From: Eric Walker
To those who would write this area off as "hot fusion," I
would respond that this is a huge assumption that relies upon some
speculative hypotheses about the differences between LENR and hot fusion.
I'm inclined to think that they're not different at all, and that the
primary difference is that in LENR there's something thermalizing the energy
in a way that doesn't result in gammas, fast particles and typical fusion
products.
Eric,To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn’t. Plus, the larger problem: Boltzmann’s tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). There is no model in reality for perfectly delayed mini-release of large bursts of energy and in fact – the suggestion is every bit as much a violation of conservation of energy as suggesting a non-nuclear source. The hypothesized “delayed release” in question must be a perfect delay or we would see the occasional evidence. All known types of thermalization are extremely “leaky” meaning that high energy always gets out, and is easily detectable. This is why W-L settled on a type of beta decay as the underlying modality … because there are examples (like tritium) of beta decay in which the average release is in the correct range for non-detectability (on paper). Unfortunately for them, when beta electrons are seen in the range of a few keV there is always a long tail in the energy distribution (Boltzmann’s tail) and despite all efforts W-L cannot wish away Boltzmann. This energy tail can exceed one MeV even when the average is 6 keV. Most beta electrons penetrate only about 5 mm of air and do not pass through human skin, yet detectors can spot a milligram of tritium carefully hidden inside a cargo container. This is due to the long “tail” of beta decay. There is proof of absolutely no measurable gammas at all (Bianchini’s study of Rossi) with 10 kW of heat, and any workable LENR theory is failing if it cannot explain this. Bottom line is that neither beta decay nor passive thermalization can be the operative modality of the Rossi effect and we must look for an underlying mass<=>energy reaction in which there is both a low energy release, no radioactive ash and no tail (no neutrino) – thus - the candidate reaction itself is one in which mass is converted into energy in packets which no larger than about 1-2 keV ab initio with no neutrino and minimal tail in the distribution. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
