date:20130505

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an invention
 created to match an experimental outcome (which it does) but with no
 precedent in physical reality.

I think such models are called phenomenological models -- my impression
is that the idea is to try to accurately capture the behavior you're seeing
at the macro-level and then go from there.  This seems like a solid
approach, provided you don't jump to conclusions about what is going on
under the hood. My possible issues with Hagelstein's models are not that
they're phenomenological, it's that they don't seem to be very
good, phenomenologically speaking.  He wants to use a harmonic oscillator,
and what I see in the experimental data is chaotic behavior, with large
transients here and there and then longer quiescent periods.  Has anyone
followed Hagelstein's recent papers who can describe the behavior one would
expect to see from his models?  Perhaps they are chaotic now.

In one of his abstracts he offers a motivation for his general approach,
which is to try to subdivide a large (24 MeV) quantum into
tiny pieces using a coherent energy exchange: excess heat is thought to
have a nuclear origin due to the amount of energy produced, yet there are
no commensurate energetic particles.  Ed has also said that the fast
particles are not commensurate with what one would expect for excess heat.
 I would like to know more about the basis for this conclusion.  There are
obviously few neutrons.  But when you look at the CR-39 experiments, there
are fast protons and alphas.  And occasionally there is a hamburger
exposure, where the chip is filled with pits.  Abd wants to set aside those
instances as unreliable data points, but I think he's setting aside
evidence in doing so.

Obviously when you have a system contained within a glass or metal housing,
whether the system is electrolytic or gas phase, the fast particles are not
going to escape.  So the evidence one way or the other on whether there are
fast particles commensurate with excess heat seems to hinge upon two
points, as far as I can tell -- (1) the equivocal CR-39 experiments, and
(2) insufficient brehmstrahlung and hot-fusion neutrons that one might
expect as side channels.  Can someone elaborate on anything I've missed
here or gotten mixed up?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love



On May 5, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net  
wrote:
Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an  
invention created to match an experimental outcome (which it does)  
but with no precedent in physical reality.


I think such models are called phenomenological models -- my  
impression is that the idea is to try to accurately capture the  
behavior you're seeing at the macro-level and then go from there.   
This seems like a solid approach, provided you don't jump to  
conclusions about what is going on under the hood. My possible  
issues with Hagelstein's models are not that they're  
phenomenological, it's that they don't seem to be very good,  
phenomenologically speaking.  He wants to use a harmonic oscillator,  
and what I see in the experimental data is chaotic behavior, with  
large transients here and there and then longer quiescent periods.   
Has anyone followed Hagelstein's recent papers who can describe the  
behavior one would expect to see from his models?  Perhaps they are  
chaotic now.


Peter has two conflicts with reality. He propose the process occurs in  
metal atom vacancies, which are not present in significant  
concentration in PdD and he has to convert the phonons to photons to  
be consistent with observations. This conversion process is hard to  
justify. The model makes no useful predictions as far as I can tell  
and is very hard to understand and justify.  However, the model is an  
amazing mathematical creation.


In one of his abstracts he offers a motivation for his general  
approach, which is to try to subdivide a large (24 MeV) quantum into  
tiny pieces using a coherent energy exchange: excess heat is  
thought to have a nuclear origin due to the amount of energy  
produced, yet there are no commensurate energetic particles.  Ed  
has also said that the fast particles are not commensurate with what  
one would expect for excess heat.  I would like to know more about  
the basis for this conclusion.  There are obviously few neutrons.   
But when you look at the CR-39 experiments, there are fast protons  
and alphas.  And occasionally there is a hamburger exposure, where  
the chip is filled with pits.  Abd wants to set aside those  
instances as unreliable data points, but I think he's setting aside  
evidence in doing so.


The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without  
assuming CF is the cause.  Trying to fit all observations to CF,  
especially those seen at very low rate, I believe is a mistake.  My  
model can explain these observations much easier.


