On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Joshua, > > If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body > effects that first-order approximations can't capture? >
Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions. If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture. To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence for a WL-type scenario. > > Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly > rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? > I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires "heavy" electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization, but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive. If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory, I would be interested to see it.
