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

[KitemanSA]

Tom,
Thank you for your considered response.

It is a gamma because the energy drop is typically gamma range.

Most reasonable. And given a propensity to get things done as easily as possible, the universe chooses to emit a gamma.
Ok, but what generates the gamma?

It is a single gamma (not several) because that is the preferred transition. If it is several X-rays then that is a chain of state transitions to different internal energetic states.

Sorry, you lost me here. I was under the impression that the "internal energetic states" were the "stable" ones, not the excited ones. The excitation state should be a combination of the set binding energy plus the energy of the neutron at capture, no? Wouldn't that suggest there are a spectrum of energies to start with? What is sounds like you are saying is that GIVEN an electro-magnetic energy loss mechanism for a single particle, that emission will include the total energy down to the stable state in one go, and that amount is gamma. True?

But if energy to be lost is large you would need a lot of x-rays. I don't know a thing about quark/gluon physics so can't comment further.

Thank you for your honesty.

What gets emitted is determined by conservation of energy, charge, spin, etc, so is constrained. That means it is often two gammas (of opposite spin). Subject to this, any possible transition can happen but some are more likely than others. And a sequence of transitions is of course possible only where there are sufficient distinct internal nuclear states of appropriate energies.

I suspect you mean a distinct ENDING energy state for each emitting step of the transition, not a distinct beginning state. If I misunderstood you, pleae let me know.
Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma. Or maybe there would be a lower energy gamma, Hmmm? Is this OUTSIDE the possiblilty of the universe as you know it? Remember, I didn't ask if you knew of a another path, just if another path is EXCLUDED by physics you know it.

And the question then becomes, what generates the gamma?

[KitemanSA]

Giorgio,
Welcome to the civil side of the conversation.

You want to know the conditions under which they emit gamma and what else they can emit in different condition?

We could probably make a couple of post about that, yet I do not see how this can bring us anywhere near the WL theory or the Rossi reactor.
The point being that you need before to get those nucleus in exited state than you can start to think how they will drop back to ground state.

True, but I have seen many "conclusions" that this can't be happening because there don't seem to be enough(?)gamma emissions. If we can discuss the WL theory itself without condemning the whole subject thru false outcomes, then we can have a grand discussion.

If they suppose that bringing Nickel nucleus to an exited state and induce it to undergo a LENR can be done with a 300W resistance, well, they better bring on the table some darn convincing evidences if they want me to waste my time and hear their claims.

To me, the only convincing evidence is an engineeringly reliable demo of unexplanable evolution of energy. So far, I am not convinced that it has happened. They SAY it has but there are a number of questions about their demos. But assuming for the sake of discussion that it IS happening...
Conversely, if they claim it is happening a SPECIFIC way, then we need to go scientific about it.

Until that will be done I do really prefer to waste my time by starting a personal self congratulatory thread on "tooth-fairy" fusion.

Wonderful. Have fun. I will continue to try to have meaningful conversations here.

At least I will know the final result from the very start.

Kind of a waste of time then, no?

[chrismb]

Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma.

There are no other known ways, apart from what we know - electron emission [weak force], EM emission [EM force], nucleon emission [strong force].

The only other force known is gravity. Current theories say the Higgs is >200MeV, which is >> more than binding energy, which is prob why we've never seen it, if it ever [has] existed at all.

Answer; there are no other known ways, therefore there are no other ways.

[If you were to 'speculate' on something totally unknown as a way to explain something that probably doesn't happen, then this is exactly what I am meaning about 'tosh soup'.]

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,
Welcome to the civil side of the conversation.

Is that ironic? Please explain where I have not been civil in this conversation.

You want to know the conditions under which they emit gamma and what else they can emit in different condition?

We could probably make a couple of post about that, yet I do not see how this can bring us anywhere near the WL theory or the Rossi reactor.
The point being that you need before to get those nucleus in exited state than you can start to think how they will drop back to ground state.

