This is a subpage of Widom-Larsen theory
New Energy Times has pages covering reactions to Widom-Larsen theory. As listings in his “In the News Media” section of the WLtheory master page:
November 10, 2005, Krivit introduced W-L theory. Larsen is described in this as “mysterious.”
March 10, 2006, Krivit published Widom-Larsen Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Theory, Part 3 (The 2005 story was about “Newcomers,” and had a Part 1 and Part 2, and only Part 2 was about W-L theory)
March 16, 2007 “Widom Larsen Theory Debate” mentions critical comments by Peter Hagelstein, “choice words” from Scott Chubb, covers the correspondence between a reported prediction by Widom and Larsen re data from George Miley (which is the most striking evidence for the theory I have seen, but I really want to look at how that prediction was made, since this is post-h0c, apparently), presents a critique by Akito Takahashi with little comment, the comment from Scott Chubb mentioned above, an Anonymous reaction from a Navy particle physicist, and a commentary from Robert Deck.
January 11, 2008 The Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion Theory has a detailed history of Krivit’s inquiry into W-L theory, with extensive discussions with critics. Krivit didn’t understand or recognize some of what was written to him. However, he was clearly trying to organize some coherent coverage.
“Non-reviewed peer responses” has three commentaries
September 11, 2006 from Dave Rees, “particle physicist” with SPAWAR.
March 14, 2007, by Robert Deck of Toledo University.
February 23, 2007 by Hideo Kizima (source of initial Kozima quote is unclear)
May 27, 2005 Lino Daddi conference paper on Hydrogen Miniatoms. Daddi’s mention of W-L theory is of unclear relationship to the topic of the paper.
(Following up on a dead link on the W-l theory page, I found this article from the Chicago Tribune from April 16, 2007, showing how Lattice Energy was representing itself then. Larsen “predicts that within five years there will be power sources based on LENR technology.”) That page was taken down, but I found it on the internet archive.
David Nagel, email to Krivit, May 4, 2005, saying that he’s sending it to “some theoretical physicists for a scrub,” and Nagel slides May 11, 2005 and Sept. 16, 2005. The first asks “challenges” about W-L theory (some of the same questions I have raised). The second asks the same questions. Nagel is treating the theory as possibly having some promise, in spite of still having questions about it. This was the same year as original publication.
Lino Daddi is quoted, with no context (the link is to Krivit, NET)
Brian Josephson, the same.
George Miley is also quoted, more extensively, from Krivit.
David Rees (cited above also)
SPAWAR LENR Research Group – 2007: “We find that Widom and Larsen have done a thorough mathematical treatment that describes one mechanism to create…low-energy neutrons.”
erratum that credits Widom and Larsen for the generation of “low energy neutrons.”
Szpak et al (2007) were looking at the reverse of neutron decay and, given their context, “Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles, and after pointing to the 0.8 MeV required for this with a proton and “25 times” more with a deuteron, inexplicably proposed this:
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2007 . – 2007: “New theory by Widom[-Larsen] shows promise; collective surface effects, not fusion.”.
NET report is linked. The actual report. The comment was an impression from 2007, common then.
Richard Garwin (Physicist, designer of the first hydrogen bomb) – 2007: “…I didn’t say it was wrong”
Comment presented out-of-context to mislead.
Dennis M. Bushnell, (Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center) – 2008: “Now, a Viable Theory” (page 37
see NASA subpage. All is not well between NASA and Larsen.
[About the Fleischmann-Pons affair] . . . Whatever else, this history may stand as one of the more acute examples of the toxic effect of hype on potential technology development. [. . . ]
and they then proceed to repeat some hype:
According to the Larsen-Widom analysis, the tabletop, LENR reactions involve what’s called the “weak nuclear force,” and require no new physics.22 Larsen anticipates that advances in nanotechnology will eventually permit the development of compact, battery-like LENR devices that could, for example, power a cell phone for five hundred hours.
Note 22 is the only relevant information on page 37, and it is only a citation of Krivit’s Widom-Larsen theory portal (but it was broken, it was to “.htm” which fails, it must now be “.shtml”. And this may explain many of the broken links on NET.)
This citation is simply an echo of Krivit’s hype.
Pat McDaniel (retired from Sandia N.L.): “Widom Larsen theory is considered by many [people] in the government bureaucracy to explain LENR.”
J. M. Zawodny (Senior Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center) – 2009: “All theories are based on the Strong Nuclear force and are variants of Cold Fusion except for one new theory. Widom-Larsen Theory is the first theory to not require ‘new physics’.”
DTRA-Sponsored Report – 2010, “Applications of Quantum Mechanics: Black Light Power and the Widom-Larsen Theory of LENR,” Toton, Edward and Ullrich, George
Randy Hekman (2012 Senatorial Candidate) – 2011: “This theory explains the data in ways that are totally consistent with accepted concepts of science.”
The link is to an NET page.
Marty K. Bradley and Christopher K. Droney – Boeing (May 2012) “The Widom-Larson theory appears to have the best current understanding.”
In 2007, Krivit solicited comments from LENR researchers on a mailing list.