Widom Larsen (WL-) Theory, LENR, CF (Rossi, etc)

[Giorgio]

What would the First Mate have to say about that?

It's scientific research!
She new what she was getting into when she chose an engineer/scientist.

[rcain]

I really find it hard to believe that there are mechanisms in nature as the one proposed by W&L and that we didn't see it till date.

perhaps the universe exploited them already eons ago. so they are now relatively rare (ie. 'fabricated' - forgive the possible double entendre - say 'precisely configured').

I would like before for them to verify the existence of these ultra low momentum neutrons and the ability of the SSP to capture the high energetic gamma.

indeed.

did someone already propose some sort of Oppenheimer–Phillips type process?

[MSimon]

I'd see how much fun I could have with the money.

IMO hookers and champagne would be a better investment.

What would the First Mate have to say about that?

I'm not allowed to tell. Let me just say that the reaction might no be entirely adverse. At least if the champagne was real and the hooker was fantasy.

[MSimon]

What would the First Mate have to say about that?

It's scientific research!
She new what she was getting into when she chose an engineer/scientist.

I like that answer even better.

[KitemanSA]

I would like before for them to verify the existence of these ultra low momentum neutrons and the ability of the SSP to capture the high energetic gamma.

There may be no need to capture any "high energetic gamma" (HEG). I've been spelunking the wikipedia and found at least one potential alternative to HEG. It is called "Internal Conversion".

Internal conversion {IC} is a radioactive decay process where an excited nucleus interacts with an electron in one of the lower atomic orbitals, causing the electron to be emitted from the atom. Thus, in an internal conversion process, a high-energy electron is emitted from the radioactive atom, but without beta decay taking place. For this reason, the high-speed electrons from internal conversion are not beta particles (β particles), since the latter come from beta decay. Since no beta decay takes place in internal conversion, the element atomic number does not change, and thus (as is the case with gamma decay) no transmutation of one element to another is seen. Also, no neutrino is emitted in internal conversion.

Seems some isotopes go 90%+ IC over gamma. 58Fe is 0% IC, or so WP says. This leaves the "gamma" with a frequency down in the Xray range.

Sorry, that sounds weird to me. I alway thought "gamma" was above "xray". Now it seems not so!

[MSimon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conversion

Uh. Let us assume 60 W of real energy production. 1 W going the "normal" nuclear route. 1 W is going to generate a LOT of gammas.

[ransompw]

bhl asked how one would go about replicating Rossi's E-Cat.

First, the question presupposes the E-Cat is real and is a type of nuclear reactor, cold fusion, Lenr, Canr, whatever you want to call it. So I will not bother to debate whether it may turn out to be other then the above.

Second, since we are assuming proof positive it is real, it is not important to prove excess heat or radioactivity or any other measure to satisify all those who are right now dying to know if it is real. We assume it is and must likewise assume cold fusion or it's kin has been real for the last 22 years since Pons and Fleischmann.

Third, since cold fusion is apparantly real (see second above) why has it been so hard to duplicate over the years. Answer that question and you may have insight into how to replicate the E-Cat.

So given the three above a few observations can be made. It is likely the reaction occurs in a very very specific environment. So specific that it is difficult to duplicate. In fact so specific, those conducting the tests don't even realize their tests do NOT duplicate the necessary environment.

I think this is exactly what Rossi realized from the work of Focardi and found a way to enhance the necessary environment. I believe he began with the last study done by Focardi. See
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Campar ... aceana.pdf

Now that study has clear issues. First it uses a nickel alloy which probably contained some copper although it wasn't measured. A more careful measure of the composition of the alloy would be a good step. And the Hydrogenation and Dehydrogenation may have caused copper to pool at the surface in certain locations thus explaining the results. But, if that isn't the explanation then what this study shows is a Rossi type reaction in a 4mm section of a 9cm bar of nickel. WHY. What tiny changes in environment caused the reaction at that location and virtually no other. They say it was repeatable.

I would do that study and alter the variables slightly to observe any changes in the location, which may explain the environment needed for the reaction. Then engineer that envronment over a larger area.

That's how I would do it.

[bhl]

I believe he began with the last study done by Focardi. See
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Campar ... aceana.pdf

Thank you for the response and playing along. I agree that that study looks like a an early prototype. Obviously the biggest difference is between Ni bars and Ni nanopowder.

Are we _sure_ nobody else besides Rossi would have put degassed Ni nanoparticles +H + heat + pressure (+ volts?) in a container and logged the results? Found some kind of transmutation?

Reading the patent looks like a recipe for Cold Fusion but nobody has taken the first steps to try to follow the seemingly simple steps?