Obviously when you have a system contained within a glass or metal  
housing, whether the system is electrolytic or gas phase, the fast  
particles are not going to escape.  So the evidence one way or the  
other on whether there are fast particles commensurate with excess  
heat seems to hinge upon two points, as far as I can tell -- (1) the  
equivocal CR-39 experiments, and (2) insufficient brehmstrahlung and  
hot-fusion neutrons that one might expect as side channels.  Can  
someone elaborate on anything I've missed here or gotten mixed up?


Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.  
Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid  
detecton. You should read his papers.  Here is a list.



1.Hagelstein, P.L., Rates for neutron and tritium  
production in coherent D-D fusion. 1989.


2.Hagelstein, P.L., A simple model for coherent D-D fusion  
in the presence of a lattice. 1989.


3.Hagelstein, P.L., Phonon interactions in coherent  
fusion. 1989.


4.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent fusion theory. in Winter  
Meeting of The Am. Soc. of Mechan. Eng. 1989. San Francisco, CA,. p.


5.Hagelstein, P.L., A smple model for coherent D-D fusion  
in the presence of a lattice. 1989.


6.Hagelstein, P.L., Rates for neutron and tritium  
production in coherent D-D fusion. 1989.


7.Hagelstein, P.L., Phonon interactions in coherent  
fusion. 1989.


8.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent fusion mechanisms. in  
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference  
Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American  
Institute of Physics, New York. p. 734.


9.Hagelstein, P.L. Status of coherent fusion theory. in  
The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah  
Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute.  
p. 99.


10.Hagelstein, P.L., Coherent fusion theory. J. Fusion  
Energy, 1990. 9: p. 451.


11.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent and semi-coherent neutron  
transfer reactions. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The  
Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di  
Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 205.


12.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent and semi-coherent

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
 assuming CF is the cause.


I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
understand the part about neutrons.  It is the very small number alpha
particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


 Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected. Peter
 made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.


I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?


 You should read his papers.  Here is a list.


That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein

An Interview With Peter
Hagelsteinhttp://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein



MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
individual quanta.

Axil says:

Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

The Jaynes Cummings model.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
absorption).




MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows:




What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

Axil says:

This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions.

In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do
to the unique properties of the polariton.



This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes
Cummings Hubbard model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model

and the spaser

*arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086*





This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat
transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to
2600Cthat cools the NAE.



Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural
when experimental data cannot be found. However, this
aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been
experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the
field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look
into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on
inside it.

All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn.






On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
 assuming CF is the cause.


 I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
 understand the part about neutrons.  It is the very small number alpha
 particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
 sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


 Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
 Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.


 I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
 broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
 going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
 you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
 the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?


 You should read his papers.  Here is a list.


 That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

Thank you, Spock.

Eric


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein

 An Interview With Peter 
 Hagelsteinhttp://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein



 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

 So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
 that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
 physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
 basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
 oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
 just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
 the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
 really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
 People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
 how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
 to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
 individual quanta.

 Axil says:

 Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

 The Jaynes Cummings model.



 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

 Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
 us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
 describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
 of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
 a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
 absorption).




 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows:




 What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
 hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
 makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
 weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
 fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
 physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
 loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
 exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
 weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
 exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
 chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

 Axil says:

 This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
 radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions.

 In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do
 to the unique properties of the polariton.



 This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes
 Cummings Hubbard model

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model

 and the spaser

 *arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086*





 This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat
 transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to
 2600Cthat cools the NAE.



 Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural
 when experimental data cannot be found. However, this
 aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been
 experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the
 field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look
 into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on
 inside it.

 All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn.






 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
 assuming CF is the cause.


 I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
 understand the part about neutrons.  It is the very small number alpha
 particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
 sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


 Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
 Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.


 I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
 broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
 going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
 you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
 the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?


 You should read his papers.  Here is a list.


