|
Feb. 1, 2010
Widom-Larsen Theory Explained - Anonymous Poster on Digg
It is looking more and more that "cold fusion" isn't fusion at all. The best theory out there that doesn't invoke any new physics is the Widom-Larsen theory (which has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal). In a nutshell, it states what is going on is a multistep process. The plasmon modes in hydrated metals (think of them as surface electrons that all act together) get energized (many ways to do this) and get absorbed by protons. This produces a very low energy neutron (reverse neutron decay due to the weak nuclear force). Low energy neutrons get absorbed quite easily by anything. This starts a cascade of creating unstable isotopes which beta decay. During the beta decay gamma ray photons are released, but when they hit that metal plasmon they get shifted into mostly IR (heat) with a soft X-ray tail.
The challenge is that this phenomena requires very high energy densities (order of 10^11 V/m). So it more often will happen in small nano-crevices in materials.
April 16, 2008
Sixth Widom-Larsen (+Srivastava) Theory Paper Released
From Larsen:
"In our latest paper, 'High Energy Particles in the Solar Corona,' we apply our understanding of collective magnetic effects and low energy nuclear reactions to certain poorly understood phenomena in solar and astrophysics, e.g., anomalous heating of the solar corona relative to the sun's photospheric surface temperature.
"References #31 (1965) and #32 (2004) concern anomalous isotopic abundances and short-lived isotopes observed in the spectra of certain types of unusual magnetic stars. Przybylski's star is an extreme example of that type of stellar object."
January 11, 2008 -- New Energy Times Issue #26
The Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion Theory
By Steven B. Krivit
[Note: This article is about 32 pages in length (about 12,000 words.) Readers may skip to the end if they would like a summary of my observations and conclusions.
Contents
1. A Controversial Theory
2. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 1
3. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 2
4. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 3
5. Approach 2: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From CMNS Community
6. Approach 3: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Scott Chubb
7. Observations and Conclusions of CMNS Community Response
8. Approach 4: Brief Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Richard Garwin
9. Resources
Nov. 18, 2007
Widom-Larsen Theory Explained - Anonymous Google Video
Widom-Larsen theory explains how an electron and a proton (Hydrogen ion) could combine into slow neutrons plus neutrino in a fluctuating electric field. The slow neutron then recombines with other elements in the setup through a chain of nuclear reactions, ultimately resulting in Helium being produced. This breakthrough theory may explain experimental 'Cold Fusion' observations, where previous criticism has been focused on the impossibility of fusion in that setup. The theoretical framework may now be there for building reactors based on this new class of experimental nuclear reactions.
Oct. 24, 2007
Mae-Wan Ho of Institute of Science in Society: "Transmutation, The Alchemist Dream Come True"
Oct. 23, 2007
Mae-Wan Ho of Institute of Science in Society: "How Cold Fusion Works"
Oct. 18, 2007
Mae-Wan Ho of Institute of Science in Society: "From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science"
New Energy Times, Sept. 12, 2007
Fifth Widom-Larsen LENR Theory Paper Released
Message from Larsen and Widom:
We have attached a new 3-page preprint, "Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires", arXiv:0709.1222v1 [nucl-th] 8 Sep 2007 by Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen. In this paper, we extend our theory of low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) beyond the domain of relatively low temperature chemical cells to include closely related nuclear phenomena that occur in much more energetic, violent environments associated with high-current exploding wires.
One aim of our paper is to resolve an old controversy. In 1922, Wendt &Irion, two chemists from the University of Chicago, reported the results of relatively simple experiments that consisted of exploding tungsten wires with a very large current pulse under a vacuum inside of sealed glass "bulbs." A huge controversy erupted because Wendt &Irion claimed to have observed the presence of anomalous helium inside sealed bulbs after the tungsten wires were blown, suggesting that transmutation of hydrogen into helium had somehow occurred during the "disintegration of tungsten." Widespread press coverage triggered a response from the scientific establishment in the form of a negative critique of Wendt &Irion's work by Ernest Rutherford that was published in Nature. Rutherford won the contemporary debate; he was believed --- Wendt &Irion were not. After 1923, Wendt and Irion abandoned their exploding wire experiments and turned to other lines of research.
Until recently, this controversy had been almost totally forgotten. However, it now appears to us that Rutherford was incorrect in his criticisms; Wendt and Irion were right. First, we cite recent experimental evidence on exploding wires that decisively settles the experimental issues in favor of Wendt &Irion. Neutrons are produced in such experiments, making it entirely plausible that nuclear transmutations can occur. Second, we cite additional recent experiments in which, "fast neutrons have been seen in exploding wires even though there were no deuterons initially present." Since distinctive gamma signatures have not been observed along with any such neutrons, it appears unlikely to us that D-D fusion is the mechanism responsible for producing them.
