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

[MSimon]

According to this calculator (and depending on gamma energy) 2 cm gives a reduction by a factor of 10 (very roughly). It might be as little as a factor of 3 or as much as a factor of 30 (very roughly).

http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx

So if 2 cm of lead is shielding the reaction there wasn't much activity to begin with.

Or else it is a prop.

This issue was raised in the last TV interview.
Prof. Levi stated that 2 cm lead could have a reducing factor of 3 to 60 according the gamma spectra, and that if the reactions was nuclear in nature the thickness was not suitable.
Prof. Focardi replied that the gamma emission is low, very low, and the 2 cm suffice to avoid any external emission.
He refused to enter into further details.

That is interesting - also good to see that my mental math is not too bad either. esp when doing logs and exponents.

[rcain]

ii just finished reading through the various learned critiques of W-L - here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... tml#formal

if its any consolation to people, various aspects of the WL'hypothesis' seem to confound even (or most especially) the experts.

the most damning rebutal seems to come from Defour: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... itique.pdf

and one representative of the 'slightly kinder' camp by Chub: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... ique.shtml - with a unique historical reference to the mythical "meshuganon, or crazy particle" to explain it all.

god knows.

[KitemanSA]

In what conditions? What is the SOURSE of the information? Were the experiments carried out in similar conditions to Rossi's reator or something totally different?

Kiteman,

You are really clutching at straws here. Really.

I don't believe I am clutching at anything, except maybe knowledge. I am trying to understand what MIGHT be going IF anything is going on. Bald statements that matter in something like the Rossi reactor MUST behave like matter in a totally different condition are not convincing.

What you are saying in effect is that in the Rossi reactor particle reactions work completely differently than they do every where else that we have tested.

No, I am saying they MIGHT. I am suggesting that they are not BOUND to react like everything else. I can conceive of several means by which nucleii in substantially different conditions might shed energy without gamma radiation. I am probably wrong on all my conceptions, but conclusions based on ASSuming they MUST radiate gamma, may be in error. Potentially new physics, folks!

This may be so. But it is so unlikely given the last 60 years of work on the subject you are going to need much better evidence than I have seen so far.

As long as you are not closing your mind to the possibility of it, then fine. And I am not trying to convince you that it IS happening. I don't know one way or the other. But I don't pretend to be God, to know all and see all, especially that which has not been looked at.

"We have a device that induces 1E12 nuclear reactions a second (or more) that gives off no detectable radiation." Maybe.

Indeed, MAYBE. If those nuclear reactions are happening in ways that are totally unlike all the whiz-bang nuclear reactions with which we are all familiar, then MAYBE they happen without the same radiation. DIDO. (Different Input, Different Output)

Maybe it is all neutrinos. How does that happen?

If it were, I doubt much would be deposited in the reactor vessel. So personally I'd look elsewhere. Not that I'm looking, but it would be fascinating if someone found it!

[MSimon]

A nice aspect of the WL model is that not only does it make use of existing physics and an appropriate formulation of it, but it also creatively brings together "Meshuga" ideas that are widely believed to be irrelevant, in a cogent, albeit hard-to-believe way that all at once must be viewed as being creative, sincere, possibly right in certain circumstances but, beyond anything else, breathtaking and Meshuga.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/ ... ique.shtml

[KitemanSA]

So I ask again, why MUST there be a gamma emission?

Because this is the way it works.

And Giorgio said, "there must be gammas" and it was so. Thank you God, you have shown me the way.

Now, does anyone want to answer my question without recourse to Godly proclamations?

What make it that gammas MUST be emitted? Simple question.

[MSimon]

What you are saying in effect is that in the Rossi reactor particle reactions work completely differently than they do every where else that we have tested.

No, I am saying they MIGHT.

Well pigs might fly. But we know for sure monkeys do. I saw it in a movie once. Vicious little creatures when mishandled.

[MSimon]

Because in ALL other realms so far adequately tested that is what happens. Except in the very rare cases when monkeys are emitted. It happens in a special cell called a barn. Which is why physicists use a barn as a measure of cross section. The monkeys when first emitted are especially cross.

[Giorgio]

What you are saying in effect is that in the Rossi reactor particle reactions work completely differently than they do every where else that we have tested.

No, I am saying they MIGHT. I am suggesting that they are not BOUND to react like everything else. I can conceive of several means by which nucleii in substantially different conditions might shed energy without gamma radiation. I am probably wrong on all my conceptions, but conclusions based on ASSuming they MUST radiate gamma, may be in error. Potentially new physics, folks!

To claim potential new physics you need to put forward evidences.
No evidences so far except their word and this, IMHO, is not enough when you claim new physics.
This should be a common discussion base for everyone if we want to avoid to just waste time in hypothetical speculations.

Otherwise I could as well start a new thread on the potential new physics that the existence of the "Tooth Fairy" could create.

[Giorgio]

So I ask again, why MUST there be a gamma emission?

Because this is the way it works.

And Giorgio said, "there must be gammas" and it was so. Thank you God, you have shown me the way.

Now, does anyone want to answer my question without recourse to Godly proclamations?

What make it that gammas MUST be emitted? Simple question.

Because energy has to drop to ground state.
Same reason why heat flows from hot to cold.

[KitemanSA]

What you are saying in effect is that in the Rossi reactor particle reactions work completely differently than they do every where else that we have tested.

No, I am saying they MIGHT.

