Arguably the LENR theorists with the most impressive credentials
(notwithstanding having unappreciated concepts) are Widom/Larsen and Peter
Hagelstein. Both espouse controversial theories involving a new type or
characteristic of neutron - for explaining excess heat. Because fission
neutrons are so well known, it is difficult for these theorists to convince
even a few of the thousands of nuclear engineers and physicists out there -
that there could be more to the picture than fission or fusion neutrons.
Hagelstein envisions neutrons which can move away from a host nucleus (hop) as
if unbound; and W/L hypothesize an ultra low momentum species. In either case
the neutron is relatively nonreactive and does not "activate" adjacent
materials, as would be expected of normal thermal neutrons. This leaves open
the possibility that there are indeed two varieties or categories of a broader
species which includes the well-known neutron of high energy physics.
Allowing the excess heat of LENR to be explained by a new type of "neutron"
decay has advantages which are absent from other theories like actual fusion.
The energy level is intermediate - not too high and not too low and few gammas
are expected - since most of the gain is carried away by fast electrons.
Moreover, looking to the future, it could be intuitive to cherry pick the best
features from both W/L and Hagelstein and others, in search of a better
understanding.
The notion of a second type of neutron is bolstered by what is known as the
"neutron lifetime puzzle". While the free neutron lifetime has been studied for
decades, there is a total and complete lack of agreement on an exact value, and
to a rather large discrepancy at that. Firstly, there are different results
from two two basic experimental methods ("bottle" versus "beam"). Then there is
a different result from more tightly confined and colder neutrons. Over the
years, increasing refinement in technique should have resolved this issue of
free neutron half-life, but has not. The difference in lifetime values is at
least 9 seconds which is massively out of place for a standard particle of
matter where nanoseconds are a long time.
This strongly suggests that there is more than one variety. Consider this. Most
of the matter in the Universe is composed of hydrogen, which provides the
justification for describing a second type or category of neutron. It is
arguable that the single proton will preferentially bind with one kind of
neutron and the second type of neutron is preferentially bound to heavier
species of matter. The preference could be strong (which explains the lack of
expectede activation).
Stranger things have happened, with the emphasis on "strange."
... to be continued...
