Hi Robin,
As I pointed out to Larsen in private email, this reaction is silly. Why start with Li-6 when you can start with Li-7 which is far more abundant in nature anyway? I suspect that the answer which will write wrote back, if he does so (which I doubt)is that the cross-section for thermal neutrons with Li-7 is orders of magnitude less. In fact this isotope is used as a coolant in molten salt reactors (LiF) which indicates how few fast and thermal neutrons are absorbed. But only in the Li-7 isotope. However, the fallacy with that argument for LENR, if it is indeed what he would respond, is obvious. Subthermal neutrons are not thermal - and can be as different from thermal in cross-section as are fast neutrons from thermal, in various elements. There can be a "trend" based on kinetic energy, but it is not guaranteed and is often wildly variant. In fact there is no scientific rationale to expect a continuation of low cross-section at lower average temperure, with lithium in particular, due to its low atomic mass ... and AFAIK, Larsen cannot justify that argument based on any numbers which are published. I hope that this is not putting words in his mouth -- and yes I may have missed something which is published but not widely distributed. However, Larsen's glaring past failure to rationalize and differentiate subthermal from the well-known field of ultra-cold neutrons is documented on this forum, and makes me think the guy is not a serious and zealous scientist intent on finding "truth" - but in fact seems to be most intent on raising funding ... (perhaps from Dardik's funder:) ... which is understandbale to some degree, so long as integrity is not compromised with what could be a poorly concieved (but expedient) hypothesis/theory that has as many holes as a sieve ... ... but which is perhaps a slightly better moral predicament to be in than 'borderline dishonesty' ... that being what a few others seem to be hinting at privately. Of course, if he is proved correct in experiment, then some of that inuendo is jealousy. And there is a lot of sci-envy in any nascent field (especially one which could change the course of history) for sure. There is a lot at stake for the first one to get it right. Time will tell, but the experimental results coming from his group can best described as a joke. I hope he gets his big funding, and can then "stand and deliver" with convincing experiment - but so far this looks as much like a PR stunt as serious science. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Jones
