The Science Of LENR: Part 3

Widom-Larsen Theory
LENR is a new science that is still as yet not understood. It will only be fully understood once commercialization has occurred and all secrets of it’s modus operandi are revealed, paving the way for computer simulations of what actually happens in the reactions. When Fleischman & Pons came out in 1989 and said they had discovered a new energy source, they made the mistake of calling it Cold Fusion, which is really inaccurate as no fusion is taking place. Fusion is what happens in the Sun and requires humongous temperatures which no known earthly material can contain, whereas LENR can take place on a table top in your kitchen.

The Science of LENR was then rejected because nobody understood what was taking place in the reaction and nobody could replicate it. Widom_LarsenVarious theories have thus been put forward to explain LENR and one of them, probably the most accurate & likely theory so far, is the Widom-Larsen, dealing with many-body collective effects first understood by Einstein. This theory is currently being used by NASA in their LENR research. It rejects the idea of fusion because fusion requires the release of gamma rays as one of its by products, yet no LENR experiment has found such deadly emissions thus far.

Hydrino & Bose-Einstein Theories
Other theories that were put forward to explain LENR are Yeong E. Kim’s Bose-Einstein condensate and Randell Mills’ Hydrino theory. Bose-EinsteinThe Bose-Einstein condensate was a material developed by Einstein and Bose that exists at a temperature of absolute zero. Yeong E Kim proposes that this kind of material is formed in an LENR reaction chamber, enabling the creation of excess heat. The Hydrino theory is an entirely new form of Physics that has been largely rejected because it proposes the lowering of Hydrogen into Quantum states, called Hydrinos, that, according to known science, cannot possibly exist.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Science Of LENR: Part 3

  1. Pingback: History of LENR | New Energy Treasure – The Coming Energy Revolution

  2. I am very skeptical about the theories, and it is sad that most people have huge problem to admit facts without a theory.

    some deny the facts. some invent unverified theories. both to solve that inconvenient anomaly.
    WL theory is not the best, even if they raise good point. Kim-zubarev, takahashi are maybe more interesting.

    in facts as Charles beaudette says in Excess Heat book, there is only 4 articles which address the experimental results of cold fusion calorimetry (others focus on theory, radiations…).
    all 4 articles could not sustain serious rebuttal.

    with all the mass of replication don today, doubt on excess heat is not rational.


  3. Amos Chinoz says:

    Thank you for your comment. What, if I may ask, are these four articles?


  4. in excess heat, page 35 (labelled 5 chapter 1)

    “Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

    The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in
    1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

    The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power
    remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.”

    note that after tha 2nd edition, maybe the theory of CCS by Josuah Cudes was an addition, but it cannot face the pile of various evidence, and only apply to tiny results in some isoperibolic calorimetry… assuming it can be real, since there have been no evidence of such phenomenon…

    better than average armchair critic.
    Josuah is controlling Wikipedia article as ScienceApologist and others pseudonyms… Abd Ul Rahman Lomax have well identified him. he was banned, yet he is a very strong skeptic on anything, but a little too much on Josuah beliefs.


  5. Amos Chinoz says:

    Interesting. Thanks for the input. Hopefully things have progressed well enough for calorimetry to not be an issue anymore.


  6. Pingback: The Science Of LENR: Part 3 | LENR revolution i...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s