LENRs: The Path From Theory to Energy to Technology
Feb. 24, 2012
By Steven B. Krivit
x

Several weeks ago, I received some excellent questions about low-energy nuclear reactions from an engineer and New Energy Times reader who blogs at La Mentira Esta Ahi Fuera blog in Spain.

The reader asked a logical progression of questions that began from an attempt to understand theory and what impact theory may have on LENR energy and, eventually, LENR technology. Here, I will answer his questions as he asked them.

1. Do you think the Widom-Larsen theory is plausible?

Yes, certainly. Once you have neutrons in the system, it’s simple. The key is explaining how neutrons could be created in the LENR system. For two decades, lots of people in the field knew that, if you had neutrons, the rest of the process would be a no-brainer. These people included Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Tadahiko Mizuno (Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development Corp., Yasuhiro Iwamura (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), Stanislaw Szpak (SPAWAR Pacific), Larry A. Hull (see news clip), and Fangil Gareev (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research). Some of them speculated that virtual neutrons were involved.

But Widom and Larsen figured out how, through collective effects, real neutrons are created. They knew the neutrons were real because experimentalists observed real isotopic changes. They also knew the neutrons had to have ultra-low momentum because researchers had never observed high fluxes of neutrons emitted from the experiments. Throughout the history of the field, researchers have observed and reported low-flux bursts of low-energy neutrons. In hindsight, with the understanding of the Widom-Larsen theory, we can easily explain these neutrons as spallation neutrons that are knocked off of neutron-rich nuclei.

I first learned about the Widom-Larsen theory from professor David Nagel in 2005. Nagel was very excited about it and told me that he thought it could explain what, until then, I had called “cold fusion.” He sent me a set of slides he made to help people understand the theory. I had been so unimpressed with “cold fusion” theories at the time that I told Nagel I wasn’t willing to spend my time learning about it. But he was very persistent. Finally, he offered to tutor me on it. He spent an hour with me on the phone.

Of course, one hour was not enough to understand so many new concepts, but it got me started. But what I did understand is that, once you had the neutrons, it changed everything. No more “miracles” or “new physics” to overcome the Coulomb barrier. This, as well as Widom and Larsen’s paper in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, was enough to get my attention.

Once I began to see the third-party support, I got excited. This was the first time since the beginning of my investigations in 2000 that I had seen even moderately supportive comments from third parties about any LENR theory.

However, I did not anticipate that the theory would create a firestorm or that Nagel would later retract his enthusiasm for it. I don’t know what his reasoning was, but it became clear to me that, although a viable theory of LENRs was a great thing for the field, for science, and for the general public, it was not necessarily a good thing for Nagel’s friends and colleagues who had been trying to convince the world about the reality of “cold fusion” for two decades.

In retrospect, I can see that the Widom-Larsen theory represented their worst nightmare. If LENR, with the help of the Widom-Larsen theory, is accepted and goes mainstream, the big labs will take over.  The existing group of LENR researchers, most of whom are retired, probably won’t play a significant role in the next phase, but of course they will be remembered for their crucial role in bringing the field this far.

2. Do you know how the massive surface plasmon electrons are created?
3. Is the mass of the electron increased?
4. How much energy is required to create these plasmons?

I think you probably have read my articles “Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified” and “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?

But, as you may have noticed, we do not get deeply into the matter of surface plasmon electrons there.

The general answer is that the massive surface plasmon electrons are created as a result of the correct physical conditions, collective effects, triggers and other key factors that exist in working LENR experiments. For a more complete and technical answer, I refer you to the paper I wrote with Joe Zawodny for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

5. Does the surface plasmon process liberate more energy than consumed?
6. Doesn’t the creation of a neutron by inverse beta decay require energy?

I have created a spreadsheet for you that provides a visual answer. I’ve appended it to the bottom of “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?

7. How can gamma radiation be converted into infrared heat?

I don’t have the answer to that in my head, but I believe Larsen explains it in his U.S. patent 7,893,414, issued Feb. 22, 2011.

8. Do you know the current status of this technology?

I think it is ready to become a technology, but there is still a lot of science to learn. I don’t know too many people who really understand the mechanism. I also do not believe that anybody has mastered the required material control and nanotechnology fabrication skills. But I am very optimistic that it will happen and that we will see a LENR revolution in our lifetime.

 
Alaincoe says:

From this article and Larsen’s slides, it seems clear that slow neutrons are produced.

If WL is wrong, there must be another explanation for those neutrons productions.
Is there any competitor in that domain of theories?

Some people at another Web site have made a rebuttal of the Widom-Larsen theory.
Some arguments are not serious, or are not critcal, but there still exist some criticisms that I cannot reject myself.

Can someone serious and positive give serious argument about those critics on WL, at least the hardest to dismiss, even if it is to accept them.

Alain

 
Steven B. Krivit says:

Hi Alain,

Thanks for your e-mail. When I began taking a serious look at WLT, I found that their competitors, the cold fusion believers, had lots of critical things to say about WLT. You can find some of these things here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET26.shtml#wl

As I have mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, in hindsight, I do not think I was wise for me to promote such arguments about theory though the informal scientific media such as my site or for that matter, any other news site.

These type of debates require very serious and precise critique and rebuttal. These debates need to take place in formal scientific mediums; journals, conferences or at a minimum, arXiv . You will see that there has been one such set of exchanges between WL and Hagelstein. If there are other formal critiques, I want to know about them.

Most of the informal arguments against WLT that I have seen have been based on ignorance or twisted logic. You will continue to see more of these things in the informal media, but not at New Energy Times. Most of us are unqualified to effectively engage in such discussions and it simply consumes bandwidth and wastes time.

I encourage and applaud anybody (as I have done with Brookhaven NL theoretical physicist Peter Thieberger) who really thinks they know about problems or flaws in WLT to publish in the formal scientific media.

OTOH, if there are things that you’re trying to learn about WLT, please bring them here into the discussion and I or other people will do our best to try to help you learn more.

Best regards,

SBK