In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error and took the intended point anyway.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> 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. > > >