 That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF. This mechanism does  
not produce energetic particles because if it did, they or their  
secondaries would be easily detectable when multiple watts are  
produced, as occasionally happens.  Therefore, I reject any energetic  
emission as being related to CF. This encourages me to look for a  
different explanation, which seems to be a rare approach in the field.  
I suggest all energetic particles result from hot fusion that can  
occur at low level as the conditions supporting CF form. In other  
words, the cracks make CF when they grow only to a small gap, but can  
cause fractofusion if they grow large rapidly. Both process happen as  
a result of crack formation, but result from a different mechanism.  
This explanation allows all observations to be fit by one process, one  
assumption, and to occur at the same time. Personally, I like the  
simplicity of such an approach. However, simplicity does not seem to  
be the accepted approach is these discussions.


Ed Storms



On May 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without  
assuming CF is the cause.


I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I  
understand the part about neutrons.  It is the very small number  
alpha particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this  
below, but I'm not sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.  
Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid  
detecton.


I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the  
radiation is broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a  
range beyond what is going to be stopped by the glass or metal  
housing enclosing the system.  Do you expect the peak of the  
secondary radiation to be significantly above the threshold at which  
the glass or metal will stop it?


You should read his papers.  Here is a list.

That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.


I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just
mentioning it and do not intend it as an essential detail to this
discussion.


 This mechanism does not produce energetic particles because if it did,
 they or their secondaries would be easily detectable when multiple watts
 are produced, as occasionally happens.


It is the phrase if it did, they or their secondaries would be easily
detectable when multiple watts are produced that I am trying to
understand.  I'm not saying it's wrong -- I'm just being like Descartes and
trying to start from the beginning, so to speak.  At one point you saw some
evidence or a chain of reasoning that led you to this conclusion.  I'm
trying to piece together what those details might be.  So far I gather they
are these things:

   - If you have deuterium nuclei moving about at energies greater than 20
   keV, you'll get a significant number of d+d→3He+n reactions, and those
   neutrons will escape and be detected and/or be dangerous to any humans
   around.
   - If you have alphas and protons moving around at energies greater than
   20 keV, you'll get secondary EMF that will be of a spectrum such that a
   significant part of it will escape the metal or glass housing for the
   system, as well as the layer of (heavy) metal substrate atoms that may be
   intervening between the nuclear active area and the area between the
   substrate and the housing.  For V watts of power, that EMF can be known
   with within a confidence interval W to have an X spectrum and intensity.
Under those conditions, the amount of radiation that can be expected to
   pass through the Y mm of metal of a typical pressurized reactor housing is
   Z.
   - There are CR-39 experiments that provide evidence for the quantity of
   fast particles that have been observed when there is excess heat, but what
   they say is equivocal and/or the quality is poor.  For this reason, the
   CR-39 experiments are disregarded.

Does this sound about right?  Have I missed anything important in the
reasoning that led you to the above conclusion?  It is values for V, W, X,
Y and Z that I'm hoping to get some insight into.  I will try to see what I
can find in those papers of Hagelstein.  If you have any information on
these numbers, that would also be helpful.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

Ed Storms states:

In other words, the cracks make CF when they grow only to a small gap, but
can cause fractofusion if they grow large rapidly.

Axil begins:

In regard to experimental observation of crack dynamics as follows:

https://www.google.com/#q=miley+bose+einstein+condensationhl=enei=wq-GUY-EIJP-4AP2yoEYsqi=2start=10sa=Nbav=on.2,or.r_qf.fp=5ebeced8323f36c9biw=853bih=511
ADVANCES IN PROPOSED D-CLUSTER INERTIAL
CONFIMENT FUSION TARGET

“Recent superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID) measurement
has shown ultradense states of deuterons with many more than 100 deuterons
within a crystal defect in a palladium crystal are possible, and a
superconductive state of these clusters was demonstrated in these
experiments [1, 2]. Similar ultra-dense state of deuterons was seen at
surface defects of iron oxide resulted in ion energies of 630 eV through
Mass spectrometry measurements [3]. It may well be assumed that both
cluster states are of the same nature though the states are concentrated at
the surface in the iron oxide case due to the catalytic generation in
contrast to the Pd samples with localization in the bulk volume [2]. In
both cases their existence was confirmed by the LENR process [4] which
likewise should be valid including when an inverted Rydberg state is
present. [3] A very important application would be using these clusters to
achieve non-cryogenic targets for inertial confinement The Sixth
International Conference on Inertial Fusion Sciences and Applications IOP
Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 244 (2010) 032036
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/244/3/032036 _c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd 1 fusion. In
principle this could also provide a compressed fuel density up to about
1000 times solid state density. [2][5][6].”

