"...what is happening inside ...the ovaries of a chicken."
http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm
??
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad
concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to
try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory.
One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an
electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an
exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi
reactor or the ovaries of a chicken.
The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons;
but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons:
1) There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the
theory was valid
2) The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and
bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons
Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may
apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are
easy to detect when present.
From: James Bowery
The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for
a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of
competing theories.
However, I see no such strong inference in evidence.
Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what
sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results
predicted by W-L?
Jones Beene wrote:
It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a
completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to
take Ni-H to the required level of true "on demand" repeatability - over
many months. To wit, something like this:
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri
cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/
Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons
(or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ...
They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm
will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but
the "space between the excitons" as shown in this image is already there
(for Casimir pits).
This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be
going into Ni-H now.
We need to expend - not simply millions for R&D for this technology - but
billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be
'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in
the coffers of OPEC.
Jones
