Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory by Edmund Storms

Back to Widom-Larsen Theory Portal

[On Sept. 28, 2007, New Energy Times sent out the first of a set of queries to the CMNS researchers, at that time, 260 active researchers, that invited critique of the Widom-Larsen Theory. The invitation explicitly stated that comments would be on the record. New Energy Times published the responses in "The Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion Theory" on Jan. 11, 2008.

Storms, without discussing or obtaining any alternative advance agreement with New Energy Times, elected to send the following letter.

(Source: New Energy Times)  

At 11:42 AM 12/21/2007, Edmund Storms wrote:


I am telling you this off the record so that you can understand my attitude.

The [Widom-Larsen] theory was used in the paper by Nagel and discussed in various conversations. I'm told it has gotten favorable review by the Department of Energy.

From a self interest point of view, this is good because it advances Lattice Energy, stock of which I own.

However, from a scientific and ethical point of view this is bad. Eventually, people will realize that the theory makes no sense and this should have been known by Widom and Larsen from the beginning. [Sentence redacted].

The more publicity this theory gets and the more support they get based on the theory, the bigger the fall will be in the future when people wise up.

Therefore, it is best to treat it with the same indifference that is given to other theories. Of course it should be discussed, which I do in my book and in the ACS paper. This discussion gives the scientific basis for rejection. Any further discussion should address these scientific objections.

A discussion of how many people agree with the theory or reject it is irrelevant and makes the theory look as if it is actually good but is simply being rejected for irrational reasons just like other ideas in cold fusion. This is not the issue and I don't think you should go down that path. If you want to make a contribution, you should have a debate about the scientific issues with each side having a chance to make their point. Of course, such a debate should focus on all theories, not just this one. (Source: New Energy Times)

Perhaps you can answer this question. This theory is not any more correct or useful than many other theories that are not discussed. Why is this one given special attention? [Editor's response: 1. Published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. 2. The only LENR theory judged by independent third parties to be mathematically complete and correct. 3. Uses conventional physics. 4. Requires no "new physics." 5. Requires no "miracles." 6. Better explains experimental phenomena than any "cold fusion" theory. 7. Recognized by independent third-parties as potentially viable explanation of LENR. 8. The *only* such theory to be so recognized.]


Edmund Storms