Rossi's energy catalyzer - Page 50

On October 14 2014 22:08 Zetter wrote:


While I do get the gist of the argument, that's just about half the output of a european wall socket.

On October 15 2014 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I also have some background in physics, and what is the widow-larsen theory supposed to be? I've never heard of it. Google refers me to the "widom-larsen theory" which I also never have heard of and is only mentioned on weird wikia's and even weirder websites. This is just gibberish proponents of this nonsense have come up with, sorry.

Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs predicts ultra low momentum neutrons created by collective weak interactions

The Widom-Larsen (W-L) theory explains low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) in terms of the production of neutral subatomic particles called “neutrons” at ordinary temperatures and pressures. Unlike conventional neutron-triggered fission and hot fusion reactions (that involve random collision of individual particles and require extremely high temperatures and pressures), the W-L theory proposes that collective processes involving many particles acting in concert to generate neutrons with negligible kinetic energies, i.e., they have ‘ultra low momentum’ (ULM) [1] (Transmutation, The Alchemist Dream Come True, SiS 36).

Such neutrons are created within collectively oscillating patches of protons or deuterons (found on surfaces of hydrogen-loaded metallic hydrides) that can react directly with heavy-mass electrons created by the huge local nanoscale electric fields that also occur on the hydrogen-coated metallic surfaces. In such nanoscale surface environments, neutrons are created collectively in a weak interaction process directly from electrons (e-) and the nuclei of hydrogen, i.e., protons (p+) and/or deuterium, deuterons (d+), as follows [2]:

e- + p+ -> neutron + neutrino (1)

e- + d+ -> 2 neutrons + neutrino (2)

This type of neutron production due to weak interactions in very high surface electric fields is well-described by the generally accepted electroweak theory [3] on which the W-L theory of LENRs is based.

An isolated ‘normal’ thermal neutron outside a nucleus travelling through a solid has a quantum mechanical wavelength of about 0.2 nanometre (1 nanometre is 10-9m) and a speed of about 2 200 metres per second, which is faster than a rifle bullet. Interestingly, the ‘size’ of a neutron confined inside an atomic nucleus is even smaller, at several femtometres (10-12 m).

By contrast, an ULM neutron formed on a metallic hydride surface in a LENR is more-or-less standing still. Being formed collectively, ULM neutrons have almost no kinetic energy at the instant of their creation, effectively zero. This gives them huge quantum mechanical wavelengths compared to ‘normal’ neutrons. ULM quantum mechanical wavelengths (conceptually, effective ‘size’) increase dramatically [2]. Note that ULM neutrons have much smaller energies (and correspondingly larger quantum mechanical wavelengths) than even the ‘ultracold’ neutrons [4] produced so far in certain experiments.

The ‘size’ of ULM neutrons is typically extremely large in comparison to thermal neutrons. It is directly determined by the spatial dimensions of the surface ‘patch’ of protons or deuterons in which they were created. In particular, their wave function must span the entire patch. Therefore, on the surfaces of condensed matter (e.g., a metallic hydride), the wave functions of ULM neutrons can easily reach 20 – 30 microns, i.e., 10 000 to 15 000 times that of thermal neutrons; and roughly the size of a large bacterium or a cell. Surfaces of hydrogen-loaded metallic hydrides are one of the few environments in the Universe where subatomic neutrons become almost microscopic.

On October 15 2014 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I also have some background in physics, and what is the widow-larsen theory supposed to be? I've never heard of it. Google refers me to the "widom-larsen theory" which I also never have heard of and is only mentioned on weird wikia's and even weirder websites. This is just gibberish proponents of this nonsense have come up with, sorry.

On October 12 2014 14:41 ElMeanYo wrote:
"Power output of potential cold fusion reactor baffles scientists"

However, Rossi’s experiment has been verified by six international scientists with expertise in energy who have said they are struggling to understand how the mini-reactor can produce “far more [energy] than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.”

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/38698-power-output-of-potential-c

A more skeptical report:

http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700

I'll give this to Rossi. He's a genius. Either hes managed the invention of the century or hes managed to fool a LOT of smart people.

On October 15 2014 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I also have some background in physics, and what is the widow-larsen theory supposed to be? I've never heard of it. Google refers me to the "widom-larsen theory" which I also never have heard of and is only mentioned on weird wikia's and even weirder websites. This is just gibberish proponents of this nonsense have come up with, sorry.

