Nick, Please look at Horace's prior comments on this in the archive. They are right on.
By claiming a beta decay and an "ultra-low momentum neutron" - W-L do NOT avoid the problem of "fusion" (including NA and transmutation). They merely make it a secondary step and avoid talking about it. Plus they are relying on a non-physical "invention" that has no precedent - except in the known ultra-cold neutron experiments - and those have results contrary to what they claim. Can you distinguish an "ultra-cold neutron" from an "ultra-low momentum neutron"? If so, please let them know, as they probably are close to getting a few answers to some problems; but the "best explanation" for LENR is simple. There cannot be a single all-inclusive explanation ! It is as simple as that. Ockham be damned. W-L have laid claim to one of probably many contributing QM (or QM related) reactions, which are all different. However, each may synergize another through alteration of a "probability field". Let's not throw out Oppenheimer-Philips and QM tunneling either. I can think of five relevant theories that could all contribute. Otherwise, I would agree with you on the validity of Steve's tactic and that it makes some sense ... but that would only apply to "new skeptics" anyway. I have included the relevant posting from Heffner below. IOW - but for the one huge problem (and half a dozen smaller ones) there would certainly be an advantage to having "no nuclear fusion" in an underlying theory but that is not what W-L are doing. Mills theory has "no fusion", but he intentionally avoids looking for transmutation, which is probably there. Any explanation needs to cover all the observations, including the "helium-to-heat correspondence" - and not just a select few that you pick and chose. The W-L theory as it stands now is essentially dead-in-the-water for all of the reasons that Horace, Ed and dozens of other keen observers have mentioned. At least insofar as it wants to be the one-and-only. There is still a chance of it being "one-of-many." Jones -----Original Message----- From: Nick Palmer ABD Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb barrier and the lack of the "expected" quantity of neutrons. [snip] PRIOR POST of Heffner from Dec. SK: 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? HH: Yes, I have considered that. If ultra slow neutrons cannot move far enough to effect NA then they cannot 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 cannot 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
