Jones Beene
Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:21:39 -0700
--- Michel Jullian wrote: > However it is probable that only a tiny part of the > absorbed D is consumed in the putative anomalous > reactions (in such experiments one retrieves roughly > the same amount of D2 at deloading than was put in > at loading doesn't one?), in which case nuclear type > energies of the order of MeVs per _reacting_ D are > more likely than Mills energies of the order of 100s > of eV per reacting D. Where are the gammas then? Two things worth mentioning, once again. Fortunately they do explain everything elegantly to those with a fully open mind. That does not make them correct and none of us would not be here if we did not already have open-minds. So the final answer may not be available yet. Michel's "more likely" standard would indeed seem to be bolstered by the fact that helium is produced, and moreover, it is produced roughly commensurate with the excess energy. End of story? Perhaps with the Chubb crutch, but possibly not. The reaction is essentially gamma-less, and you cannot sweep that glaring inconsistency under the table. IOW even if you explain away one miracle convincingly, but only by means of a second even more substantial miracle- you should expect skepticism, and you will get plenty of it. ERGO- at least it should be noted that there is an equally viable alternative explanation, with real evidence, which encompasses both Mills (err... Mills-lite) and LENR as a single modality. IOW it only depends on one-and-a-half linked miracles instead of two ;-) This view suggests that the cross-section for fusion and the resultant QM probability is enhanced greatly (perhaps up to 7 orders of magnitude) by redundant ground-states, and the corresponding shrinkage. This is called "Mills-lite" instead of Millsean, since the redundant shrunken ground-state can be (and probably is: temporary, and not permanent). This is also in keeping with Mills experiments, where lots of UV is seen there, but where water-bath calorimetry can find only a COP of less than 2 when the ion energy suggests it should be 40-100. This kind of shrinkage provides much or the excess energy over time, but in small doses of UV radiation - which elegantly answers the skeptics question of "why" there are no gammas --- (yet without having to result to Chubb's magic-phonon invention, for which there is zero evidence in the literature). In contrast there are at least 25 articles and hundreds of experiments in the literature of Balmer line broadening in situations which are similar to LENR, and a few of those experiments are arguably independent. That in contrast to *zero* actual real evidence for Chubb magic-phonons. The rest of the excess energy in LENR would be provided by the actual fusion itself but it is fusion of the (now lower entropy level) reactants. Since most of the expected enthalpy of fusion has already been released over time, and dissipated by sequential shrinkage and reinflation, then there is no gamma - from the final activity which ends the sequence. The actual final fusion, in QM terms (in this hypothesis) is as more the "result" of energy having been depleted (past a local threshold) as it is a "cause" of the original excess heat. I understand that this is an extreme minority viewpoint but keep bringing it up as sooner or later, it should possess enough explanatory logic to grab a foothold, even in the face of whatever professional jealousies may have been involved historically with Randell Mills (especially since he only got things half-right) Jones