What Miley has seen in these cracks is a polariton condensate composed of
electrons an associated deuterons undergoing Plasmon excitations caused by
dipole charge separation.

A crack is a geomantic mechanism or Nano antenna where electrons an
infrared radiation combine to form a polariton condensate.
The existence of a superconductive state indicates the the condensates
involves boson condensation at room temperature.
Other theories of LENR will be hard pressed to explain why room temperature
superconductivity is manifest in nano-optical crack. What produces such
high energy levels and what causes such high densities?

The polariton will produce these effects.

This is not imagination, this is experimental observation.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF. This mechanism does not
produce energetic particles because if it did, they or their secondaries
would be easily detectable when multiple watts are produced, as
occasionally happens. Therefore, I reject any energetic emission as being
related to CF. This encourages me to look for a different explanation,
which seems to be a rare approach in the field. I suggest all energetic
particles result from hot fusion that can occur at low level as the
conditions supporting CF form. In other words, the cracks make CF when they
grow only to a small gap, but can cause fractofusion if they grow large
rapidly. Both process happen as a result of crack formation, but result
from a different mechanism. This explanation allows all observations to be
fit by one process, one assumption, and to occur at the same time.
Personally, I like the simplicity of such an approach. However, simplicity
does not seem to be the accepted approach is these discussions.

Ed Storms

On May 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
assuming CF is the cause.

I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
understand the part about neutrons. It is the very small number alpha
particles that I'm querying. I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.

Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.

I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system. Do
you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?

You should read his papers. Here is a list.

That is a long list. I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:From Russia, with love

2013-05-05 Thread pagnucco

This is probably just a coincidence, but Ni-63 is used in krytons to make
avalanche electrical breakdowns more predictable. See:

Electric discharge in gases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_discharge_in_gases

Krytron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krytron

Lots of reported LENR results appear to involve arcing and
dielectric/vacuum breakdown.

Pardon if this has already been covered.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
 Courtesy of SPECTRE ... err... make that the new Kurchatov  Institute


 Possible Way To Industrial Production of Nickel-63 and the Prospects of
 Its
 Use

 Tsvetkov, et al. Research-Industrial Enterprise BIAPOS, Moscow, Russia,
 Formerly Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

 Nickel-63 (a pure beta-emitter with a half-life of 100 years) is one of
 the
 most promising radionuclides that can be used in miniature autonomous
 electric
 power sources with a service life of above 30 years (nuclear batteries)
 working on the betavoltaic effect. This effect is analogous to the
 photoelectric
 effect, with the difference that electron-hole pairs are produced in a
 semiconductor
 with p-n-transition under the action of beta-particles rather than optical
 radiation.

 In addition to 63Ni, among all variety of radionuclides only tritium 3H
 (half-life 12.3 years; Emax = 18.6 keV; Eav = 5.7 keV) and promethium
 l47Pm
 (half-life 2.62 years; Emax = 230 keV; Eav = 65 keV) can be considered as
 candidates for the betavoltaic converter

 All other beta-emitters are unsuitable for any of several reasons:

 1)accompanying gamma-radiation;
 2)strong bremsstruhlung, which requires the use of radiation
 protection;

 http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/possible-way-to-industrial-pr
 oduction-of-nickel-63-and-the-prospects-of-its-use.pdf

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love



On May 5, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.

I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the  
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just  
mentioning it and do not intend it as an essential detail to this  
discussion.