True, but I have seen many "conclusions" that this can't be happening because there don't seem to be enough(?)gamma emissions. If we can discuss the WL theory itself without condemning the whole subject thru false outcomes, then we can have a grand discussion.

Again, what do gamma emission have to do with the WL theory mechanism? Why are you so fixed with these gamma?

If they suppose that bringing Nickel nucleus to an exited state and induce it to undergo a LENR can be done with a 300W resistance, well, they better bring on the table some darn convincing evidences if they want me to waste my time and hear their claims.

To me, the only convincing evidence is an engineeringly reliable demo of unexplanable evolution of energy. So far, I am not convinced that it has happened. They SAY it has but there are a number of questions about their demos. But assuming for the sake of discussion that it IS happening...
Conversely, if they claim it is happening a SPECIFIC way, then we need to go scientific about it.

Well, if for the sake of discussion we want to think that it really happens than the route could be anything and I really mean anything. There is no reason for it to be WL instead of sonofusion or dark matter or zero point energy. Why should we consider only WL? Should we discuss about anything just for the fun of it?

Until that will be done I do really prefer to waste my time by starting a personal self congratulatory thread on "tooth-fairy" fusion.

Wonderful. Have fun. I will continue to try to have meaningful conversations here.

To have a meaningful conversation it should be clear what is the subject of the conversation. I still do not understand what is the point you are trying to make and what gamma has to do with it.

At least I will know the final result from the very start.

Kind of a waste of time then, no?

Yep, kinda like what is going on in this thread till now IMHO.

[KitemanSA]

Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma.

There are no other known ways, apart from what we know - electron emission [weak force], EM emission [EM force], nucleon emission [strong force].

Electro STATIC??? Coulomb forces??

Certain folks were waxing pontifcal about coulomb forces being SOO important. Hmm?

[tomclarke]

Tom,
Thank you for your considered response.

It is a gamma because the energy drop is typically gamma range.

Most reasonable. And given a propensity to get things done as easily as possible, the universe chooses to emit a gamma.
Ok, but what generates the gamma?

It is a single gamma (not several) because that is the preferred transition. If it is several X-rays then that is a chain of state transitions to different internal energetic states.

Sorry, you lost me here. I was under the impression that the "internal energetic states" were the "stable" ones, not the excited ones. The excitation state should be a combination of the set binding energy plus the energy of the neutron at capture, no? Wouldn't that suggest there are a spectrum of energies to start with? What is sounds like you are saying is that GIVEN an electro-magnetic energy loss mechanism for a single particle, that emission will include the total energy down to the stable state in one go, and that amount is gamma. True?

It is exactly analogous to energetic states of an atom. There can, in principle, be intermediate energy states. So you could have one high energy gamma, or several steps. But note that everything else must balance, so which transitions are possible is constrained, and some will be less likely than others.

But if energy to be lost is large you would need a lot of x-rays. I don't know a thing about quark/gluon physics so can't comment further.

Thank you for your honesty.

What gets emitted is determined by conservation of energy, charge, spin, etc, so is constrained. That means it is often two gammas (of opposite spin). Subject to this, any possible transition can happen but some are more likely than others. And a sequence of transitions is of course possible only where there are sufficient distinct internal nuclear states of appropriate energies.

I suspect you mean a distinct ENDING energy state for each emitting step of the transition, not a distinct beginning state. If I misunderstood you, pleae let me know.

I mean Sstart -> Send could be one decay, or
Start ->S1->S2->Send could be 3 decays, etc. You need:
S1,S2 exist
S1,S2 are not stable
S1,S2 have intermediate energy
S1,S2 have same charge, hadron numbers, etc, and differ by 1 in spin (if each decay is single photon). Photon frequency is determine dby energy levels.

Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma.

The mechanisms possible are limited to transitions allowed by standard model particles. You are not likely to find anything else.

