At 02:41 PM 5/26/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Found another Larsen radio interview
4/17/2010
<http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sandy-andrew/2010/04/17/widom-larsen-theory--energy-revolution-with-lewis->http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sandy-andrew/2010/04/17/widom-larsen-theory--energy-revolution-with-lewis-
I think his point regarding "nuclear" vs "fusion" In the first
interview may be the electron absorption transmutes a single nuclei
vs the "fusion" of 2 nuclei.
Ah. I guess that is negative beta decay. Well, that is the first
plausible reason I have heard to quibble with the term "fusion" in
this context. It is splitting hairs in a sense, and it does not
justify Krivit's assertion that people who claim the process is
fusion are deceiving the public. But I do think it is reasonable to
say this is a non-fusion hypothesis. Nuclear, but not fusion.
Until you ask the inconvenient question of where the neutron came
from. It's from, supposedly, electron absorption by a deuteron, which
then decays into two neutrons (or which might, I suppose, remain as a
dineutron, don't ask me!). The neutrons then cause transmutations of
elements present.
What's the fuel? Deuterium. What's the ash? Well, we know the
principle ash is helium, there is no evidence in most experiments for
anything else in large quantities. In small quantities, yes, there
are many possible transmutations, but any fusion reaction can produce
byproducts at low levels. Including energetic neutrons.
Now, deuterium into a black box, and helium comes out, and roughly
the right amount of energy for that transformation. What can we call
the process that happens in the box? Does it matter? In this case,
the other researchers are generally proposing that deuterium, or,
more importantly, clusters of deuterium molecules, are somehow
fusing, and this is generally directd fusion. But if you take the
deterium part and feed it to nuclei one or two at a time, the nucleus
ends up just as fat. It's still fusion, substantially, just through
an unexpected pathway, just as cluster fusion was an unexpected
pathway. Krivit is generally assuming and attributing to others the
assumption that "fusion" means just one thing: deuterium-deuterium
fusion, i.e., two deuterons being coaxed into a single intimate
relationship, which, as we know, generally requires them to be very hot!
But when we are talking about cluster fusion, with the molecular
form, we have a different animal. Quite simply, it's terra incognita.
Not adequately explored, the behavior of clusters in relation to
palladium or other metallic lattices.
The dispute isn't over fusion, per se, but over the mechanism of
fusion. We already know that there are reactins taking place in these
cells that we wouldn't call "fusion." Neutron absorption is not
usually called fusion, but I think I've shown how arbitrary that is.
Feed a deuteron to a nucleus in one step, fusion. Break that step
into two parts, with the proton of the deuteron carrying an electron
with it, effectively (it's become a neutron), and the same end can be
reached in pieces. I could say I ate my dinner. Or I could say that I
put small pieces into my mouth, one after the other. In the end, I'm
fed either way. The difference is mostly linguistic, and an attempt
to overcome a conceptual barrier, the idea that "fusion is
impossible." But that was always a problematic idea. It's clearly
possible, the question is only under what conditions. We already know
that cold fusion is possible, from muon-catalyzed fusion. The fuel is
deuterium, the ash is tritium and He-3, mostly. So exactly what
impossibility theorem is being violated? There was, simply, a failure
of the imagination.
Yes, neutron creation and absorption is a possible pathway, though it
has a host of problems in itself, and I don't see, at all, that
Larsen has been addressing these problems. He just ignores them, or
waves another magic wand at them. It's not enough that he comes up
with heavy electrons being absorbed by deuterium to form ULM neutrons
(why are they ULM? Wouldn't they carry the momentum of what made
them?), he then needs to postulate that the gamma rays expected from
neutron absorption are absorbed with miraculous efficiency by the
cloud of heavy electrons. Neither of these effects are known to
occur, they are purely speculative, *ideas* that *might* be part of
the real effect.
The following is, for me, the fatal flaw in W-L theory. Certainly
there may be some explanation that gets around this, but it's so
obvious that I really wonder why it does not seem to be addressed in
all those publications by Larsen, and Krivit certainly isn't asking
the questions.
Suppose there is some process that generates neutrons that are then
absorbed by target nuclei, according to their neutron absorption
cross-section, which would certainly be high with very slow neutrons,
never mind ULM neutrons. From the rarity of the reaction in palladium
deuteride -- if it wasn't rare, it would vaporize and maybe take the
lab with it -- we must have a low rate of production of these
neutrons. We will get some immediate products, and there will only be
a few of them. The major materials available for absorption of
neutrons are palladium, deuterium, oxygen, and less chlorine and
lithium. There will be, then, the first reaction product. What
happens to this product? We know that there cannot be a high flux of
neutrons, because we'd otherwise get very high transmutation rates
and maybe that explosion. Widom-Larsen theory requires, to account
for observed products, a series of reactions, where the product of
the first reaction is transformed by the second. Let's supose that
1/N of the atoms in the cell are transmuted. How many of these will
then be transmuted by a second absorption? While various nuclei have
lower or higher absorption cross-sections, to see the massive second
transmutation that is required to not observe the first transmutation
product in significant quantities, we'd need, somehow, for these
first-transmuted nuclei to absorption neutrons with 100%
cross-section. Otherwise we'd only expect 1/(N^2) of the second
product to show up. Which would be undetectable. I have not seen any
mention, even, of the reaction rate problem, but it's crucial.
