Jones Beene
Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:13:18 -0700
--- Michel Jullian wrote: > Aren't gammas a "hotfusionomorphic" view of fusion? Rightly or wrongly, that is the only view of fusion which is accepted by physics, and it can accommodate all of LENR when properly (re)interpreted. If you do not need to invent a new model from the ground up, then why do it? Cold fusion can be verbalized most cogently as a QM version of hot fusion with an increased statistical probability and a decreased intensity (time-based) energy release. That would be as opposed to a brand new kind of fusion. Is that merely a semantics argument? You can be your own judge of that, but the distinction is important for some observers. IOW there is presently NO other internally consistent view of LENR except as based directly on prior hot fusion understanding, but which is modified to the *minimum possible extent* to account for the experimental findings and differences which are now proved in dozens of labs. A brand new "kind" of fusion is NOT required IMHO. > The energy may be released in some other way in the particular environment. Yes, by ultraviolet emission ;-) Once again - why invent a brand new controversial way to release energy via phonons - simply to justify a *real* QM reaction, which itself is NOT necessarily controversial (except in enhanced statistical probability) and except in the way you have invented to describe it ! > Mills' hydrinos may not be needed either, Not exactly- but that is why I called the reactant "Mills-lite" > after all all that's required is a _temporary_ lowering of the Coulomb barrier, as in Horace's deflation fusion hypothesis ... which is essentially the same thing, but many in the LENR camp have never given RM any credit for this at all. I don't think it is unfair to mention that Horace is on record in the past as being anti-Mills. All that I am doing is giving some attribution to Mills large and important body of work going back to 1990 - since he is, if not the first proponent of what can be called "extended ground-state redundancy" at least the most vocal proponent of it, and he has clothed it in a lot of convincing experiment (which he may have misinterpreted). >(kind of short lived hydrinos if I understand correctly) Mills considers the hydrino to be stable- but that may be the part he got wrong. Or partly wrong if most are unstable and immediately reinflate. Mills even claims to have captured them ; and has pictures on his site of this: LOL as if a picture were proof. Only problem is he sent out dozens of samples to MRI XPS and NMR specialists and not a single one will independently confirm his claim. When contacted indpendently - even Mills best "supporter" has hedged. Eric Kreig, no matter what you may think of him, has tried to verify Mills by actually tracking down the people involved. QUOTE: I got through to Alfred Miller of Lehigh university.... He has done XPS studies on samples Mills gave him. He's seen interesting things that are not easily explained - but is very clear that it is still inconclusive. He doesn't poo poo this stuff out of hand, but I gather that he is not convinced the laws of physics must be rewritten either.... I can't really conclude anything significant from his data. It doesn't support Mills - but it doesn't prove him a fraud either. IOW Mills best "independent" proof of a stable hydrino may not support that conclusion. It is inconclusive. Why should we not be free to modify Mills claims? But also- why should we not give Mills the credit he deserves, even if he did not get it 100% correct? Jones