Or maybe there would be a lower energy gamma, Hmmm? Is this OUTSIDE the possiblilty of the universe as you know it? Remember, I didn't ask if you knew of a another path, just if another path is EXCLUDED by physics you know it.

I'm saying that to get a lower energy gamma you need to have suitable states S1,S2. This is all known properties of nucleus, you are not going to get "special behaviour". What could influence a nucleus to behave differently from normal?

And the question then becomes, what generates the gamma?

The answer, which I can't give in detail without quark gluon rubbish, is that the transition between Sstart and Send + gamma (or whatever) is allowed because all conserved quantities balance. Just as electron changing energy level emitting a photon.
Emitting 3 gammas must always be possible when emitting one is, but it will be much lower probability since more particles. Emitting two gammas often happens but between different states from what would allow emitting one gamma.

You need a QM picture of the world in which all is a sea of particles with non-zero probability of any allowed transition between one set of particles and another. That is what "generates" the gamma.

[chrismb]

Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma.

There are no other known ways, apart from what we know - electron emission [weak force], EM emission [EM force], nucleon emission [strong force].

Electro STATIC??? Coulomb forces??

Certain folks were waxing pontifcal about coulomb forces being SOO important. Hmm?

No understando?

These are manifestations of the EM force.

[KitemanSA]

Giorgio,
Welcome to the civil side of the conversation.

Is that ironic? Please explain where I have not been civil in this conversation.

I guess it was more that you appeared to be sided with the uncivil side.

You want to know the conditions under which they emit gamma and what else they can emit in different condition?

We could probably make a couple of post about that, yet I do not see how this can bring us anywhere near the WL theory or the Rossi reactor.
The point being that you need before to get those nucleus in exited state than you can start to think how they will drop back to ground state.

True, but I have seen many "conclusions" that this can't be happening because there don't seem to be enough(?)gamma emissions. If we can discuss the WL theory itself without condemning the whole subject thru false outcomes, then we can have a grand discussion.

Again, what do gamma emission have to do with the WL theory mechanism? Why are you so fixed with these gamma?

It DOESN'T, at least I don't think so. It has to do with the general concept of LENR of which WL is a potential part. See the bolded passage above.

If they suppose that bringing Nickel nucleus to an exited state and induce it to undergo a LENR can be done with a 300W resistance, well, they better bring on the table some darn convincing evidences if they want me to waste my time and hear their claims.

To me, the only convincing evidence is an engineeringly reliable demo of unexplanable evolution of energy. So far, I am not convinced that it has happened. They SAY it has but there are a number of questions about their demos. But assuming for the sake of discussion that it IS happening...
Conversely, if they claim it is happening a SPECIFIC way, then we need to go scientific about it.

Well, if for the sake of discussion we want to think that it really happens than the route could be anything and I really mean anything. There is no reason for it to be WL instead of sonofusion or dark matter or zero point energy. Why should we consider only WL? Should we discuss about anything just for the fun of it?

Go ahead, start such a thread. Unless I've jumped a thread (very easy to do around here) this is about WL, LENR, and Rossi.

Until that will be done I do really prefer to waste my time by starting a personal self congratulatory thread on "tooth-fairy" fusion.

Wonderful. Have fun. I will continue to try to have meaningful conversations here.

To have a meaningful conversation it should be clear what is the subject of the conversation. I still do not understand what is the point you are trying to make and what gamma has to do with it.

Some people REFUSE to consider any system that doesn't emit gamma as "nuclear". You have probably seen such statements a number of times in this and the 100+ pager. I have been trying to figure out why! Simple enough, or so I thought.

As it happens, I am not convinced that gamma=nuclear and no gamma=NOT nuclear. So I am trying to figure out why some people are stuck with those equations. LENR, not WL specifically.

[chrismb]

Some people REFUSE to consider any system that doesn't emit gamma as "nuclear".

Quite reasonably.

I have been trying to figure out why! Simple enough, or so I thought.

