Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of the latter comments.
Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: "If I thought of it, so it must be right." We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. The DDL works by Maly & Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my own view. Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the reaction mechanism. You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out "spin coupling" as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as well throw out "ice cream sandwich"]. Are you positing that, as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of miracle). You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment. Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR? I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before. I can tell you it is possible to make a good seal against He, and He would not pass through in any measurable way through even a millimeter of Pyrex over a fairly long duration. These Heat/He experiments were expected to be controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make sure the data was many sigma above the background and control. Experiments of similar analytic control simply have not been done (or not reported) for Ni-H. So, we don't know where Ni-H is in terms of energy/event. You seem to be able to dismiss experiments too easily that don't fit with your view. This business of the gamma in Rossi's experiments coming from an added radioactive ingredient is another absolute absurdity. Focardi, a well reputed nuclear scientist, ascribed the measured gamma to the Ni-H reaction in his paper. He would not have associated the gamma seen with the reaction if he suspected a radioactive source was an ingredient - he would have looked like a fool. This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment - at minimum, Ed Storms has also reported this. Nuclear effects are unquestionably being seen. What is not clear is the balance between possible DDL transitions and nuclear effects. Bob Higgins
