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.”