And I provided the definitive, simple answer.

As it happens, I am not convinced that gamma=nuclear and no gamma=NOT nuclear.

OK, you tell me of a nuclear reaction for which there is no gamma branch.

All KNOWN reactions have a gamma emitting branch. As I said, you could rationally argue that the detection of such gammas might not be possible for some reactions, but then it would define a boundary of maximum reaction rate, and I think we'd then find that any heat emitted should also then be below measurable levels, but let's take that as it comes when you specify the reaction of interest.

But, go ahead, you are the doubter here so it is for you to nominate a nuclear reaction with NO gamma paths, if you don't accept that from others. Forget theory, think experiment. You can go to NNDC and select any darned reaction you like, see if you can find one without gammas.

[tomclarke]

Giorgio,
Welcome to the civil side of the conversation.

Is that ironic? Please explain where I have not been civil in this conversation.

I guess it was more that you appeared to be sided with the uncivil side.

True, but I have seen many "conclusions" that this can't be happening because there don't seem to be enough(?)gamma emissions. If we can discuss the WL theory itself without condemning the whole subject thru false outcomes, then we can have a grand discussion.

Again, what do gamma emission have to do with the WL theory mechanism? Why are you so fixed with these gamma?

It DOESN'T, at least I don't think so. It has to do with the general concept of LENR of which WL is a potential part. See the bolded passage above.

To me, the only convincing evidence is an engineeringly reliable demo of unexplanable evolution of energy. So far, I am not convinced that it has happened. They SAY it has but there are a number of questions about their demos. But assuming for the sake of discussion that it IS happening...
Conversely, if they claim it is happening a SPECIFIC way, then we need to go scientific about it.

Well, if for the sake of discussion we want to think that it really happens than the route could be anything and I really mean anything. There is no reason for it to be WL instead of sonofusion or dark matter or zero point energy. Why should we consider only WL? Should we discuss about anything just for the fun of it?

Go ahead, start such a thread. Unless I've jumped a thread (very easy to do around here) this is about WL, LENR, and Rossi.

Wonderful. Have fun. I will continue to try to have meaningful conversations here.

To have a meaningful conversation it should be clear what is the subject of the conversation. I still do not understand what is the point you are trying to make and what gamma has to do with it.

Some people REFUSE to consider any system that doesn't emit gamma as "nuclear". You have probably seen such statements a number of times in this and the 100+ pager. I have been trying to figure out why! Simple enough, or so I thought.

As it happens, I am not convinced that gamma=nuclear and no gamma=NOT nuclear. So I am trying to figure out why some people are stuck with those equations. LENR, not WL specifically.

Kiteman - the point is that nuclear reactions are very well experimentally understood. And what you ask does not exist.

[Giorgio]

I guess it was more that you appeared to be sided with the uncivil side.

Is that based on facts or your opinion?
If it is facts I would like you to show me where.
If it is your opinion let me remember you what someone said few days ago about opinions:

You know that statement about opinions. They are like a$$holes, everyone has one and only your own smells sweet!

It DOESN'T, at least I don't think so. It has to do with the general concept of LENR of which WL is a potential part.

There is not a general concept of LENR. There are lot of theories, most of which are exclusives of each other.
WL has unproven assumptions at the very base of his theory.
If you want to discuss about the possibility of WL being feasible than we should start to discuss about those weak bases.

Some people REFUSE to consider any system that doesn't emit gamma as "nuclear".

Prof. Focardi already stated that there are gamma emissions (albeit very low ones).
So, what's the issue? They are the first to admit that there are gamma emission and that the system is undergoing a nuclear reaction because there are gamma emissions. They are in perfect agreement with our statements here on gamma emissions.
The issue is: What is the energy spectra of these gamma?
They say is very low but, without releasing any values, this statement means nothing and give no indication whatsoever.

[MSimon]

Ok, so IF there is another mechanism by which the energy can get shed, then PERHAPS there would not be a gamma.

