At 05:46 PM 1/30/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
Krivit says:
> Bottom line, there is something real, no doubt. Nuclear, absolutely.
> Potential for energy, yes. But fusion? I can't know for sure, but at
> this time, I highly doubt it.
So if it's nuclear but not fusion, what is it?
Fission?
Or what? What else is there?
I think Krivit is confused on this. He has been promoting
Widom-Larsen theory, and seems to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
sinker. Now, I'm not saying that W-L theory is wrong, it's on the
table, but W-L theory involves ultra-low momentum neutrons, which
could theoretically cause, if they are generated somehow, a whole
nucleosynthetic chain of reactions.
Supposedly this isn't "fusion." It's semantic. Neutrons can "fuse"
with nuclei, so could Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate,
both are neutrally charged. In other words, fusion but not d-d
fusion. Both of them. The TSC, though, Takahashi predicts will indeed
fuse within a femtosecond, all by its lonesome.
I've started trying to understand W-L theory and am finding it pretty
unpenetrable.
Larsen agrees there is helium synthesis. What's the fuel, precisely?
What energy/helium ratio does W-L theory predict?
And then I found out why. It hasn't been explained, the
"understanding" is "proprietary." Krivit is backing what appears to
be a commercial venture, Lattice Energy, that is not fully disclosing
the basis. Sound familiar, folks?
I can tell you what Lattice is predicting: cheap, clean energy. Why
worry about details like Q factors when you have something Really
Important to talk about, Cheap Clean Energy? The material Krivit
points to in his W-L theory portal is mostly promotional fluff,
unfortunately. Now, I haven't read it all. Maybe someone can point me
to something useful.
It's okay, nothing wrong with commercial ventures, but I do get a bit
concerned when it involves attacking just about everyone in the field
as obtuse and wrong, particularly when the attacks themselves are
obtuse and wrong.
