Krivit ICCF-25 Widom-Larsen LENR Theory Lecture Video

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

Edmund Storms, the most vociferous critic of the Widom-Larsen theory, did not participate in the conference in-person. If he did participate remotely, he elected not to speak during the available time in the question-and-answer portion.

For the record, Ed did not attend the conference in person or remotely,

Steven.. I noted that Peter Hagelstein,MIT may not been at Szczecin for your presentation about the WL model?

As you noted Hagelstein wrote in 2013..

" This model is the single most successful theoretical model that the field has seen since it started;"

but there was a lot more written.. 22 pages..

it has served as the theoretical justification for a program at NASA; ...

The first step in the model involves the proposed accumulation of mass by electrons through Coulomb interactions with electrons and ions in highly-excited coupled plasmon and optical phonon modes.

Historically for us this mass increase has been hard to understand, so we were motivated in this study to understand better how this comes about. To study it, we consider simple

classical models which show the effect, from which we see that the mass increase can be associated with the electron kinetic energy.The basic results of the simple classical model carry over to the quantum problem in the case of simple wave packet solutions. Since there are no quantum fluctuations of the longitudinal field in the Coulomb gauge, the resulting problem is conventional, and

we find no reason to expect MeV electron kinetic energy in a conventional consideration of electrons in metals.

We consider the numerical example outlined in a primer on the Widom–Larsen model,

and find that multiple GW/cm2 would be required to support

the level of vibrational excitation assumed in the surface layer;

this very large power per unit area falls short by orders of magnitude the power level needed to make up the expected energy loss of the mass-enhanced electrons.

We note that the mass enhancement of an electron in a transverse field is connected to acceleration, so that the electron radiates.A similar effect is expected in the longitudinal case, and

a very large amount of easily detected X-ray radiation would be expected if an MeV-level mass enhancement were present even in a modest number of electrons.

At the end of his detailed paper Hagelstein wrote..

Presumably Widom and Larsen will clarify things in their future publications.

I was wondering if Widom and Larsen did " clarify things" ,especially the matters highlighted in blue..

https://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf

P.L. Hagelstein / JCMNS12 (2013) 18–40

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

But you are not listed as a member of any of the ICCF-25 committees.

Fancy that. I don't think the International Advisory Committee (which decides conference venues) publishes it's membership list. My source is Ed Storms himself..

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

The Widom-Larsen theory answers yes to all of these questions. If your theory also does this, start with #5 and have the third-party contact me. I'd like to hear more.

Widom Laser is not a physical theory. Normally physics is given by conclusive math and some prose to explain it. When I once looked at Widom's paper I found serious simple math errors one also could call cheating.

Neutrons cannot induce CF reactions as neutrons interaction with matter is a fully radiative decay with tons of neutron related gammas/Xrays. I spent some weeks around neutron interactions related to the SOP model and did find that some special isotopes (like 75As , with highly symmetric SOP quantum structure) do express an excellent cross section energy correlation with the acting internal structure.

This tells that neutrons potentially can stimulate - in special cases - internal bonds that are important for LENR. But in the general case the interaction is quite random in respect to LENR stimulation.

Further Widom&Larsen never did grasp that H* as given by H*-H* analyzed and verified by Mills acts like a Di-neutron and sees no Coulomb barrier. Contrary to a neutron H*-H* has less mass and thus no decay radiation will be seen. H*-H* ads like a di-neutron in all Nickel reactions and as n-p in all Pd--> Ag reactions. Just be aware that in almost all nuclei there are only a few neutrons and the internal charge bond has a mass of 2.366keV and not the mass of an electron. So in general there are almost never added neutrons to mass as after adsorption most of its mass disappears.

The above is simplified as often intermediate states are crossed and we see corresponding gamma energy.

Dear Steven B. Krivit and gentlemen!

In my opinion, from this latest historical scientific “dead end”, incl. nuclear fusion (LENR) and gravity, it is necessary and possible to go through a philosophical-metaphysical path, turning the problem into a postulate, namely, postulating:

1. The primacy and absoluteness of the movement of our infinite eternal absolute non-local non-mechanical World,

2. The movement of our World occurs as a periodic spherical drain-source (convergence-divergence, material-energy birth-disappearance) during Planck’s time, which must be described mathematically,

3. The law of conservation of energy of motion is an absolute law of Nature.

4. The principle of relativity is an absolute principle.

On this path, the problems of nuclear fusion and gravity are easily solved.

Best regards, Aleksandr Nikitin.