We also aim to resolve the remaining theoretical issues. Utilizing collective effects with electrons in wires, well-established physics, and only four equations, we go on to explain a "theoretical paradox in low energy nuclear reactions that has remained unresolved for over eight decades."
We conclude that, "It is presently clear that nuclear transmutations can occur under a much wider range of physical conditions than was heretofore thought possible."
The resolution of this 85 year-old controversy is especially poignant when one considers that: (a.) in 1920 Rutherford himself had predicted the existence of a neutral nuclear particle with ~ the same mass as a proton, saying that it could be formed by the capture of an electron onto a proton ;(b.) the existence of the neutron would not be experimentally verified by James Chadwick until 1932; and (c.) fission would not be discovered by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman until 1938.
Since they can be difficult to obtain, for your convenience we have attached a second Adobe Acrobat document that contains copies of all three original publications as follows: (1.) Wendt and Irion's initial paper, "Experimental Attempts to Decompose Tungsten at High Temperatures," from the Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922); (2.) Rutherford's comments about their work in Nature 109 418 (1922) - also reprinted with permission in Science (attached); and (3.) Wendt's subsequent response to Rutherford in Science 55 567 (1922).
Widom-Larsen Chem Forums Letter
April 24, 2007
Mitch, Maz, and Borek:
Please note that there are short, "plain English" summaries of our four published papers down below. They will hopefully provide you with a high-level conceptual overview of what we are doing in each of our papers before having to delve into the details of the physics and mathematics.
Using the Widom-Larsen theory, we can now answer three important questions about anomalous LENR experimental results that previous "cold fusion" researchers have been unable to answer to the satisfaction of the mainstream physics community for the past 18 years. These questions and our answers to them are: Chem Forums Letter Continues Here:
(HTML) (PDF)
New Energy Times, Sept. 10, 2006
"Fourth Widom-Larsen LENR Theory Paper Released"
Full story
Excerpt:
Quote from Larsen and Widom:
"The rates of the resulting ultra low momentum neutron production are computed from the standard electroweak theory in satisfactory agreement with the available experimental data.
We think our theory can explain all of the major features exhibited in many seemingly anomalous experiments (historical and collectively known as cold fusion) that have been regarded by many nuclear physicists as theoretically inexplicable.
In contrast to other earlier theories, involving penetration of Coulomb barriers, our new theory of low energy nuclear reactions uses the well-accepted standard model of electroweak interaction physics. We think that the key process responsible for producing most of the experimentally observed anomalies is not a form of fusion.
On the contrary, we believe that the key processes driving the behavior of these systems are weak interactions. In that regard, our work extends well-accepted Standard Model physics to include collective effects in condensed matter. No new microscopic physics is assumed or is necessary to explain the data."
New Energy Times, March 10, 2006
"Widom-Larsen Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Theory"
Full story
Excerpt:
"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. Testing against experimental data is an essential step that any serious theory in this field must face up to, but very few have to date."
Miley commented on how effectively the Widom-Larsen supports his experimental data as compared to other LENR theories. "Only four others have seriously tried, to my memory," he said.
"Compared to these other models," Miley said, "the Widom-Larsen model has much more in-depth development and a more detailed comparison with the rather complex features of the data. To address the full data set, one must consider a complicated spectrum of products for several different electrode materials. Several of the prior attempts are somewhat incomplete developments using arbitrary fitting parameters and assumptions."
New Energy Times, November 10, 2005
"Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat" Full story
Excerpt:
Lino Daddi, a physics professor with the Italian Naval Academy in Livorno was inspired by the Widom/Larsen theory.
"Perhaps we have a theory that explains all the anomalous phenomena. The transmutation observed from Yasuhiro Iwamura [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries] are explained without the problematic multiple reactions" in others' theories," Daddi wrote.
...
Professor David J. Nagel, of the George Washington University, was the first to bring the Widom/Larsen paper to our attention. Nagel, a physicist who worked for 36 years at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, considers the Widom/Larsen paper worthy of serious attention.
The controversial new theory appears to explain most, if not all, of the experimental anomalies observed in cold fusion experiments. The theory says it's not a fusion reaction, which would involve the strong force, but other low energy nuclear reactions that involve weak interactions, namely neutron formation from electrons and protons/deuterons, followed by local neutron absorption and subsequent beta-decay processes.
Physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson reviewed the first Widom/Larsen paper and considers their work “highly significant, since the physics may well be sound.”
Make magazine, August 11, 2005
Letter to the editor from Larsen Full letter Excerpt:
Our theory, if verified experimentally by other laboratories: (a) falls solidly within the established laws of physics; and (b) does not involve any D-D or D-D-like fusion.
|
