can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version?
i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> > I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published paper > > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf > > and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. > I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. > It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. > > My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one > million of millions V/m appears. > Too much, I told myself. > As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is > only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. > > So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric > field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the > third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents > the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. > In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the > square root. > So the term to be evaluated reads: > > 4 |e| / 3 a^2 > > This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is > 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. > > That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold > criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied > by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can > not be produced. > > Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? > > > Best regards > > GDM > > >
