The Widom-Larsen transmutation experiments, e.g., electon beam impinging
on copper target (slides 21-23 in Widom's presentation [*]) certainly are
verifiable/falsifiable. It would be suprising if NASA's Bushnell has not
verified them. Many other credible researchers confirm them. Is it
reasonable to dismiss so many reports as mass delusion without extremely
careful testing?
Also, Widom's slides 27-34 [*] ("Nickel Hydride Sources") corroborate some
of Rossi-Focardi-Piantelli Ni-LENR results. However, the hypothesized
reaction paths are different. Widom states weak interactions transmutate
58Ni to Cobalt isotopes + neutrons, which then decay to Fe, Mn and Cr.
If LENR actually delivers on its promise, then no matter which, if any,
theory turns out to be correct, all the researchers and writers who stood
up against the establishment deserve to awardes.
[*] Collective Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter
Searching for Clean Nuclear Energy Sources
Presentation Feb 10, 2010 Army Research Labs - Allan Widom
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/Pres/02Widom-WidomLarsenTheory.pdf
> I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it
> isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further
> research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may
> show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries,
> (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car
> catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must
> already know about it!
>
> I don't understand his objection to "cold fusion". From a science
> perspective, what he describes:
> H or D + Metal going in ==> very detailed and particle physics sound
> description of processes happening ==> Metal + He + E coming out.
>
> Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his
> theory. "cold fusion" is just the abstract of the thing in the middle
> of his reaction scheme.
>
> I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit
> is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and
> your theory is right?
>
> If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for
> correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped
> experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi
> device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the
> theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the
> right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care
> about the right theory for something that does work.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote:
>> More controversy between LENR competitors ---
>>
>> Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi & E-Cat
>> Technology-Nov 26 2011
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