This mechanism does not produce energetic particles because if it  
did, they or their secondaries would be easily detectable when  
multiple watts are produced, as occasionally happens.


It is the phrase if it did, they or their secondaries would be  
easily detectable when multiple watts are produced that I am trying  
to understand.  I'm not saying it's wrong -- I'm just being like  
Descartes and trying to start from the beginning, so to speak.  At  
one point you saw some evidence or a chain of reasoning that led you  
to this conclusion.  I'm trying to piece together what those details  
might be.  So far I gather they are these things:
If you have deuterium nuclei moving about at energies greater than  
20 keV, you'll get a significant number of d+d→3He+n reactions, and  
those neutrons will escape and be detected and/or be dangerous to  
any humans around.


Yes Eric, that is correct.
If you have alphas and protons moving around at energies greater  
than 20 keV, you'll get secondary EMF that will be of a spectrum  
such that a significant part of it will escape the metal or glass  
housing for the system, as well as the layer of (heavy) metal  
substrate atoms that may be intervening between the nuclear active  
area and the area between the substrate and the housing.  For V  
watts of power, that EMF can be known with within a confidence  
interval W to have an X spectrum and intensity.  Under those  
conditions, the amount of radiation that can be expected to pass  
through the Y mm of metal of a typical pressurized reactor housing  
is Z.


Yes, correct
There are CR-39 experiments that provide evidence for the quantity  
of fast particles that have been observed when there is excess heat,  
but what they say is equivocal and/or the quality is poor.  For this  
reason, the CR-39 experiments are disregarded.


The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done.  
Therefore, we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or  
not. In any case, so little radiation is detected that any associated  
energy would be too small to detect. Nevertheless, the measurements  
show that a nuclear reaction was occurring, but not CF as the  
following logic shows.


If a single process operates, the heat and alpha radiation must result  
from this process. If let's say ten watts were produced, the alpha  
flux would have to be great enough to produce this power.  A flux this  
large (~10^13 alpha /sec) would be easily detected. It is not  
detected. Therefore, the process that produces the detected alpha is  
not the process that produces the measure heat. Nevertheless, the  
measured energy is correlated with helium production. This helium can  
not result from the production of alpha, based on the logic above.  
Since I assume only one mechanism produces the heat, the alpha cannot  
result from the reaction producing the heat. The reaction producing  
heat creates non-energetic helium,  which is called cold fusion.   
Based only on my one assumption and the observations, two separate,  
independent nuclear reactions can occur in a material. One generates  
energetic particles, typical of hot fusion and the other generates no  
energetic particles, typical of cold fusion.  Confusion results when  
these two separate reactions are combined and applied to CF.  I have  
proposed that what looks like alpha is actually energetic He3  
resulting from the hot fusion reaction.


The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it  
complicated.  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much  
easier to understand and accept.  I have to wonder why people are  
willing to explore complicated reactions and complex logic while  
ignoring the most simple possibility.


Ed Storms
Does this sound about right?  Have I missed anything important in  
the reasoning that led you to the above conclusion?  It is values  
for V, W, X, Y and Z that I'm hoping to get some insight into.  I  
will try to see what I can find in those papers of Hagelstein.  If  
you have any information on these numbers, that would also be helpful.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:From Russia, with love

The evanescent wave

As experimentally demonstrated, there is an EMF power amplification factor
of up to 10 to the 15 power demonstrated by nanolenzes formed by nanowires
and nanoparticles. What EMF amplification that the Ni/H reactors produce is
undoubtedly higher.

The question is “how does such a concentration of power occur?”
An evanescent wave exits in the near-field of a reflecting surface with an
intensity that exhibits exponential decay with distance from the boundary
at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of
wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a
wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media
with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one
third of a wavelength from the surface of formation.