There are no other known ways, apart from what we know - electron emission [weak force], EM emission [EM force], nucleon emission [strong force].

Electro STATIC??? Coulomb forces??

Certain folks were waxing pontifcal about coulomb forces being SOO important. Hmm?

Kiteman,

It appears you are unclear on the concept.

Let me explain: coulomb forces are part of what you have to deal with to make the reaction happen.

electron emission [weak force], EM emission [EM force], nucleon emission [strong force] - are what you have to deal with when considering the RESULTS of the reaction - according to currently accepted theories and experiments.

[KitemanSA]

It is exactly analogous to energetic states of an atom. There can, in principle, be intermediate energy states. So you could have one high energy gamma, or several steps. But note that everything else must balance, so which transitions are possible is constrained, and some will be less likely than others.

Except that with the atom (electron states) the electrons can only START in certain states and END in certain states, so the emissions always have certain frequencies. Not so with an excited nucleus, true?

Anyway, this is of tangential interest but the real question is; are there any possible energy shedding paths that lurk within the bounds of current physics, perhaps a path that is variable and lead directly to heat in the system?

I are a mechanical engineer with a history in structural dynamics and shock physics. My thought processes lean toward vibrating systems. whenever I think of a nucleus absorbing another partical I envision a bomb and a ship. The nucleus absorbs the "bomb" which goes off (releases a spit load of energy) and starts the hull vibrating like 7734.

The system must then shed that vibrational energy. Normally speaking, when the next nucleus (typically of similar mass) is a kazillion diameters away, the only way this can happen is with EM... a gamma given the frequency of the oscillation. But what if there is a relatively big mass (Hydrogen nucleus) loosely tied to the bomb(ard)ed nucleus (ship)? Think "cargo damping". The oscillating nucleus (ship) might transfer a goodly amount of the energy to the cargo (hydrogen) and shed the energy that way.

So I ask again, does it HAVE to be a gamma? Sure, a gazillion times out a gazillion+1 in normal circumstances, a gamma is the only realistic way out. But is this NECESSARILY a "normal" circumstance?

[KitemanSA]

I mean Sstart -> Send could be one decay, or
Start ->S1->S2->Send could be 3 decays, etc. You need:
S1,S2 exist
S1,S2 are not stable
S1,S2 have intermediate energy
S1,S2 have same charge, hadron numbers, etc, and differ by 1 in spin (if each decay is single photon). Photon frequency is determine dby energy levels.

Got it, S1, S2, Send etc must all have some allowable state, but not Sstart. Correct? And this applies to any emission of EM radiation.
Understood. This is how I have long understood it to be. Thank you for confirming it.

So, are there other paths besides EM? How about ES?

[KitemanSA]

I guess it was more that you appeared to be sided with the uncivil side.

Is that based on facts or your opinion?
If it is facts I would like you to show me where.
If it is your opinion let me remember you what someone said few days ago about opinions:

You know that statement about opinions. They are like a$$holes, everyone has one and only your own smells sweet!

"Appeared" was intended to convey "personal perception" which is, AFAIK, always opinion.

It DOESN'T, at least I don't think so. It has to do with the general concept of LENR of which WL is a potential part.

There is not a general concept of LENR.

Oh? "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" = general concept. WL = specific theory. Until (if ever) there is concensus on a specific theory, it shall remain at the "general concept" level. Sorry if that isn't within your understanding of English (or American, in my case). Though if you meant to say there is no general CONCENSUS regarding LENR, I should think that was obvious.

There are lot of theories, most of which are exclusives of each other.

Ain't this always the case until concensus is reached?

WL has unproven assumptions at the very base of his theory.

Their theory, and I agree. What I am interested in is removing "general concept" BAGGAGE before attempting to do that.

If you want to discuss about the possibility of WL being feasible then we should start to discuss about those weak bases.

Your prejudice is showing... again.