[ Attach=25973][/attach]

Probably the WL explanation ( by plasmons) is unsignificant now if you include of the global thoughts:

The Dubinsko discrete breathers,

the plasmons enhanced model of Tanabe,

And experiment conclusions in thin film made by Chicea,

you should be able to go forward, i expect.

Quote from RobertBryant

Steven.. I noted that Peter Hagelstein,MIT may not been at Szczecin for your presentation about the WL model?

As you noted Hagelstein wrote in 2013..

" This model is the single most successful theoretical model that the field has seen since it started;"

but there was a lot more written.. 22 pages..

it has served as the theoretical justification for a program at NASA; ...

The first step in the model involves the proposed accumulation of mass by electrons through Coulomb interactions with electrons and ions in highly-excited coupled plasmon and optical phonon modes.

Historically for us this mass increase has been hard to understand, so we were motivated in this study to understand better how this comes about. To study it, we consider simple

classical models which show the effect, from which we see that the mass increase can be associated with the electron kinetic energy.The basic results of the simple classical model carry over to the quantum problem in the case of simple wave packet solutions. Since there are no quantum fluctuations of the longitudinal field in the Coulomb gauge, the resulting problem is conventional, and

we find no reason to expect MeV electron kinetic energy in a conventional consideration of electrons in metals.

We consider the numerical example outlined in a primer on the Widom–Larsen model,

and find that multiple GW/cm2 would be required to support

the level of vibrational excitation assumed in the surface layer;

this very large power per unit area falls short by orders of magnitude the power level needed to make up the expected energy loss of the mass-enhanced electrons.

We note that the mass enhancement of an electron in a transverse field is connected to acceleration, so that the electron radiates.A similar effect is expected in the longitudinal case, and

a very large amount of easily detected X-ray radiation would be expected if an MeV-level mass enhancement were present even in a modest number of electrons.

At the end of his detailed paper Hagelstein wrote..

Presumably Widom and Larsen will clarify things in their future publications.

I was wondering if Widom and Larsen did " clarify things" ,especially the matters highlighted in blue..

https://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf

P.L. Hagelstein / JCMNS12 (2013) 18–40

Display More

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

Please see Widom's response at

TM 5.13 ..Widom said he responded to the 2013 paper but Hagelstein was not satisfied with his response.

I guess the blue matters were not 'clarified'...

Again,

plasmons are working up to maybe 15eV range, Hagelstein phonon' s are playing in a similar range.

Now, for example the Japanese Tanabe postulate that EM field from plasmons can be enhanced up to 10exp7.

For example a large difference between width and length of nanoparticles induces that.

What does that mean ?

No kinetic energy of electrons isn't enhanced by factor 7 but if the electron current is braked strongly because a gap, a tip etc... that implies a great enhancement of the local magnetic field as can do a square form ( vs sine form).

Another example, a magnetron that converts the electron kinetic energy into EM energy.

Formers wake up

Quote from Cydonia

Probably the WL explanation ( by plasmons) is unsignificant now if you include of the global thoughts:

The Dubinsko discrete breathers,

the plasmons enhanced model of Tanabe,

And experiment conclusions in thin film made by Chicea,

you should be able to go forward, i expect.

Dear Steven B. Krivit and gentlemen!

Cold nuclear fusion (LENR) is a chain reaction of reverse beta decay according to the following scheme:

The movement of matter in the form of a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion (LENR) as a reaction of β+ or β- decay according to the scheme:

→ ῡ+p⁺→ e⁺+n → → n→p⁺+e^-+ῡ→ +p⁺,

when an antineutrino ῡ acts on a proton p+ with the formation of a positron e+ and a free neutron n, which partially decays and is absorbed with the formation of isotopes and subsequent emission of the antineutrino ῡ, happens everywhere: in the Sun, in the Earth and other planets during the fusion of stars and "black holes" and supernova explosions after neutrino cooling¹, (such as SN1987A), in plants and animals² under the influence of neutrinos and antineutrinos formed , in particular, during β⁺ and β^- - decay of radioactive isotopes ²³⁸U, ²³⁵U, ²³²Th, ⁴⁰K₁₉, ¹⁴C₆ (in the atmosphere),⁵⁶Ni₂₈, ⁶³Ni₂₈ (artificial radioactive isotopes), with the synthesis of new elements and heat release,

occurring during any movement of matter, always and everywhere.

Nuclear fusion and analysis is a form of absolute motion of matter.

AGEng1.pdf

Best regards, Aleksandr Nikitin.

The reaction 58,60,62Ni +H*H* runs directly under a pressure EM field as Brillouin did show in their isotope Analysis. Of course it runs much further than 64Ni..

