[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]
Several years ago, NASA scientists identified one theory that appears to explain low-energy nuclear reactions. Since then, in their public communications, they have given credit to the inventor of the theory. Not anymore.
After filing a patent application in 2011 based on this theory, one of these scientists, in his public communications, stopped giving credit to the inventor.
On March 9, 2006, Allan Widom, a condensed matter physicist with Northeastern University, and Lewis Larsen, chief executive officer of Lattice Energy LLC, published a landmark theory that offers a promising explanation for low-energy nuclear reactions.
Two scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center, Dennis Bushnell and Joseph Zawodny, saw the promise of the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron theory of LENRs.
For several years, Bushnell and Zawodny spoke favorably and enthusiastically about the Widom-Larsen theory as well as LENR in general.
Thursday, Larsen told New Energy Times that he spoke with both NASA employees by phone to help them learn about LENR and his theory.
“I spent six months tutoring Zawodny so he had the basics of the theory,” Larsen said.
Larsen told New Energy Times that Bushnell and Zawodny also led him to believe that NASA might provide some funding for his company.
“In a series of telephone calls I had during the spring and summer of 2008 with Zawodny and Bushnell, they dangled a carrot - the possibly of significant funding from NASA,” Larsen said. “I told them that I was wiling to teach them the basic physics but I would not transfer Lattice’s proprietary knowledge about how to use nanotechnology to improve the reliability of LENRs without having a contract.
“I told them, ‘Under contract, I will show you how to make transmutations every time, but I will not show you how to reliably make large amounts of heat.’
“In January 2009, after an internal NASA meeting, Bushnell and Zawodny informed Lattice that they would not be funding us but they would welcome any free advice we wanted to offer NASA. We declined.”
On Aug. 12, 2009, Zawodny gave a slide presentation on LENRs called “An Energetics Revolution for ALL of NASA’s Missions and a Solution to Climate Change and the Economic Meltdown.”
Several of the slides are devoted to the Widom-Larsen theory. Slide No. 2 shows that Zawodny knew that only one theory in the field of LENRs did not attempt to make charged particles overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. Slide No. 3, as shown below, indicates that Zawodny also knew that the Widom-Larsen theory was the first theory of LENRs that did not require “new physics.”
I, too, have learned a lot from Larsen. Last year, as a result, Zawodny and I combined our efforts and contributed a chapter on the Widom-Larsen theory to the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.
On Feb. 22, 2011, Larsen was granted U.S. patent 7,893,414 for an invention based on his theory, which, at its core, describes a novel method for producing heavy electrons.
A month later, on March 24, Zawodny filed his non-provisional U.S. patent application 20110255645 for a “Method for Producing Heavy Electrons.”
Naturally, Zawodny had to cite the Larsen patent as well as the Widom-Larsen theory.
“The energy associated with ‘low energy nuclear reactions’ (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons,” the Zawodny application states. “Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of ‘surface plasmon polaritons’ (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride.”
On Sept. 22, 2011, Zawodny gave a slide presentation about LENR at NASA’s Glenn Research Center. His second slide asks, “Do we have a theory?” He mentions a theory by inventor Randall Mills and dismisses it. He mentions a theory by Purdue professor Yeong Kim and dismisses it, too. He then presents several slides that speak very encouragingly about the Widom-Larsen theory and why it “may be correct.”
The Zawodny patent application published on Oct. 20, 2011.
Four days later, on Oct. 24, 2011, Aviation Week published an article about LENR written by Zawodny.
“Theories to explain the phenomenon have emerged,” Zawodny wrote, “but the majority have relied on flawed or new physics.
Not only did he fail to mention the Widom-Larsen theory, but he wrote that “a proven theory for the physics of LENR is required before the engineering of power systems can continue.”
On Jan. 12, 2012, NASA released a short promotional video titled “Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR.” At the end of the video, the narrator restates the title as “NASA’s Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR in Metal Hydride Systems.”
Zawodny is prominently featured. He mentions nothing of the Widom-Larsen theory or Larsen’s concept of how surface plasmon polaritons are a primary key to initiate LENRs.
I sent Zawodny an e-mail on Thursday and asked for an explanation of the omission.
“The intended audience is not interested in that level of detail,” Zawodny wrote. “The text I am intending to send you, after approval, clarifies things, hopefully.”
Readers may learn more about the Widom-Larsen theory from their paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Pramana.
[Article updated Jan. 13 to include title restated by narrator at end of NASA video, and to include the quotes from Larsen about funding from NASA.]
[Update and Correction: After reading this article, Zawodny sent me an e-mail with only one correction: "You should be informed that a provisional patent [application] was filed almost exactly one year earlier. At the time the non-provisional was filed, Larsen’s gamma shielding patent had to be cited as a relevant related patent.”