This is the reason why electric arching and dielectric boundaries are
important in LENR. EMF amplification involves solutions of Maxwell’s
equations and boundary conditions where imaginary solutions are manifest.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave

Total internal reflection of light

In the context of Ni/H LENR+, the boundary between nickel and pressurized
hydrogen forms a boundary trap where the capacitive EMF(electrons)
accumulate because there is a Total internal reflection of this EMF at the
boundary of the metal hydrogen interface.

These electron waves accumulate and superimpose constructively. This EMF
wave function has no solution that transmits energy away from the boundary.

Mathematically, evanescent waves can be characterized by a wave vector
where one or more of the vector's components have an imaginary value.

This coupling between the hydrogen dielectric and the nickel is directly
analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a
transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor. Mathematically, the
process is the same as that of quantum tunneling, except with
electromagnetic waves instead of quantum-mechanical wavefunction.

This near surface interface boundary is the zone were electrons accumulate
by a power concentration factor of up to one trillion. It is this charge
concentration that produces coulomb barrier lowering in the boundary layer
where the evanescent wave forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance

Fano resonance is the mechanism that mixes the electron and light waveforms
together. The infrared radiation and dielectric oscillations of the
excitons are the two waveforms involved.

An exciton is a bound state of an electron and an electron hole which are
attracted to each other by the electrostatic Coulomb force.

The Fano resonance line-shape is due to interference between two scattering
amplitudes, one due to scattering within a continuum of states (the
background process) and the second due to an excitation of a discrete state
(the resonant process). The energy of the resonant state must lie in the
energy range of the continuum (background) states for the effect to occur.
Near the resonant energy, the background scattering amplitude typical
varies slowly with energy while the resonant scattering amplitude changes
both in magnitude and phase quickly. It is this variation that creates the
asymmetric profile.

The Fano resonance is how increased infrared stimulation of the micro
powder increases LENR activity. When DGT removes the hydrogen from their
reactor, the Fano resonance is destroyed.





On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 This is probably just a coincidence, but Ni-63 is used in krytons to make
 avalanche electrical breakdowns more predictable. See:

 Electric discharge in gases
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_discharge_in_gases

 Krytron
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krytron

 Lots of reported LENR results appear to involve arcing and
 dielectric/vacuum breakdown.

 Pardon if this has already been covered.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Beene wrote:
  Courtesy of SPECTRE ... err... make that the new Kurchatov  Institute
 
 
  Possible Way To Industrial Production of Nickel-63 and the Prospects of
  Its
  Use
 
  Tsvetkov, et al. Research-Industrial Enterprise BIAPOS, Moscow, Russia,
  Formerly Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
 
  Nickel-63 (a pure beta-emitter with a half-life of 100 years) is one of
  the
  most promising radionuclides that can be used in miniature autonomous
  electric
  power sources with a service life of above 30 years (nuclear batteries)
  working on the betavoltaic effect. This effect is analogous to the
  photoelectric
  effect, with the difference that electron-hole pairs are produced in a
  semiconductor
  with p-n-transition under the action of beta-particles rather than
 optical
  radiation.
 
  In addition to 63Ni, among all variety of radionuclides only tritium 3H
  (half-life 12.3 years; Emax = 18.6 keV; Eav = 5.7 keV) and promethium
  l47Pm
  (half-life 2.62 years; Emax = 230 keV; Eav = 65 keV) can be considered as
  candidates for the

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you to
the slow-helium formation assumption.


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore,
 we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or not. In any case,
 so little radiation is detected that any associated energy would be too
 small to detect.


Does the statement so little radiation is detected that any associated
energy would be too small to detect apply to the so-called hamburger
exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?  Also, since no calorimetry
was made, it would seem that as far as the CR-39 experiments are concerned,
we have neither a basis for concluding that there is a large amount of
alpha flux when there is excess heat nor that there is a small amount of
alpha flux when there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It
would be really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of
pits while using decent calorimetry.

The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it complicated.
  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much easier to understand
 and accept.  I have to wonder why people are willing to explore complicated
 reactions and complex logic while ignoring the most simple possibility.