Theories that contradict experiments have no value...

It's time people understand the nature of H*-H* or D*-D*.

Dear Wyttenbach!

I wrote about nickel ⁶³Ni_28.

And further. The great ones have already said: “Without theory there is no experiment!”

"The experiment does not confirm the theory, but can only refute it."

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

5. Has any independent expert said on record that they believe your theory is possibly correct?

That is a little unfair. There are dozens of theories. Only a few have attracted enough attention to be critiqued. That is not the authors' fault.

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

6. Can you provide a conceptual explanation of how LENR reactions occur, from start-to-finish, based on in your theory, without using any mathematical formulas?

Why would this be a valid criterion? Physics requires mathematics.

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

The Widom-Larsen theory answers yes to all of these questions.

Not according to most experts I have heard from.

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

7. Can a person with a basic understanding of physics or LENRs understand the essentials of your theory after a one-hour tutorial?

THIS is ridiculous!! Completely off the wall. I have a basic understanding of physics. I got an A in undergraduate level physics at Cornell in 1974. (I don't recall that but my diploma says I got As in all courses.) I have textbooks on physics and chemistry, which I refer to when I need to. I know a lot about LENR, having copy edited 319 papers, including many theory papers. Yet I do not have the slightest idea which theory might be correct. I cannot begin to understand most theories. (I do understand some of them.) To judge a theory you need years of experience, both in theory and experimental science. I do not have that, and neither does Steve Krivit. We are amateurs, with no basis to judge theory.

In one hour, you might get a fleeting grasp of a theory. You will probably learn a lot. But nowhere near enough to understand it in any depth. Let me compare this to a subject I do have professional knowledge of. Suppose I gave a one-hour lecture on Japanese verbs. Something along these lines:

You would probably learn a lot more about Japanese than you knew beforehand. You might remember parts of it weeks or months later. But there is no way you would have a working knowledge of Japanese grammar. Not even all the verb forms. For that you need a one-hour lecture every week for six months, and 12 hours a week of practice in a language lab. Plus a textbook, and a delightful little book by a Harvard professor to help English speakers understand some aspects of Japanese grammar that they will probably find difficult: "Making Sense of Japanese."

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08Q84BHBX/

Highly recommended!

With all this, plus years of experience translating papers and books, you will have the ability to understand Japanese grammar in the kind of depth it takes to judge a physics theory. That is to say, you will be able to read a translation and see why the translator selected one word and not another, and what parts he left behind, and what he added to give a sense of the author's intention. You will still not understand every aspect of Japanese grammar, because no one does. You may need to refer to Martin's "Reference Grammar," which is 1198 pages long. I can open it at just about any page, read it carefully, and understand what it means. Whereas if Steve Krivit listened to a one hour lecture on Japanese, he would not have the slightest idea what Martin means. Take, for example, the suffix "-tari" which is added to verbs. This is something I have been dealing with since I was 18. Martin devotes 8 pages to it in the main section, and 43 references in the appendix. So it is an important subject. The main section (p. 566) begins:

"9.4 The representative: -tari

A sentence of virtually any type can be turned into a form we will call the REPRESENTATIVE; it has also been called the ALTERNATIVE. The form refers either to representative (typical) happenings and conditions or to intermittent (repeated, alternating, distributed) happenings and conditions. The representative adverbalization is most often followed by the dummy verb suru to make a new sentence: Haittari [detari] suru 'They keep coming in [and going out]' . . ."

[The difference between the representative and alternative -tari often trips up English speakers.]

Later, we learn:

"Matters grow more complicated when you realize that, in general, each element of the expression (i.e.., each -tari form and each dummy suru) may independently select NEGATIVE, PASSIVE, CAUSATIVE, DESIRATIVE, EXCESSIVE, FACILITATIVE and any of the permitted combinations of these . . ."

[Yup.]

This is probably graduate level Japanese grammar. "-tari" has only a paragraph or two in an undergraduate textbook. Imagine you have a typical nightmare years after you leave college. You sit down for an examination you have not prepared for, in a class you forgot to attend. You are confronted by that text and asked to write a paragraph explaining what Martin means, with some example sentences that you come up with. I could do that! Any time in the last 50 years I could have done that. Steve Krivit could not, even after a one-hour lecture on that very subject, "-tari." He would have only a vague notion of what it means.

By the same token, neither of us could answer post-graduate level questions on an exam dealing with any theoretical aspect of nuclear physics or cold fusion theory. If you cannot do that, you cannot judge cold fusion theory.