For additional clarification, Larsen filed his international patent application on Sept. 8, 2006. That published on March 15, 2007.
Zawodny filed his a provisional U.S. patent application in March 2010. He filed his non-provisional patent application on March 24, 2011. We have corrected the article to reflect this fact. ]
Received via e-mail:
Why has W-L fallen off the map?
Perhaps because people have come to the conclusion that it can’t fit the facts. Use Occam’s razor!
Cheers, Brian J.
—–
2012 — the Year of Cold Fusion!
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
I thank the 1973 Nobel prize winner for his comment.
SBK
Some readers have brought to my attention that Josephson’s comment does not comply with our Posting Guideline #1: “We (and the rest of our readers) appreciate your insightful comments and questions. If, in our opinion, your comment does not make a significant contribution to the topic, we will reject it, and we will probably not notify you.”
In this case, I have made an exception and published the Nobel prize winner’s comment.
In my take Zawodny is a weasel.
Wisdon and Larsen require a collective effect to accelerate an electron to 800,000eV. Violante et al. has a theory that only requires the acceleration of a deuteron to 6000eV. I would say the latter theory is about 130 times more likely to be true.
Ed Pell
From long and bad experience with complex theories involving means of energy production, I am less interested in theories and more interested in experimental results.
Can anyone state the properly documented results of the best experiment which supports WL theory? Is it “self running” (without energy input)? If not, why not? How long will it run on how much “fuel”? What was the best run time at what power level?
Theories are great. Good, robust experiments are necessary to provide evidence for them.
The general public does not understand theories involving nuclear reactions. Making them bland and vague like the recent brief NASA clip with Dr. Zawodny did only confuses them more. What’s needed is some strong and compelling experiment, properly done, well documented, and independently confirmed. Then most of the much maligned skeptics will line up with the believers.
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your comments and excellent questions. I wish I could still do my own tune-ups on my pickup truck, but unfortunately, these things have gotten a bit complex too. It’s not my fault if I don’t have the skills and tools to do a tune-up anymore. Likewise, you shouldn’t feel bad if you can’t follow particle and nuclear physics – assuming you are not a particle or nuclear physicist.
However, for perspective, if you look at the WL 4-step process,
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen.shtml
I don’t think you’ll find anything that even remotely comes close to explaining LENR as simply as WL does.
Nevertheless, WLT presents a good incentive and exciting opportunity for all of us to learn more about nuclear physics, myself included.
You ask some good questions about experiment. On my WL Theory Portal page,
http://www.wltheory.com/ look for two sections:
Miley-Widom/Larsen Correspondance
Mizuno-Miley-Widom/Larsen Correspondance
Then, look through Larsen’s slide. In particular, Larsen’s Sept. 3, 2009 slides and June 25, 2009 slides discuss the Case experiment and the Iwamura experiments.
I am eager to assist with your next questions!
SBK
“Calorimetrically measured macroscopic excess heat effects remain extremely contentious: still very hard to reproduce — nobody can “boil tea” yet; many physicists still distrust calorimetry as chemists’ ‘black art’ measurements…”
Quote from: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2009June25LatticeEnergySlides.pdf
(Slide: Status of reported LENR experimental anomalies by type:) … and yes, I looked at the rest of the slide. Encouraging. But not quite enough to keep my fragile interest.
I don’t expect you will agree but this is my problem in this whole adventure. I don’t want to break my head on the theory unless and until macroscopic thermal effects are robust, clear cut, and properly measured. That, by the way, is what Rossi claimed but never showed, as you correctly pointed out.
Proper calorimetry is not a black art if it’s performed with the aid of an envelope calorimeter such as Storms’ home made Seebeck Effect type or the commercial sort made by Thermonetics or another home made variety anyone can construct from assembling commercially available heat flow transducers. Calorimetry is readily validated with blank runs and with calibration using electrical heat in an inactive cell. Again, Rossi was totally unwilling to do such checks.
Storms on calorimeter construction and use: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm
Zhang on making an envelope calorimeter from heat flux transducers: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSconstructi.pdf
One can search for commercially available heat flow transducers or heat flux transducers with good results.
Hi Mary,
If you are trying to say that you are not very interested in the field because the heat consistently demonstrated thus far is only microscopic, then that’s fair.
Your comments about proper calorimetry however, seem a bit irrelevant. Proper calorimetry has been done countless times. But for some skeptics, it doesn’t and will never matter. Until heat is macroscopic, some skeptics will just not accept the claim of heat no matter how good the calorimetry is.
Isotopic and elemental anomalies OTOH, are another matter. I sat with Richard Garwin in his kitchen and went over some of these findings. He had very little to argue with. Have you read my Wiley and Elsevier Encyclopedia chapters?
