I'm surprised, Jones, that the Widom/Larsen theory is even being
considered. This theory has some serious faults that have not been
addressed by the authors I summarize a few below which are extracted
from a recent paper of mine. In brief, a theory needs to not only be
consistent with what is observed but also consistent with what is NOT
observed. In addition, it must be consistent with the basic laws of
nature about which there is no debate. This theory fails on all counts.
"A mechanism has been suggested recently by Widom and Larsen (37-40)
based on a series of especially extraordinary assumptions, as follows:
1. Energy provided by the voltage gradient on an electrolyzing surface
can add incrementally to an electron causing its mass to increase. This
implies the existence of energy levels within the electron able to hold
added energy long enough for the total to be increased to 0.78 MeV mass
equivalent by incremental addition. This idea, by itself, is
extraordinary and inconsistent with accepted understanding of the electron.
2. Once sufficient energy has accumulated, the massive electron will
combine with a proton to create a neutron having very little thermal
energy. This implies that the massive electron reacts only with a proton
rather than with the more abundant metal atoms making up the sample and
does not shed energy by detectable X-ray emission before it can be absorbed.
3. This “cold” neutron will add to the nucleus of palladium and/or
nickel to change their isotopic composition. This implies that the
combination of half-lives created by beta emission of these created
isotopes will quickly result in the observed stable products without
this beta emission being detected.
4. The atomic number distribution of transmutation products created by
this process matches the one reported by Miley (41) after he
electrolyzed Pd+Ni as the cathode and Li2SO4+H2O as the electrolyte.
This implies that the calculated periodic function calculated by the
authors actually has a relationship to the periodic behavior observed by
Miley in spite of the match being rather poor. In addition, residual
beta decay has not been detected.
5. Gamma radiation produce by the neutron reaction is absorbed by the
super-heavy electrons. This implies that the gamma radiation can add to
the mass and/or to the velocity of the super-heavy electron without
producing additional radiation. In addition, to be consistent with
observation, total absorption of gamma radiation must continue even
after the cell is turned off. If this assumption were correct,
super-heavy electrons would provide the ideal protection from gamma
radiation.
These assumptions are not consistent with the general behavior of the
LENR phenomenon nor with experience obtained from studies of electron
behavior. Indeed, these assumptions, if correct, would have
extraordinary importance independent of cold fusion."
As for the relationship between particle emission and heat, no
conclusion can be drawn until all of the various kinds of probable
particles are detected and measured. So far, only the alpha particles
and a few X-rays have been detected. Obviously other emissions are
present and are providing the additional energy. We can debate all day
what these particles might be. I suggest it is much more efficient to
actually measure them and then debate their source.
Regards,
Ed
Jones Beene wrote:
To cut to the chase: Many who follow this sort of thing might wonder if
this older paper is consistent with Widom/Larsen (W/L)? That particular
theory is gaining a huge foothold among those 'in the know' in LENR, it
seems and at the expense of competing theories (D fusion).
[side note] Although W/L have thus far refused to include the
implication, their theory is ideally suited (almost to the point of
demanding it) to interpretation within the guidelines of 'below ground
state' hydrogen (Mills hydrino).
Widom/Larsen (with backing from Miley) postulate that many ultra-low
momentum neutrons are produced by the weak interaction annihilation of
electrons and protons when an electrochemical cell is driven strongly
out of equilibrium. The reason that neutrons are never seen (seldom is a
better word), going back as far as P&F, is that their momentum is so
exceedingly low (subthermal) that they are almost always captured before
leaving the matrix.
Large quantities of these neutrons are produced near the surface of a
metal hydride cathode in an electrolytic cell but still do not exit. The
low momentum implies extremely large cross-sections for absorption by
various "seed" nuclei present including Pd isotopes and especially boron
if there is any present even in ppm amounts.
This absorption is relieved by beta decay processes (or fission in the
case of boron). As stated in their paper, "most of the periodic table of
chemical elements may be produced, at least to some extent."
Query: is Karabut consistent with W/L ? IMHO: Probably.
In separate experiments, Karabut et al. measure excess heat output *five
times* exceeding the input electric power ! Even though this is an old
paper, it seems rather authoritative. The result for the charged
particle emission spectrum is presented. Charged particles with energies
up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen - however, The
summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the
values needed to explain the calorimetric results.
This is MOST important! High energy ions and alphas are a red herring,
since they are at least three orders of magnitude too low to account for
the excess heat. IOW only one one part of one-thousand of the OU is
provided by the high energy particles!
Karabut:"Many new questions arise since the alphas, for instance, are
found in quantities 3-4 orders short of those needed to explain the
excess heat." They admit that they did not measure the lower energy
electron flux and this still leaves the possibility of K-electron
capture, or other forms of subthermal neutron production, with a
radioactive isotope formation and with a consequent beta decay."
Anyone 'care to rebut' Karabut ?
Jones