Well pigs might fly. But we know for sure monkeys do. I saw it in a movie once. Vicious little creatures when mishandled.

Thank you for your totally valuable discussion of the physics of fusion and the WL theory. Right on target there.

Please, is there anyone who wants to discuss the title topic and the forum topic?

Or has this already devolved into "a$$es with attitudes".

[KitemanSA]

Potentially new physics, folks!

To claim potential new physics you need to put forward evidences.

I point you to many years of "evidence" from the LENR community. This topic is SPECIFICALLY to discuss one such theory.

No evidences so far except their word and this, IMHO, is not enough when you claim new physics.

Oh? Do you have data from ANY experiments where ultra-low momentum nuetrons are absorbed by Nickel in a sea of hypercompressed Hydrogen? No? Seems to be a new regime, no? New regime, POTENTIALLY new physics. No extraordinary claim being made.

This should be a common discussion base for everyone if we want to avoid to just waste time in hypothetical speculations.

Otherwise I could as well start a new thread on the potential new physics that the existence of the "Tooth Fairy" could create.

If you want to start a new thread on "tooth-fairy" fusion, please do. I promise, I will not intrude on your self congratulatory thread.

Now, TRYING to get back to the topic at hand. I asked a simple question and have gotten nothing on topic in return. SURELY (yeah, I know, don't call me Shirley, ha, ha) there is someone on this forum who can tell me WHY it "must be" that a gamma is emitted. Anyone? Please? NO, don't tell me that the "why" is because it does. That gives NO info on the physics behind it. WHY must it be a gamma? Anyone?

WHY "always" a gamma? No magical answerers need apply.

[KitemanSA]

So I ask again, why MUST there be a gamma emission?

Because energy has to drop to ground state.
Same reason why heat flows from hot to cold.

Ah-ha! The beginnings of an answer! THANK YOU. But energy might drop to ground by any means that satisfies physics, no?
Why ONLY a gamma? Why not 10 xrays or 100UV, or any number of ther possibilities? What is it that limits it to "a gamma"?

And how is that gamma generated? Why a gamma?

Anyone?

[tomclarke]

So I ask again, why MUST there be a gamma emission?

Because energy has to drop to ground state.
Same reason why heat flows from hot to cold.

Ah-ha! The beginnings of an answer! THANK YOU. But energy might drop to ground by any means that satisfies physics, no?
Why ONLY a gamma? Why not 10 xrays or 100UV, or any number of ther possibilities? What is it that limits it to "a gamma"?

And how is that gamma generated? Why a gamma?

Anyone?

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

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. 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.

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.

[chrismb]

Kite, Giorgio already said this last page.

As far as I know, EVERY known nuclear reaction has a gamma-emitting path. Even DT has a path to a neutron-decay 5He (that lasts E-24 s !), but it still emits a gamma at that time.

Why a gamma, and not another EM? Because the balance of Coulomb barrier and nucleon binding energies is in the MeV range.

Why is it in the MeV range? Best ask God.

Though, that being said, these paths can have very low probabilities compared with 'strong force' mediated nucleon emitting reactions. Typically, EM mediated paths [that result in a gamma] are around 3 to 5 orders of magnitude less likely than a strong, nucelon emitting one.

Don't hold me to all of the above. This is AFAIK/HR.

But the point to raise is whether there are such reactions that might emit a sub-detectable level of gammas. Not that there aren't any, but simply that no-one's measured them. This is probably what NASA are looking for, with more sensitive kit.

I am not too 'in' to this debate so I will leave you with my engineering opinion - in the vastness of human endeavour, I would suggest there are many examples of where hydrogen and nickel [and just about any other metal you pick] and a load of IR gets mixed all up (e.g. nickel platings in a hydrogen cooled turbine), yet no-one has ever measured neutron activation in the real world. This would be very surprising that no-one has ever noticed such effects, if neutrons could be produced in this way. So my engineering judgement is that the last 100 years of human engineering have already 'done' this experiment, unwittingly but nonetheless plenty of opportunities to have noticed. So it is either a sub-noticeable [thus, sub-useful] reaction, or it is not a reaction at all.

Just my opinion, which I will close off on in this debate because it is yet another 'non' science idea that seems to lack any substantial foundations in anything we hold as conventionally 'known', and I am getting bored with these kinds of rambles.

At least 'polywell' is about 'known' physics working in unexpected/unusual ways - this I can deal with and I still like to actively engage in such a debate, even if I don't buy it. But these last few 'ideas' are total floaters that have no founding in any sense of anything 'known' or previously observed. They are 'dead-enders' and have converted this forum, albeit possibly because of the lack of polywell goings-on, into a melting pot of tosh. It's like sticking a 'scope probe between ground and a point on a floating circuit - you just can't get any meaningful signal out of it and you end up scratching your head over noise. Unless there is some actual connection with a baseline you know, then it's aaaalll just noise.

[tosh: Technically Obfuscating Scientific Hyperbole]

[Giorgio]

So I ask again, why MUST there be a gamma emission?

Because energy has to drop to ground state.
Same reason why heat flows from hot to cold.

Ah-ha! The beginnings of an answer! THANK YOU. But energy might drop to ground by any means that satisfies physics, no?
Why ONLY a gamma? Why not 10 xrays or 100UV, or any number of ther possibilities? What is it that limits it to "a gamma"?

And how is that gamma generated? Why a gamma?

Anyone?

So, this is what you want to know from the start?.
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.

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.

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

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