Best regards,
SBK
Right. I will be interested much more when there is macroscopic heat. My main point was that calorimetry is not, as the paper stated, black magic and nobody should care if a few skeptics think it is. Micro-calorimetry requires immense care to avoid artifacts in the results. Macro-calorimetry is much easier but still requires blanks and calibrations usually done with Joule (electrical) heating. Done right, it’s quite reliable.
So to restate, I will be more interested when credible macro-calorimetry has been done. Something in the range of watts or tens of watts, sustained for weeks without fresh fuel, in an “envelope” /SEC type calorimeter would be compelling evidence. Even though there would still be some skeptical holdouts after such a demo, they would become the minority, IMO.
Sorry, did not read the book chapters but will do so when I can.
Hi Steve (and Mary),
I am not a physicist, but am very interested in alternate energy and have been reading this blog to better understand LENR and it’s place in the future.
In following many of the comments, and some of the objections, what I think is missing, as Mary indicates, is the ability to experimentally create a macro amount of heat over an extended period of time.
In your opinion, what is keeping us from creating an experiment to produce this macro heat so that the non-technical world (aka, the media) might sit up and take notice? Is there a piece of the puzzle missing? Or is it just a ‘small matter of funding’, that is holding this back?
Thanks for a very informative website.
Bob Eliot
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the great question. You have several questions. Let me break them down and answer them individually.
Q1: What is keeping us from creating an experiment to produce this macro heat?
A1. (already partially answered in a post yesterday) Consider the nature of LENR reactions as the technology presently exists. You would have to have a lot of control – location, density, timing and other parameters – of the active sites. We are talking about sophisticated nanotechnology fabrication and material control. I don’t know anybody who has such control yet. I don’t even think Larsen does because if he did, we’d be buying his products already.
Q2. What will it take the non-technical world (aka, the media) to sit up and take notice?
A2. You’ve already answered it, it is the core of your first question – macro heat.
Q3. Is there a piece of the puzzle missing?
A3. AFAIK, no, its just a matter of engineering now.
Q4. Or is it just a ‘small matter of funding’, that is holding this back?
But the thing that is holding it back most is that there is a stigma to the field. No, it’s worse. There is a stench to it. Initially, the blame for the stigma was on the myopia of mainstream science.
A4. Well, engineering isn’t free,
But in the last decade, the blame shifts to many of the long-term players in the field that have held a tight political grip on the field so they can promote their own ideologies, the work of their friends, and federal proposals for their colleagues. It took me a few years to see the that the portrayed attitude among the “upper echelons” of the field of “all for one and one for all” was simply veneer. And it almost seems that if they can’t get the cookies, they don’t anybody else to get them either. Don’t get me started… Uh-oh, too late.
SBK
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Fisher-ProgressIsStunted.jpg
Take a look at my 2008 ACS presentation. Particularly this slide:
why does there appear to be be no (/so little?) credible experimental data published, apart from Miley’s, way back in the 90′s?
or have i missed something?
it occurs to me replication and advancement of that work is well overdue.
rcain.
Hi Rob,
I have some thoughts about your question. But first, it would help me if you would please define “published”.
SBK
Hi Steve,
Firstly, thanks for a great blog/journal.
By ‘published’ I mean – peer reviewed (or open to peer review) and published in a ‘recognised’ professional/academic title; else published under pre-print such as arxiv.org, WITH endorsement of ‘recognised/credible’ academic institution.
Just as importantly though ANY ‘independent’ replication – of Miley’s work in particular, would be a good starting point.
There’s far too much noise and speculation, (outright fraud even?); far too little data.
I’m well aware of the history of this subject, but still, it begs the question.
jrc
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your kind comment, you are very welcome.
Now that you have given me your parameter, I can more effectively answer your question.
I would direct you to this page I have compiled. It mostly, if not fully, corresponds to your parameter:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml
As far as the Miley work, take a look at the Mizuno work as well as the Iwamura work. Also keep in mind:
1. What Harry Collins has to say about confirmatory power of scientific replication
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2007/NET20.shtml
2. My Criteria for Evaluating the Independence of Scientific Replications
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/ModelOfIndependence.shtml
Take care,
SBK
Hi Rob,
There is another part of your comment – about replication – that I would like to respond to. It is a question about replication.
Please read my article “Amber’s Answer To The Question Of Reproducibility”
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/NET18.shtml#amber
I think it should provide some additional insight.
Thanks,
SBK
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Why hasn’t the imminent feasibility and magnitude of the likely impact hit the Mainstream Media? In my view NASA should step forward into all Network News and Print Media. One major news release that reflects the findings and attitudes regarding “Widom-Larsen” would do the trick.
One would think that it would create a lot of investment across a wide spectrum of industries, create a bundle of new jobs in all of them, fully electrify all parts of the third world, (power to pump fresh water, and drain swamps), and free the world from much of the worry concerning Our carbon footprint upon the Earth. The sad ass doomsday crowd might have to cheer up!! All of this barring Capricious Nature giving us a knock out punch.
