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

[Giorgio]

Your prejudice is showing... again.

Holy cow.... what prejudice?
W&L based their theory quoting some findings of another research team. This team clearly stated that they never found what W&L claimed that they found and that W&L didn't understand their results!

Where is the prejudice here?

Shouldn't have been better for W&L to set up their own experiment and test if at least the base of their assumption is correct?
We have the tech to do that, so why not do it and fix the foundations of their theory?

[Giorgio]

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?

Kite, really, what's the meaning of all of this? To prove that something unknown could exist? I think no one here is foolish enough to think that we know everything and that the way the universe work is perfectly clear.
But what's the meaning to enter discussion on theorizing a phenomena of which we have no data whatsoever?
You are a mech. engineer, does it make sense to you to try to solve a Navier–Stokes equation without having the boundary conditions?

[tomclarke]

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?

False. An excited nucleus, like an excited atom, has only certain available states. How many, and what transition probabilities, you need somone else for the theory. But nuclei are observed bombarded with every conceivable particle, so if some non-gamma path existed it would be known.

The point being that unlike chemistry where there is an essentially unlimited set of different conditions, nuclear physics operates with a very constrained set of ingredients.

[KitemanSA]

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

Is there data where said reactions took place in a Hydrogen loaded Nickel matrix? Such data would go a long way toward convincing me. But then, how about data with ultra-low momentum nuetrons (assuming they exist)? Can you reference me to ANY data from neutrons impacting H loaded Ni matrix?

Elsewhere I have raised the "nuclear oscillation" paradigm. If a Ni nucleus started vibrating after absorbing a neutron and releasing all that binding energy, how FAR would the two half-mass parts move? There is obviously not enough energy to break in half(ish) like U235 does when hit by a proper neutron. but how far would it go? And might that motion effect surrounding H?

[KitemanSA]

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

No understando?

These are manifestations of the EM force.

Really? Coulomb is EM? Does everyone else agree with this? I was always under the impression it was Electro-Static. To me, saying coulomb forces are EM is like saying pressure is sound, which is nonsense. If I am wrong, how?

[KitemanSA]

False. An excited nucleus, like an excited atom, has only certain available states.

So you are telling me that a nucleus that absorbs a 25keV nuetron has the EXACT same degree of excitation as one that absorbs a 32 keV neutron? Where does the other 7keV go?

[KitemanSA]

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.

Don't know. Splitting the atom into two fission products comes to mind, but...

[KitemanSA]

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

And I provided the definitive, simple answer.

Link please, I may have missed it.

[KitemanSA]

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?

Kite, really, what's the meaning of all of this? To prove that something unknown could exist? I think no one here is foolish enough to think that we know everything and that the way the universe work is perfectly clear.

And yet a lot of you, you included at times, act as if you DO know everything... It is upsetting. I thought you better than that.

But what's the meaning to enter discussion on theorizing a phenomena of which we have no data whatsoever?

To point out the ERROR of concluding that something CANNOT be based on TONNES of data that may not apply. A GIGAbyte of data on the WRONG phenomenon tells us NOTHING. Please, I have been HOPING that you are not the ANTI- equivalent of Axil. I am hoping that you can shake your pre-conceived notions and help figure how this thing MIGHT be working, if it is working, so that such possibilities can be tested.

I have already made a recommendation for an experiment that might reveal applicable data. Please help rather than hinder.

As you pointed out... NO DATA. Lets us figure out how BEST to get it!

You are a mech. engineer, does it make sense to you to try to solve a Navier–Stokes equation without having the boundary conditions?

So let us set boundaries. And as far as I can tell, the field does not NECESSARILY include past data on nuclear reactions. This is in No way intended to indicate that past data are wrong, just not NECESSARILY applicable.

[chrismb]

Kite, you've gone a bit potty on this gamma business.

I know you've gone potty, because I do exactly the same thing when I don't get the answer I am expecting and keep asking, and then I later realise it was a bit potty [...either no-one knew, or I didn't actually understand the question I was asking, or how it was being interpreted by the answerer, whatever, you're not gonna get the answer to satisfy you because no-one can give you it].

You can quit now. As far as we all know, the reaction should release gammas. This is based not on some explicit mind-meld with God and/or the universe, it is based on the fact that gammas have always appeared as a branch of all observed nuclear reactions.

Maybe this is the first without such reactions!

But it's not right to predict an experimental outcome based on physics which hasn't yet been observed! That's the issue I have with this forum at the moment.

** You can predict an experimental outcome based on physics known, or
** You can suggest some change in physics known as a result of a well-demonstrated, repeatable scientific experimental outcome....

BUT YOU CANNOT DO BOTH PARTS AT THE SAME TIME without drifiting into pseudo-science crazyland.

[KitemanSA]

You can quit now. As far as we all know, the reaction should release gammas. This is based not on some explicit mind-meld with God and/or the universe, it is based on the fact that gammas have always appeared as a branch of all observed nuclear reactions.

Some have reported a very SMALL amount of gamma from Ni:H reactions, some say none. If the gamma emitted was say... less than 5%, would you be more accepting? Is it ALL or NOTHING with you? (If you read back, I have mentioned the option of mostly not gamma with a small amount of gamma before). My question is "why does it hve to be A gamma? One (or two) gamma and nothing else?"

[Skipjack]

OT: Chris, "going to the potty" means "going to the toilet"in the US
I know that "going potty" means "going nuts" for the English...

[chrismb]

Whichever. Kinda works in both meanings!

[MSimon]

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

No understando?

These are manifestations of the EM force.

Really? Coulomb is EM? Does everyone else agree with this? I was always under the impression it was Electro-Static. To me, saying coulomb forces are EM is like saying pressure is sound, which is nonsense. If I am wrong, how?

Statics is a part of EM. It is just that the M goes to zero.

And pressure variation is sound. Which is to say that at fixed pressure the sound has "infinite" wavelength.

When the bar. pressure goes up a few millibars over a day that is a sound. Very long wavelength. You don't hear it. If it changes 300 mbar in a few seconds head for the root cellar.

[MSimon]

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.

Don't know. Splitting the atom into two fission products comes to mind, but...

Dude. Read up.