May 21, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –

Summary Excerpts from Lewis Larsen’s Text:

– Outlines a hypothetical Widom-Larsen Theory LENR neutron-catalyzed transmutation network that produces stable gold and platinum end-products from tungsten ‘seed’ scrap metal

– Presents published third-party data which strongly suggests that W–> Au precious metals production by WLT LENR transmutations has been observed in laboratory experiments dating back to the 1920s and is also operating on earth in nature.

-Hydrothermal vent systems appear to be one example of a natural environment in which LENR W –> Au networks have likely operated in the distant past as well as in the present era

– Based on published data, it appears that natural W –> Au LENR transmutations may occur in Nature both abiotically and/or perhaps even biologically with certain species of bacteria

– Speculative analysis of the potential economics of future W –> Au ‘transmutation factories’ for production of precious metals such as gold and platinum suggests that, if present relative price relationship of tungsten vs. gold and platinum were to continue into the future, ‘conversion’ of tungsten into precious metals has the potential to become a highly profitable business activity. If such processes can be scaled-up volume-wise and production costs reduced further by riding the “experience curve,” LENRs might compete with conventional mining within 10 – 15 years.

P.S. If you like rock and roll, be sure to see the last slide.

Stephen K. Ritter, a senior correspondent with Chemical & Engineering News, published an article on low-energy nuclear reactions today. He summarized some of the non-scientific events that took place during 2011. However, Ritter omitted to mention the fact that a LENR colloquium took place at CERN in March, an unprecedented event in the field.

Ritter also discussed LENR excess heat research, but little progress has been made in this LENR discipline for nearly a decade. Much more progress has been made in particle detection, transmutations and theory. Readers wishing to learn more about the state of the field may want to read the interview I provided for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity or go back to my 2010 Issue #35.

Following my post "LENR Science Versus Technology" on Tuesday, New Energy Times reader Ron Marshall asked an important follow-up question.

"I am puzzled about why you didn’t mention the Widom-Larsen theory," Marshall wrote. "If the theory is correct, then there is a clear path to technology."

I did not mention WLT because I was asked questions about the field in general, so my answers were about the field in general.

I have been writing favorably about WLT for half a decade now, and Larsen, in particular, seems to have a very clear understanding of how LENR works.

In 2007, as well as in 2012, I made extensive efforts to survey LENR theories. Larsen is the only one I found who can clearly and coherently explain what appears to be going on. WLT is also the only LENR theory that has favorable independent reviews.

LENR heavyweight Michael McKubre, an electrochemist at SRI International, said last year that his friend and colleague Peter Hagelstein, an MIT associate professor of electrical engineering, had the best LENR theory. From what I can tell, Hagelstein has hundreds of ideas but no theory. Despite his efforts, he has yet to come up with a simple explanation of the mechanics to explain LENR from start to finish.

On the other hand, if you look at the volume and depth of what Larsen has written and published through his Slideshare site, his grasp of LENR is obvious. He is probably the most likely person to be able to bring the science into a technology.

However, most of the the people in the field have done everything they can to impede the progress that Larsen has offered not only for his personal benefit but also for the field. Larsen’s idea was as disruptive as they come: "Cold fusion" is certainly nuclear, but it has almost nothing to do with fusion. At first, other people in the field tried to ignore his idea. Then they mocked it. Then they tried to discredit it. Then they tried to copy it.

John Fisher, an independent theorist who has proposed a non-fusion, neutron-based LENR explanation, wrote something profound four years ago. Although I do not have nearly as much confidence in Fisher’s theory as I do in WLT, I do think he had the integrity and wisdom to pinpoint the problem.

In 2008, Fisher wrote to New Energy Times.

“In my opinion, [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief that deuterium fusion of some sort is responsible for energy generation, and by rejection of alternative [proposed] mechanisms,” Fisher wrote. “Progress is stunted when we reject a mechanism, because we then fail to undertake the experiments it suggests.”