Quoting from the Windom and Larsen (WL) article at:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1

"Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low momentum neutrons and neutrinos. The required electron mass renormalization is provided by the interaction between surface electron plasma oscillations and surface proton oscillations. The resulting neutron catalyzed low energy nuclear reactions emit copious prompt gamma radiation. The heavy electrons which induce the initially produced neutrons also strongly absorb the prompt nuclear gamma radiation, re-emitting soft photons. Nuclear hard photon radiation away from the metallic hydride surfaces is thereby strongly suppressed."

"... the mean free path of a hard prompt gamma ray is L ∼ 3.4 Å~ 10−8 cm. Thus, prompt hard gamma photons get absorbed within less than a nanometer from the place wherein they were first created."

" ... one finds a neutron mean free path of ∼ 10^−6 cm. An ultra low momentum neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers from where it was first created. The likelihood that ultra low momentum neutrons will escape capture and thermalize via phonon interactions is very small."

Twice the Bohr radius of 0.53 Å is about 1x10^-10 m, an angstrom, or a tenth of a nanometer. So, the neutron mean free path WL suggest, 10^−6 cm = 10^-8 m, is about 100 hydrogen atoms in width. Heavier atoms are not much bigger than hydrogen because the 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. WL apparently ignore the fact that substantial fusion, especially helium generation, in electrolysis experiments apparently happens near but below the surface of the cathode. WL apparently ignore the lack of neutron activation of lattice nuclei, the atomic radii of which are not much larger than the Bohr radius, and make no effort to account for lattice element transmutation without signatures. The WL math and QM is possibly controversial (e.g. via Hagelstein and Chaudhary), but the logic and common sense in problem definition and conclusions are clearly controversial and not so complex issues. Experimentally, and by their own results, their theory can be tested by including in a co-deposition electrolyte extremely small trace amounts of metals (cations) suitable for delayed gamma analysis. Even that is not necessary in most LENR experiments, because the primary cathode ingredients include NAA sensitive elements in large proportion.

It would be useful to hear the WL take on why the lack of neutron activation LENR experiments, even those otherwise generating clear nuclear signatures, doesn't deny the validity of the WL theory. If their theory encompasses heavy element transmutation then the WL neutrons have to penetrate heavy nuclei. The effects of adding thermal neutrons to nuclei is well known. The decay of the resulting compound nuclei is well established. Some of these decays have long half-lives and energetic emissions. There is good reason to expect slow nuclei penetrate heavy nuclei just fine given the extremely low neutron velocities at which the Mossbauer effect has been measured. The Mossbauer effect in some cases peaks right on the zero velocity line. If a di-neutron or ultra-cold neutron can bounce off heavy atoms then they can be, will be, quickly thermalized, and thus are no longer ultra cold. The di-neutron is often described as not bound. If a di-neutron is indeed very weakly bound it should quickly separate into two neutrons. Neutron activation should be readily detected, especially in the cases where the cathode was chemically digested prior to counting.

Real progress is not made in proving a theory until extensive efforts have been made to disprove it. A few experiments consistent with a theory exist does not prove a theory. In the case of the WL theory it seems to me the key experiments to do would be those which are focused on and carefully look for neutron activation.

Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. Neutrons produce neutron activation, i.e. make some nuclei radioactive with half-lives that make them easily detectable post-experiment. If neutron activation were occurring in lattice material elements then it would have been discovered long ago, because neutron activation analysis (NAA) is a commonly used and well developed technique. The gamma spectra and delayed gamma production decay curves are well known and used in delayed gamma NAA. This information is used to sense trace amounts of elements.

Consider the sensitivity of NAA for various elements in picograms (10^-12 g):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis

Consider further the fact that the NAA sensitive elements are not only present in trace amounts in CF electrodes or electrolytes, they are *primary ingredients* in some experiments, e.g. Ag, Cl, Cu, Na, Ca, K, Pt, Ti, S. Also present in large quantities are sometimes: W, Ta, Th, U, V, Mo, Pb. These things are readily detectable in microgram order quantities. No matter how slow the neutrons, it is not credible NA is not happening when fusion and heavy element transmutation clearly is happening. The gammas should light up geiger counters even long after electrolysis is over. Further, the spectra and decay curves would be readily identifiable as to origin. One of the mysteries of CF is why significant high energy radiation doesn't happen as a general rule.

Note that this is not to say that NA could not happen in certain environments, even from deflation fusion. It simply does not happen to a sufficient degree in typical CF experiments, so is not an explanation for the *primary* processes that produce the amounts of excess heat or heavy LENR that has been observed.

I think the energy deficit which occurs in CF reactions, necessary to depress some He* fission channels, and the dissipation of the reaction enthalpy via multiple low energy gammas, can only occur via a free electron in the nuclear mix *at the moment of fusion*. What I have proposed is a means for that happening which might be confirmed by looking for rare but detectable strange matter decays from CF cells. This means not only explains the above effects, it explains how the Coulomb barrier is overcome as well.

If ultra slow neutrons can not move far enough to effect NA (neutron activation), thus generating both prompt and readily detectable delayed gammas, then they can not 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 3.5 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 can not 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

with ancillary material here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




Reply via email to