In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be an
implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide hydrons into one
another, with an attendant release of mass energy, and the behavior is
different than in the high energy case, where there will either be a
collision or they'll fuse.  I am reminded of the difference in how water
behaves when an object hits it with great force, and when the object is
allowed to slide into it or drop into it from a low height.  This
understanding of the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems
to be implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --
it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen atoms
could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high speeds do they
bounce away from one another and provide a lot of resistance.  But it will
be a long time before I'm willing to adopt this model as a working
hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I think it would be necessary to
eliminate other possibilities first, since it is such a departure from
current understanding of the strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I
understand it, are presented as static properties of the atoms that do not
vary with their speed relative to one another.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both
fission and fusion reactions in these results. IMHO, the primary causation
of these LENR reactions is the lowering of the coulomb barrier.

There is a secondary though important reaction that may or may not be
established  any given time. That is,  Bose Einstein condensation that
thermalizes the LENR reaction may or may not happen.

If BEC is not in play, radiation and energetic particles will result. When
BEC is enforced, LENR energy is not carried by the alphas and protons
released from the nucleus but are thermalized as EMF.

For example, because BEC has stopped when  Piantelli removed his nickel
bars from his reactor, Piantelli sees high energy protons emerge from the
nickel bars removed from his reactor. Yes, he sees 6 MeV protons coming
from the bars in his cloud chamber.

The bottom line, Coulomb barrier lowering is mandatory in LENR, BEC is
optional. That is how it looks to me.





On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you
 to the slow-helium formation assumption.


 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore,
 we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or not. In any case,
 so little radiation is detected that any associated energy would be too
 small to detect.


 Does the statement so little radiation is detected that any associated
 energy would be too small to detect apply to the so-called hamburger
 exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?  Also, since no calorimetry
 was made, it would seem that as far as the CR-39 experiments are concerned,
 we have neither a basis for concluding that there is a large amount of
 alpha flux when there is excess heat nor that there is a small amount of
 alpha flux when there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It
 would be really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of
 pits while using decent calorimetry.

 The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it complicated.
  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much easier to understand
 and accept.  I have to wonder why people are willing to explore complicated
 reactions and complex logic while ignoring the most simple possibility.


 In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be an
 implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide hydrons into one
 another, with an attendant release of mass energy, and the behavior is
 different than in the high energy case, where there will either be a
 collision or they'll fuse.  I am reminded of the difference in how water
 behaves when an object hits it with great force, and when the object is
 allowed to slide into it or drop into it from a low height.  This
 understanding of the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems
 to be implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --
 it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen atoms
 could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high speeds do they
 bounce away from one another and provide a lot of resistance.  But it will
 be a long time before I'm willing to adopt this model as a working
 hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I think it would be necessary to
 eliminate other possibilities first, since it is such a departure from
 current understanding of the strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I
 understand it, are presented as static properties of the atoms that do not
 vary with their speed relative to one another.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love



On May 5, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led  
you to the slow-helium formation assumption.



On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done.  
Therefore, we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or  
not. In any case, so little radiation is detected that any  
associated energy would be too small to detect.


Does the statement so little radiation is detected that any  
associated energy would be too small to detect apply to the so- 
called hamburger exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?   
Also, since no calorimetry was made, it would seem that as far as  
the CR-39 experiments are concerned, we have neither a basis for  
concluding that there is a large amount of alpha flux when there is  
excess heat nor that there is a small amount of alpha flux when  
there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It would be  
really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of  
pits while using decent calorimetry.


Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator.  
The flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies  
even though the final result looks large.  At no time could heat be  
detected from the reactions producing these products.


The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it  
complicated.  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much  
easier to understand and accept.  I have to wonder why people are  
willing to explore complicated reactions and complex logic while  
ignoring the most simple possibility.


In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be  
an implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide  
hydrons into one another, with an attendant release of mass energy,  
and the behavior is different than in the high energy case, where  
there will either be a collision or they'll fuse.


