewing here, as I had sensed.
Szpak et al. sez: "A model from a chemist’s perspective that is
consistent with the state of the system, imposed constraints
and the nature of the electron—nucleus reaction rather than
on arbitrarily assumed set of approximations, is proposed.
However, from a physicist’s point of view, the theoretical
arguments offered in this communication are pure speculation."
That is about as carefully phrased as one will ever see such a major
turf-war put-down in a peer-reviewed paper. Unfortunately for the
electochemists, they may be prematurely puffing their collective chests
(no offense, Pam) as their theory is pretty much a crock (at least from
the physicist's, and even the armchair vortexians, POV).
They continue: "Within the reaction volume, the concentration of
energetic electrons ... is sufficiently large so that ... electron
capture can be described as a chemical reaction ... with the neutrino
escaping the reaction volume. The reaction (e-) + (D+) --> 2n is the
source of low energy neutrons (Szpak, unpublished data), which are the
product of the energetically weak reaction...."
Oops... stop here. There are almost zero independent studies or results
which show neutrons produced anywhere near to commensurate with the
excess energy seen (4 orders of magnitude, say) -- yet -- they want to
introduce these unpublished results to justify this bizarre ... sorry...
make that 'almost physically impossible' theory.
They continue "This model states that the transmutation
reactions, X(n,r)Y, determine the excess power and
it specifies the mechanism by which a chemical reaction
can trigger a nuclear response."
Maybe ... but excuse me... if the excess power is the result of
neutrons, then why are no neutrons sufficient to achieve these high
levels of excess energy ever seen in this kind of reaction - EXCEPT in
the aforementioned "(Szpak, unpublished data)" category ? Did they
expect to casually pass this small detail off without raising a few
eyebrows?
And on top of everything else they admit that electrons necessary to
pull this off would need be in the range of 800,000 eV ... from which
the secondary gammas which will surely stand-out like a sore thumb, no?
Where is the gamma spectroscopy ? Are we to believe everything, based on
CR-39 ?
This latest chapter in the quest for LENR respectability is looking less
and less certain ... I kinda wish they had just stuck with the film
results, and let others (even the dreaded fizzix professionals) make the
necessary "leap of faith" into a justifiable model.
Jones