I've heard a lot of people call Rossi an idiot for not disclosing the catalyst. Are we absolutely sure one is required? Could it be that the degassing technique is the "secret ingredient" but there really is no catalyst?

Another question: Would the boron reaction enclosure described in the US patent be required to detect a reaction or generate heat?

[KitemanSA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conversion

Uh. Let us assume 60 W of real energy production. 1 W going the "normal" nuclear route. 1 W is going to generate a LOT of gammas.

How much lead would it take to stop 1W of soft xray frequency gammas?

[KitemanSA]

"I've taken a brief look at it so far," Miley said, "and from a first look, this theory agrees with the distinctive multipeak reaction product data from my experiments amazingly well. ...

Any views?

I really find it hard to believe that there are mechanisms in nature as the one proposed by W&L and that we didn't see it till date.

I would like before for them to verify the existence of these ultra low momentum neutrons and the ability of the SSP to capture the high energetic gamma.

You have identified the two areas where I suspect the theory has the reality just slightly wrong.
[Speculate]
Seems plausible to me that the polariton does not get absorbed by the proton, and does not produce a neutron. Instead, perhaps, the polariton stands in for a muon and makes a "Polaritonic Hydrogen" (PoHy) similar to "muonic hydrogen". The PoHy then could get close enough to other nuclei for the proton to react. On reacting, the proton excites the nucleus which has the polariton sitting right there to play with. So the nucleus dumps all (or a good deal) of the excitation energy (thru a process akin to "internal conversion") into the polariton and there you go. Fusion, if the nucleus is small enough, or (as in the Rossi case) transmutation, if it is bigger. Perhaps even transmutation with an alpha kicker.
[/Speculate]

[KitemanSA]

Rossi has not yet, going by demos, bothered to do the first stuff - even once!

He says he has been working on this for years and believes he knows what is going on. He just hasn't been, and won't be, saying what his data / theories are any time soon.

Further, even if he did no "experiments" other than trials like Edison did with the light bulb, that doesn't negate his machine.

I picture Edison doing a demo with a translucent shade over his newly invented lightbulb and having all the know-it-all science / lighting leaders of his day accusing him of a fraud. "He has to have a gas pipe to a lamp mantle hidden behind that shade!" "Everyone knows electric lamps don't work. Folks have been trying for years and every one was a fraud!"

Of course, doesn't say it isn't a fraud, either.

[Giorgio]

[Speculate] .... snip.... [/Speculate]

If you put "speculate" in bold like that I cannot really argue with you, else it will looks like I am being too picky

[cg66]

Posted this in the main Rossi thread - perhaps better posted here since the one paper is being discussed. Sorry if its redundant.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Campar ... aceana.pdf

Here are a couple of interesting papers that Focardi co-authored.
The first indeed shows production of high energy photons (gamma) and the detection of Cr and Mn in test samples after loading. The second paper is interesting also – it also shows an increase in Cr and Mn in the sample (and a decrease in Ni and Fe). Perhaps most interesting as it relates to Rossi’s device is the last figure which shows a region where a spike in copper was found along the surface of the test sample after processing. This part of the conclusion is interesting also: “In particular, the observed spatial distribution of the changes in the elements that appear on the surface seems to suggest an important contribution due to the geometry of the experimental cell. This geometry causes a temperature gradient and pressure that seems to drive the processes on the metal surface. Moreover, these processes are important and produce new elements on the surface without massive production of excess heat.”

So what is the scoop with the geometry? And why focus on the production of Cu? This seems to be where Rossi focused his efforts. The lead shielding obviously isn’t sufficient to stop ~600keV seen in the 1st paper. Assuming there is some effect of H packed in the Ni that allows transmutation, is there a benefit to heading towards Cu that prevents positron production (and therefore subsequent gammas)?

[KitemanSA]

[Speculate] .... snip.... [/Speculate]

If you put "speculate" in bold like that I cannot really argue with you, else it will looks like I am being too picky

So when has that stopped you before? (Just teasing)

The whole idea hinges on the effective mass of a polariton. I found one place (yes, wikipedia) from whence I THINK I got the message that they can be ~50MeV/c². This is about 1/2 the mass of a muon. Does anyone have better information?

[Giorgio]

[Speculate] .... snip.... [/Speculate]

If you put "speculate" in bold like that I cannot really argue with you, else it will looks like I am being too picky

So when has that stopped you before? (Just teasing)

The whole idea hinges on the effective mass of a polariton. I found one place (yes, wikipedia) from whence I THINK I got the message that they can be ~50MeV/c². This is about 1/2 the mass of a muon. Does anyone have better information?

As far as I knew the mass of Polariton should be around 100 eV/c2.
ICBW.