The transition from Cold Fusion to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) – Out of thefrying pan into the fireP. ThiebergerHere is my take about Widom and Larsen’s Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)interpretation of what used to be called Cold Fusion. The so called LENR theory
1) 2)
avoids the Coulomb barrier impediment to fusion of two mutually repelling positivenuclei by assuming that one of them (the proton) is first converted into a neutron bycombining with an electron through the weak interaction. Then the neutron iscaptured without a problem because being neutral it isn’t repelled.At first this sounds very ingenious, but there are serious problems. In fact, as I willexplain below, the proponents of this theory are jumping out of the frying pan intothe fire. The first reaction they propose is one form of what is called inverse betadecay. It is called that because for normal beta decay, a neutron decays (or splits)into a proton and electron and a neutrino. The shorthand for beta decay isn
p + e- + anti-neutrino + 782 keV This happens spontaneously for free neutrons which are not stable and only stickaround for an average of 14 minutes, 42 seconds before they split up in this way. The energetic electrons that come out are called beta-rays because that is whatErnest Rutherford called them back in 1898 before he knew what they were. Hencethe name “beta decay”. The 782 keV is the kinetic energy associated with themotions of these particles which come out at high velocities. Where does thisenergy come from? It comes from the mass difference between the neutron and theproton (remember Einstein’s E=m c
2
?). The neutron happens to have a little largermass than the masses of the proton and the electron combined (the neutrino haszero or negligible mass). But the LENR folks need the inverse reaction (inverse betadecay) to make the neutrons:p + e- + 782 keV + “some energy”
n + neutrino + “some energy” They need not only to provide the 782 keV but at least a little more. Above we callthat addition “some energy”. It is necessary because if we didn’t provide it, theoutgoing particles would have no velocity at all, and the probability for thatoccurring is zero. Now we are ready to discuss the various problems with the LENRscheme:1)Where is the >782 keV electron energy coming from? The first explanation,given in reference 1), was that so called “heavy electrons” having a larger masssolve the problem because now the mass-energy balance in the equation abovedoesn’t require any energy input. But “heavy electrons” is just an expressionused figuratively to describe in a simplified way some effects in solids such asanomalous heat capacity observed in some materials at low temperatures. There
isn’t such an object as a real heavy electron that can participate in a nuclearreaction. This is a surprising misunderstanding of the simple concept of “effective mass” used in solid state physics.A more sophisticated explanation came later
3)
; namely that somehow acollective or coherent electron motion called surface plasmon polariton found insome hydride or deuteride surface layers provides such high energies to some of its electrons. That doesn’t make much sense either since the average energy of electrons at room temperature is at most a couple of eV, which is 300,000 timesless than is required. In addition, coherent motion means that these electronsmove more in lockstep than normally, not the other way around, so outliers areless likely; not more likely. The situation is reminiscent of the early searches forhot fusion in electrical discharges. One experimenter back then
4)
alsoexaggerated wildly the particle velocities expected in the tails of the distribution. That way he explained the “neutron signals” he was seeing on the screen of hisoscilloscope. It turned out that the pulses were electrical noise induced by thedischarges.2)Suppose that in spite of what we said above, somehow a ~1 MeV electron wereproduced. What would be the probability of that electron to interact with aproton to produce a neutron? The answer is very extremely small. We are talkingabout the weak interaction here. And it is really very, very weak. That is whyhuge detectors weighing up to 50,000 tons are required to detect a fewneutrinos per day when looking at the large neutrino flux from the sun. It is alsothe reason neutrinos traverse the earth without any appreciable attenuation.Inverse e + p beta decay played an important role in nucleosynthesis during thefirst second after the big bang. At present it occurs under the extreme conditionsfound in super nova explosions. Here on earth, it is extremely unlikely that thisreaction can be observed at all, even in the most sensitive experiments, letalone become the backbone of a new energy source.3)And finally, there is the problem of the gamma rays, or rather of their absence. The second step in the LENR, following the inverse beta decay, is supposed to bethe capture of the slow neutron by a nearby nucleus. Neutron capture iscommon place in reactors and in many experiments. It happens all the time andwe know how it works. After absorbing a neutron the new nucleus has a lot of excess energy. It gets rid of this energy by emitting one or several high energygamma rays. These so called neutron capture gamma rays are sometimes usedas an analytical tool to find what isotopes are present in an unknown samplesince their characteristic spectrum varies from isotope to isotope. But no such
gamma rays have ever been observed near LENR setups. Widom and Larsen’s“explanation”
2)
is that the same miraculous surface plasmon polartitons thatallegedly gave us energetic electrons before, come to the rescue again formingan impenetrable shield. A micro meter thick sheath of correlated electrons issupposed to do a much better shielding job than a foot of lead! Somehow a multiMeV gamma ray is collectively absorbed by the correlated electrons and theenergy is then reemitted by the individual electrons in much smaller chunks. Thecollective absorption 100% of the time, as well as the cessation of collectivebehavior at the precise instant when it is convenient are both totally beyond anyreasonable credibility. This new theory which seemed ingenious at first in removing the Coulomb barrierproblem introduces other problems which are much worse. But we don’t need toargue about the merits of this new approach. Any new theory is verified or falsifiedby predicting new results. If the new results are actually observed then we in facthave a valid theory. If not, it is back to the drawing board.One prediction of the Larsen and Widom theory, the super absorption of gammarays, is easily tested independently of any cold fusion or LENR experiments. Just tryto absorb some gamma rays from a radioactive source and show that using theright hydride layer it takes orders of magnitude less mass than with anyconventional absorber. That would be truly wonderful. Heavy gamma ray shieldswould no longer be required. Nuclear power plants could store many more used fuelrods in their pools because shielding by the water would no longer be needed.Industrial and medical radiography would be simplified and made safer. No heavylead aprons would be needed for dental x-rays. Just thin and light blankets made of the right material would suffice for all these applications! If this works, Larsen andWidom will receive their very well deserved Nobel Prize in physics. In that case, Ipledge that I will travel to Stockholm and during the prize award ceremony, in frontof the King of Sweden and the assembled members of his Royal Academy of Sciences, I will eat my hat.References1) A. Widom and L. Larsen, Eur. Phys, J. C (2006) DOI 10.1140/epjc/s2006-02479-82)Lewis G. Larsen and Allan Widom, United States Patent No. US 7,893,414 B2,Feb. 22, 2011 and arXiv:cond-mat/0509269v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 10 Sep2005, (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0509269)3)http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2009June25LatticeEnergySlides.pdf orhttp://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009, slide # 16
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Cold Fusion and LENR
The Widom and Larsen theory of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is criticized.
1.1K
Reads
0
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
Notes
Load more