There is no target nucleus in the cell that will transform into an
observed reaction product with a single neutron absorption. But if
dineutrons are absorbed, maybe. In fact, what do we get if we hit
deuterium with a dineutron, and it doesn't bounce? We'd get H-4,
which I assume would immediately beta decay into He-4. Now, that
sounds more reasonable to me. We still have the not-observed effects
of the beta radiation, and a few other details (probably a vast
understatement!) but, at least it would make more sense, because you
have only two steps, and the first step may be without observable
consequences if the second step doesn't occur. Still, I'd expect
other immediate transmutations that are not apparently seen.
I intend to put together some resource to cover this, it's about time
that there is some serious examination of W-L theory. I'd love to
find that there are explanations for all my objections, but, in the
end, the usefulness of a theory will depend on its predictive power,
not its explanatory power (except to a minor degree, i.e., as in the
nature of a mnemonic). What does W-L theory predict that is not already known?
Seems to me like the creation of neutrons would have some, shall we
say, side-effects. I find it odd that Larsen proclaims that this
would be a clean technology. How does he know that? After all, there
*are* radioactive products produces in these cells. Make them much
more efficient, you might get much more radiation, if neutron
absorption is the mechanism. As one scientist said to me, some of
what Larsen is proposing would be Nobel prize material if confirmed.
It's not just about cold fusion. This idea that a heavy electron soup
would 100% absorb the expected gammas, converting them to infrared,
is huge. But when Larsen was asked about experimental evidence for
this effect, he claimed "proprietary."
I've pointed out that this is either huge or is fraud. It's an
end-game strategy, a bit like Steorn. I.e., it better be good! And if
I were contemplating investing in Lattice Energy, I'd want to watch
my wallet. I'm not saying it's impossible that Widom and Larsen are
onto something, but that we are definitely, if they are, not being
told the whole story, so, big surprise, we don't believe it!
And this partial disclosure is *also* a characteristic of various con
games. Steorn and Orbo come to mind. Hey, if they ever do actually
demonstrate over-unity, let me know, but it looks far more to me like
they are selling participation in a shell game. You can personally
make a lot of money running a company that is pursuing a
will-o-the-wisp. Sure, the company will eventually go belly-up, the
investors will lose money, but the officers of the corporation? Wages
are priority payout in bankruptcy.
I am *not* claiming fraud, I'll be clear about that. Only that it is
difficult to tell the difference between a true need to keep an
industrial (or military) secret, and fraud. It's a generic problem.
If you are going to keep secrets, you must be ready to handle the
impression of possible fraud.
I would absolutely love for Widom and Larsen to be rescued from the
impression that all this has created. I gain nothing from them being
wrong (and even less from there being fraud). And I can't exactly pin
Krivit's misbehavior on Widom and Larsen. Unless, of course, they
hired him, or egged him on, and there is no evidence for that. Is there?
The Mills theory is a non-fusion, non-nuclear hypothesis. There may
be a few other non-fusion theories. I have never heard McKubre or
anyone else attack Mills, or try to mislead the public about it.
They ignore it, just as they ignore the Windom-Larsen theory. There
are dozens of theories. Most people ignore all but one. Other
people, such as me, ignore all of all -- which amounts to the same
thing. As the atheist said to the minister: "mankind has come up
with thousands of gods; you believe in only one, and I believe in
one less than you do."
I'm not ignoring theory, but I also think it is not terribly
important at this point, except in one way. As Hagelstion and/or
McKubre pointed out, if there were a sound theory, engineering more
reliable "reactors" would become much easier. At the present time,
it's largely hit or miss. Way too often, it's miss, it was notorously
difficult to reproduce the F-P effect, and when one got it, there was
a tendency for *any* variation in the conditions to make it
completely go away. That makes exploration of the parameter space
very difficult. A good theory would guide that exploration. It would
vastly speed up the process. A poor theory would simply waste time.
Nevertheless, I'd suggest, exploration and funding at this point
should be directed toward two goals: characterizing, and making more
precisely known, exact conditions under which the effects appear,
i.e., making it more reliable, more readily reproducible; and then
testing the predictions of theory. For the second part we need
theories, the first part can proceed, as it has proceeded, without
needing an explanatory theory, and the insistence on theory was
misplaced from the beginning.
(More accurately, there is a theory that is now accepted and doesn't
need to be proven any more. There is excess heat, under some
conditions, in the palladium deuteride system, and helium is found,
commensurate with the heat. The theory is that a nuclear reaction is
producing the heat and the helium. That is a *partial* theory, it
does not explain every detail, it does not provide the detailed
mechanism. But neither does any of the theories I know about, and
certainly not W-L theory.)
It seems that some are inspired to use W-L theory to make
predictions, but there is another application: to justify grant
funding when "cold fusion" is still considered "pathological
science." That's pure political fluff. The field is CMNS, and the
reaction is nuclear of unknown mechanism, which might be some kind of
fusion, or, if one wants to make the quibble, some other nuclear
reaction that takes deuterium and turns it into helium (among other things).
Bottom line, to get grant funding, it's actually necessary to
establsih that Pons and Fleischmann were not entirely dim, probably
that their calorimetry was good, even if they didn't know the
measurement of neutrons from a broken yardstick. And their intuition
that something might be different about the condensed matter
environment that could make the assumptions of two-body quantum
mechanics break down was so correct that they really should get the
Mobel Prize. I hope it happens before Fleischman passes on. As far as
I'm concerned, he can believe that his work will ultimately be
recognized as the stroke of genius that it was. He will be remembered.