On October 15 2014 11:27 m4ini wrote:


I never heard of Llanfair­pwllgwyn­gyllgo­gery­chwyrn­drobwll­llanty­silio­gogo­goch before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it's made up bullcrap because i don't know how to google. In fact, i live relatively close to it, and another fact, the NASA (Langley research center) showed enough interest in that theory to actually put it to a test, instead of "googling and filing it under gibberish/nonsense". Granted, i didn't check for results of that, but did you?

I personally don't know enough about particle physics to actually bulletproof/dismantle the theory, nor did i claim it actually does explain the eCat. I specifically asked for Cascade (the particle physicist one page earlier) to elaborate. But i trust that NASA wouldn't waste time/money on crap that a blind person could pick apart, so something has to be at least convincing in that theory.

On October 15 2014 11:59 Cascade wrote:

I don't think particle physics is exactly the correct field for this though. :/ particle physics these days is very high energy mainly, or at least that is what I did. Physics of collision with kinetic energies several orders of magnitude larger than their rest mass (which is my expertise) is very different from what Rossi claims to happen in his ecat.

As I remember there was a paper from decades ago essentially proving that this general approach wouldn't work, and I think it was mentioned far back in the thread. It can't completely exclude that there is no way around of course, which is why there are still some small amount of serious research going into the field. I guess that would be this nasa group mentioned earlier? Don't know.

If I'm bored later I may check up on that wiki page and see if I get anything out of it. But all in all, I am not expert enough to say that this kind of reactions are or are not possible.

On October 15 2014 06:53 beg wrote:

Well, there is an actual paper about the Widom-Larsen theory: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026

BUT... that obviously doesn't mean it's a legit theory. There's already heavy criticism of the theory, claiming they did some major mistakes: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2013-13015-3

BUT... NASA still had serious interest in researching the theory.



Anyway, at least the theory isn't completely made up bullshit (unlike others...).

On October 15 2014 11:27 m4ini wrote:


I never heard of Llanfair­pwllgwyn­gyllgo­gery­chwyrn­drobwll­llanty­silio­gogo­goch before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it's made up bullcrap because i don't know how to google.

On October 15 2014 12:18 m4ini wrote:


Well. You should at least know more of the basics than most of us here, that's why i thought you'd be "the guy". Didn't mean to put you on the spot. I know that's actually not your field, the author of the theory is a theoretical condensed matter physicist.

Not to mention, it's not really about what rossi claims is happening, but figuring out what actually could happen, since it's universally accepted (by me as well) that he's a bullshitter. The widom-larsen theory is just something that could explain what is happening (apparently) in the eCat, regardless of what rossi is saying.

What bugs me though, is all these self-proclaimed experts here (and in other forums, not meaning you though), ruling everything out by default. That mistake is made alot, even by really, REALLY well accepted scientists. There's scientists out there, completely ruling quantum mechanics out. Quantum entanglement would be a very prominent candidate on that matter (spooky actions at a distance). Apart from rossi being an idiot, and the fact that we're most likely not talking about cold fusion - there still might be something. Explanations like "energy came from a socket in the wall", i mean.. well.

edit: interesting question though: assuming we're all very smart n stuff, and we happen to "invent" cold fusion by dripping milk into a radioactive toaster (whatever, just for the sake of argument, we "invented" cold fusion) - how would you guys actually use that knowledge? I was thinking about that for a couple of days now, and i came to the conclusion, that i wouldn't be as altruistic as the "inventor" of the mp3s, just putting that knowledge out there (at least i'm honest enough to admit ^^). But what else to do? You obviously want it to be confirmed, but you also don't want it to get stolen and abused by a. colleagues, or b. corporations etc. Would you go to the government? Would you try to monopolize the knowledge? How would you get it out there, assuring yourself a happy life ever after?

Even if it looks like i'm justifying rossis way of handling things, i don't intend to. He's a retard.

On October 16 2014 08:48 BlackJack wrote:
saw this today, not sure if it's relevant. Seems like just a more compact version of what we have already have whereas Rossi is saying his energy is coming from a different process altogether, right?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy/

On October 16 2014 11:15 ElMeanYo wrote:


What an amazing coincidence that this should come out now of all times. Here's another article on reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

Is the (e)cat out of the bag?