Jones-- I remember that the SPAWAR experiments indicated He formed with the correct 24... Mev energy of a D-D fusion reaction. The evidence was in the CR-39 detectors that they used. They also saw tritium and its characteristic path in the Cr-39 detectors. Check out the report of SPAWAR that I referenced a few comments ago. They did not have any hot conditions and were using Pd electrodes.
Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation From: Bob Higgins Ø Your attempt to dismiss the Claytor tritium results as being "high voltage" is again specious. The voltages being used are not capable of producing hot fusion. His voltage is capable, and the is no “dismissal,” and the “high” is relative to electrolysis. Guess you have never heard of exploding wires. Exploding wire experiment at 2000 volts can produce copious fusion. Voltage gradients in Claytor’s system have varied over the years – but could in fact be higher than in the Farnsworth Fusor, for instance. The gradient is more important the absolute potential. Ø the mean free path of the electrons is very short and electrons or protons never attain anywhere near the energy that the source could provide in a high vacuum. Same for the Fusor, which is a dense plasma. I’m getting the picture that you do not understand the range of Claytor’s experiments very well and how they fit into a continuum of cold-to-warm. There was a time when his work was closer to “cold fusion” and a time when it was closer to the Fusor. There is a good argument that much of it is not “cold” and that the results look exactly like the Fusor. Ø Why do you think that x-ray tubes need really high vacuum?... to prevent these collisions that slow down the electrons. Again, you think a single specious sentence can wipe away real, peer reviewed experimental results. Wipe away? What are you talking about? It would help if you would read the prior postings. There is no specious sentence here and Claytor’s results are certainly strong… but my point is that they are not necessarily LENR in the same sense that low voltage electrolysis is deemed to be. There is a continuum, and Claytor has been at times closer to the Fusor, and at other times closer to a P&F cell. Put simply, Claytor’s results are to my thinking stronger than anything seen with helium as the ash, since he does produce tritium – WHICH IS EXPECTED. How much clearer can I say that? The problem that you have is that some of these results could be “hot fusion carried out at low power” in the same way that a Fusor is, and you want them to be “cold”. That is NOT a contradiction in terms. It is a semantic distinction that aggravates the hell out of the helium-ash true believers since they do not want to lose Claytor’s good results to another category of LENR that looks “hotter” than cold fusion. Ø You are so determined that your theory of no fusion is correct that you will make up stories in your mind to wash away the good data taken by truly competent experimentalists. You have lost your open mind. What !?! This is totally bizarre, if not laughable. I would love to see any evidence of helium fusion. It would make things so much more believable than they now are. How could there be a “theory of no fusion” ? Instead what we have is precious little evidence of fusion of deuterons to He4. If you carefully read what I did say – everyone in the field should have been seeing tritium, instead of He4 or at least some tritium. Then, there would be no problem. The expected channel is tritium. Ø Ni-H could well be different. We will just have to wait for more data. Mizuno is just a good data point with its own flaws and insights. It is by far the most robust experiment in the entire field. Ever. Why do I get the weird sensation that the “read my book” crowd is conspiring to marginalize Mizuno’s work - because his excellent results show no helium? Jones