I do not want to beat this subject to death, but let me point out that a person with an undergraduate level knowledge of physics can contribute to cold fusion. Just as a person with one year of linguistics and some knowledge of Japanese can make useful comments or critique the world-class New York Times linguist McWhorter (who is something of a jerk and a know-it-all) as shown here:

https://www.amazon.com/review/…m?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00IJXM6R0

You don't have to be a world-class expert. I have written some papers about cold fusion that did include some physics. Such as:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

Here is the thing: any person who got a passing grade in undergraduate physics after 1900 could have written this. It is straight out of the textbooks. It has no nuclear physics and nothing remotely as complicated as cold fusion theory or the electrochemistry textbooks by Bockris. My knowledge of nuclear physics ends with the discovery of isotopes, electron volts, and deuterium (1931). In the words of Dirty Harry, inspector Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations." When the topic is over your head, you can ask questions, but do not make assertions. Do not take sides. You will rile up the experts and make yourself look silly.

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

Dear LENR Forum readers, this is a copy of a message I just posted on the CMNS email list.

==================

Dear Members of the CMNS List:

When I attended my first ICCF (#10) I asked every theorist in the field whether they thought their theory was correct. Without exception, they said yes. Then I asked them whether they thought anyone else's theory was correct. Without exception, they said no. This showed me the contrast between experimentalists, who aim to verify the work of their peers, and theorists, who generally seek to disconfirm the work of their peers.

Display More

Thank-you for your presentation.

There would be a simple summary that does not include WLT. First, some collective mechanism condenses low energy inputs to produce MeV level energies that can produce a nuclear effect. Second, that the primary expected output of LENR is due to neutron capture by nearby nuclei and any Beta or alpha decay of the product of neutron absorption (at least in the case of electrolysis with metal hydrides).

You provide an expected but false claim if one accepts WLT. That is that LENR is a surface not a bulk effect. One would have to claim there is no bulk effect that produces what anyone could reasonably call cold fusion, aka LENR for this to be true.

Santilli's intermediate fusion patent data indicates this is not the case. Santilli's patent application shows a means to make an electrical arc between carbon electrodes in an atmosphere mostly of deuterium. I have used simple assumptions to do a mass balance between before and after application of the electrical arc. Further, the mass balance shows how the chemical and nuclear reactions can be balanced separately. Then focusing only on the nuclear transformations, one can do stoichiometry to provide a balanced reaction equation for the nuclear reactions with a nucleon accountability of 99.9%.

For a recent summary of the analysis and modeling of theory see The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction. - Page 59 - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) post 1162

One can see that the first summary point that many low energy inputs lead to a high energy output sufficient for a nuclear effect is correct. Also, it appears that "neutronization" occurs. Like in WLT, the neutrons are consumed locally and the collective which causes the reactions absorbs or converts the gammas. There are two reactions sequences: One where hydrogens or deuterium fuse to oxygen and one where hydrogen or deuterium fuse to make oxygen as a product. The substitution of hydrogen for deuterium is from the mass balance and linked stoichiometry's on NASA chemical analysis of AquaFuel. Aquafuel gas is produced by an electric arc in water where at least one electrode is carbon. The balanced equations show hydrogen and oxygen or deuterium and oxygen disappear and that nitrogen with some hydrogen appears or just nitrogen appears. Clearly not just "neutronization" with absorption to the metal lattice followed by expected products of neutron absorption. However, these collective "clusters" do form with electrolysis in metal hydrides and cause the metal of the lattice to fuse per Miley and Hora and therefore the transmutation pattern that they report.

As I stated in the referenced post: I think there exists very little wiggle room for a better explanation what we call LENR reactions in this forum than charge cluster catalyzed fusion.

Quote from Drgenek

Also, it appears that "neutronization" occurs.

Larger "Z" nuclei afford more internal binding charge to connect the various waves formed out by flux (fusion mass) reduction. Unluckily such charge, in the classic periodic table, is called neutron what is physically (provably) wrong. E.g. an alpha particle = 4He contains no neutron structure. It factually is made up of 4 protons only bound by 5 nuclear charges. These charges one should not mix up with the potential wave generated externally visible charges.

4He emits a neutron if you add > 21 MeV energy. (with adding 20MeV you first get a proton!) To produce a neutron from 2 protons in Deuterium you only need about 2.3MeV from one proton its not possible to produce a neutron due to lacking symmetry but 1.292 MeV is the neutron/proton excess energy including one electron.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

I wrote about nickel 63Ni28.

63Ni usually is not produced in CF reactions as 61Ni +H*-H* usually leads to 63Cu! Using D* we can see the intermediate 63Zn gamma radiation.