Hot fusion is a well know process that results when deuterons come  
together quickly with high energy.  The laws of conservation of energy  
and momentum require the final nucleus to explode in order to release  
the mass-energy. This process can occur when a crack forms if the   
resulting charge separation generates a high voltage gradient. This  
effect is easy to cause. Just hit a crystal of LiD with a hammer and a  
burst of neutrons will result. Cold fusion is an entirely different  
process with NO relationship to hot fusion.  This is not like your  
analogy. The water is just acting like water but with a gradual change  
in property as the velocity of impact increases. CF is not related to  
HF in any way. There is no gradual change from hot fusion to cold  
fusion as the applied energy decrease. As the energy goes down, the  
hot fusion reaction rate simply becomes increasingly small until under  
normal conditions it does not occur at all.  CF and HF are two  
entirely different phenomenon that can occur at the same time under  
certain conditions. Trying to relate them has caused most of the  
confusion.  You need to stop thinking about how HF works and start  
over using a different vocabulary.


Ed Storms

 I am reminded of the difference in how water behaves when an object  
hits it with great force, and when the object is allowed to slide  
into it or drop into it from a low height.  This understanding of  
the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems to be  
implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --  
it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen  
atoms could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high  
speeds do they bounce away from one another and provide a lot of  
resistance.  But it will be a long time before I'm willing to adopt  
this model as a working hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I  
think it would be necessary to eliminate other possibilities first,  
since it is such a departure from current understanding of the  
strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I understand it, are  
presented as static properties of the atoms that do not vary with  
their speed relative to one another.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

2013-05-05 Thread Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
 experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.


These results have to be published in detail and then independently
replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
The theory will be nonsense.



 DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both
 fission and fusion reactions in these results.


Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what instruments
they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these results must also
be independently replicated.

As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing more
substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided, such
as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account their
claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few details from
a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a waste of
time even doing that.

This is also largely true of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/

Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium,
manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by
several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley.
1. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
Did you forget about this one in your library?

“Recently, Mizuno, Bockris and others have increasingly focused on
so-called “host metal transmutations,” that is, nuclear reactions of the
cathode metal itself. The cathode metal was inexplicably neglected for many
years. The term “host metal” is misleading. It was an unfortunate choice of
words. It implies that the metal acts as a passive structure, holding the
hydrogen in place, cramming the deuterons or protons together. The metal is
a host, not a participant. The hydrogen does the work. Now, it appears the
metal itself is as active as the hydrogen. The metal apparently fissions
and fusions in complex reactions. Now the task is to think about the metal,
and not just the hydrogen. Theory must explain how palladium can turn part
of itself into copper and other elements with peculiar isotopes.”

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/

I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having been
supported by many results.

I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.

How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

These results have to be published in detail and then independently
replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
The theory will be nonsense.

DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
both fission and fusion reactions in these results.

Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
results must also be independently replicated.

As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing more
substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided, such
as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account their
claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few details from
a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a waste of
time even doing that.

This is also largely true of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

Results from Piantelli

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/

I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having been
supported by many results.

I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.

How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
both fission and fusion reactions in these results.

Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
results must also be independently replicated.

As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing
more substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided,
such as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account
their claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few
details from a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a
waste of time even doing that.

This is also largely true of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

another one

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Mizuno-IsotopicDistribution-ICCF6.pdf

ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ELEMENTS EVOLYED IN PALLADIUM CATHODE AFTER
ELECTROLYSIS IN D2O SOLUTION

T. Mizuno, 'T.Ohmori*, T.Akimoto, K.Kurokawa, M.Kitaichi,

K.1noda, K.Azumi, S.Simokawa and M. Enyo

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

Results from Piantelli

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/

I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having
been supported by many results.

I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.

How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally
applicable, experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
both fission and fusion reactions in these results.

Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
results must also be independently replicated.

As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing
more substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided,
such as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account
their claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few
details from a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a
waste of time even doing that.

This is also largely true of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love