This is more a language problem that a technical one. Initial hypothesis on LENR were mostly trying to know how to overcome coulomb barrier, to allow the nuclear fusion.
WL, Fisher, Kozima hypothesis assume playing with neutrons... let's say that you plan to invade a castle and make the canon powder explode. some say : blast the door by mass attack, cannon ball, or pass through my magic, or get smaller than a mouse, then get to the powder store.... some like WL just say, blast a food delivery driver, and get into as if you bring food... then got to the powder room... of course the main story is to make powder explode (strong force). you can find tricks to get through the door (screening, hydrino, resonance, tunnel), but some find that using someone that can pass the coulomb door quietly as a troyan, is a good idea. of course stealing the food card ask for violence (endothermic), but a different one from pure blasting... let call that weak interaction with the cart driver. also many way to blast or control the driver... and at the end, the energy produced is by gunpowder. 2012/7/12 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > I am a bit confused by the description presented by Larsen. He states > very clearly that the W&L process relies upon the weak force for the energy > generation mechanism. I thought that their use of the weak force was only > to generate low momentum neutrons which actually has an energy cost and > then this is followed by the absorption of these neutrons into the active > nucleus. Why would the penetration of a neutron into a nucleus be > considered weak force activity when it involves release of binding energy? > Is Larsen avoiding the use of that term for any special reason? > > Am I mistaken in my understanding that the strong force is associated with > binding energy within the nucleus? I would consider their process a use of > the weak force to generate neutrons followed by a strong force interaction > to release the vast stored binding energy. There is still room for the > binding energy to be released in another form instead of gamma rays which > we know would be difficult to control once freed. There are numerous > reactions listed in fusion sources where little gamma energy is released. > In these cases I generally see two or more fairly massive particles being > emitted that share the energy in the form of kinetic energy. > > Thus far I have found it difficult to determine exactly what energy mix is > released with fusion type nuclear reactions. I am unable to understand why > some release only kinetic energy while others emit only gammas and still > other reactions result in the release of both types of energy. How does > one obtain a solution to this problem? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-L <vortex-L@eskimo.com>; Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 2:43 pm > Subject: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy > Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich > Murray 2012.07.11 > > Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July > 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray > 2012.07.11 > http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-lllarsen-webradio-interview-with-sandy-andrewjuly-11-2012?from=new_upload_email > > Lively, in-depth audio interview suitable for a general audience; > Mr. Sandy Andrew had carefully researched the topics of LENRs and > "cold fusion" prior to the show --- asked a number of probing > questions that explored the scientific, economic, geopolitical, and > social implications of the W-L theory of LENRs. > [one-hour online recording] > > >
