On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote:
I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would fuse > with 2 H much more often. > There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h. The assumption is that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since it's nearby. This gets rid of the gamma. The Ni never fused with the d+h, and in most cases it goes on being the same Ni it was before. > No evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found. > Has anyone looked for 3He? If so, has this been done systematically? Have the results been systematically correlated with excess heat in Ni/H experiments? Have there been experiments that conclusively establish that there *is* excess heat in Ni/H experiments? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this. And NO, I do not believe Ron's theory. > I appreciate that. I hope I didn't say anything to suggest that you did. If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are brought > near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world of chemistry. > There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to happen expect by a > random process or because a new structure is formed that requires > generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure is known. > Regarding the world of chemistry -- exactly: the Auger process. This is an important insight -- it's necessary to find a way to bridge the eV seen in chemistry with the tens of keV seen in nuclear physics. Ron identified the Auger process as a likely bridge, since in heavy nuclei the ionization energy of inner shell electrons is in the realm of nuclear fusion. As far as I can tell, he proposes neither a random process nor a structure that is formed. He seems to be talking about something along the lines of waveguides in optics, although this is where things start to go well beyond my knowledge. > I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the real > world of chemical behavior. > No one is making up rules -- they're putting forward tentative suggestions that go back to previous experimental results and a knowledge of the forces involved. Here we're exploring one possibility along with many others. I think you've missing an opportunity by failing to take Ron's theory seriously. Eric