I can not imagine a more profound opportunity of solving so many worldwide and regional problems in such an all encompassing way.
How many players on the top of the food chain in the Federal Government stage are fully aware of the potential, no pun intended.
Don’t let U. S. down,
Paul D. Maher
San Francisco, CA
Thanks for your comments Paul.
I agree with you. When I realized in Sept. 2003, more or less what you state above, I contacted Bill Broad of the New York Times and encouraged him to get back in touch with the subject. He wasn’t interested. In a nutshell, that’s pretty much the story with most of mainstream media on this topic. There have been only a few exceptions.
So on March 1, 2004, I published the first New Energy Times newsletter.
I think you will see that private industry will lead this technology far in advance of the federal bureaucracy.
SBK
Steve,
So here’s one of my biggest concerns with W-L theory: One of the earliest of the W-L papers (from 2005) concerns gamma ray shielding by heavy electrons. That was almost 7 seven years ago.
Gamma shielding would seem to be an eminently testable prediction, conceptually at least. So why are there no published reports (that I can find) of anyone, anywhere, putting it to the test. It would seem well within the capability of any well-equipped university lab to prepare a thin slice of Ni or Pd, aim a collimated beam from a gamma ray source at one side and measure the absorption before, during, and after saturation with H2 and whatever else (laser illumination?) the W-L recipe calls for.
It can’t be an IP concern for Lattice Energy, since they obtained what seems to be a fairly comprehensive patent for gamma shielding early last year.
Am I misunderstanding the theory? Are there published papers I’ve overlooked? Is there any chance Larsen or Zawodny would be willing to offer a comment on this?
Thanks,
Mike Ellis
Hi Mike,
Excellent question.
Of course one answer is that there have been 23 years of LENR experiments with no appreciable gamma emitted from the cells. But I know your question is deeper than that.
Let’s begin with what we know about the reaction sites.
Take a look at Larsen’s slides #32-34 from his “Nickel-seed LENR Networks” presentation from April 20 2011.
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnickelseed-lenr-networksapril-20-2011
Note in particular page 34, there are photomicrographs of craters where reactions have taken place. They are tiny and have a non-uniform distribution.
Next, consider their size: a couple of nanometers to around 100 microns.
Next, take a look at the SPAWAR infrared video. You’ll see how the active sites come alive and die quite rapidly.
Now consider the beam and the target.
First, consider the nature of LENR reactions as the technology presently exists. You would have to have a lot of control – location, density, timing and other parameters – of the active sites. I don’t know anybody who has such control yet. I don’t even think Larsen does because if he did, we’d be buying his products already.
Second, you would have to be able to collimate your beam very tightly within the limitations of the best active LENR sites you can create.
Knowing all of this, and what you know of beam capabilities, what do think?
Best regards,
SBK
In reply to Ed Pell (tmsr, 13th January) I suggest looking at a page uploaded by Lewis Larsen at http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011. This shows that LENR was seen in the early 1950s and Einstein himself suggested collective action as a possible reason. There are a lot of famous names involved in this memoir of Sternglass, and it may also be useful for Professor Josephson to look at it. The phenomenon has been documented for a long time, possibly since 1905. Research does not need to be directed at proving it occurs, but instead towards making it reproducible in the way that when you switch on a light-bulb you get light. Once a method is found that gives this reproducibility, the theorists have a better chance of agreeing on a theory that fits, though for my money the W-L theory seems simple, understandable and also, it seems, endorsed by Einstein.
Received via e-mail:
Great article about LENR and NASA.
Your article raises some profound questions. NASA spends time trying to understand a technology, then patents it, using taxpayer funding. NASA has far more resources than any small inventor, so they can write many patents. And since the patent laws changed last year, anyone can file a patent based on “first to file” instead of the old “first to invent.” If this work by Widom and Larsen turns into something, and it might, NASA would be able to file a plethora of “picket fence” patents and own most of the technology and applications without having to pay any royalties. NASA could end up with the licensing fees for any users and reap the royalties. Plus, by using their big $ to win the PR wars, NASA could get the credit.
Your article is a profound warning to inventors in general. You would be doing a service to write a more specific article that highlights this specific danger.
I had a similar experience with that NASA group in 1999 to 2000. Luckily my work was not far enough along that they could learn enough to patent it, and the first to invent doctrine still held. But their consultants tried to get NASA funding to work on our technology. Luckily they got none. But neither did we.
My work relates to a different clean energy approach. We have found a way to improve on the TRISOPS colliding spheromak process that created low level fusion using a low energy process. We think we can overcome each of the limitations of TRISOPS to produce useable amounts of clean energy. I filed a provisional patent this month.
Again, thanks for your article.
Clint Seward
Electron Power Systems