Decades ago I was invited to give a seminar on my evidence of making heat and helium via sonofusion at the General Atomics Tokamak project in San Diego. The tokamak had run a few days before my arrival and it had been a very good test, everyone was happy with the results. My ‘fee’ for giving my presentation on ‘cold fusion’ was a photo taken of me holding my ‘cold fusion’ reactor in my hand while standing upon the Tokamak (Big T). You can see that photo on by blog via this link. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/02/01/sonofusion-returns-mainstream-science/
The means to measure the Tokamak performance was a number of neutron detectors about the size of water coolers that were placed around the large room that contained Big T. The neutrons detected were the sole evidence of HOT fusion. I recall working with the GA guys on the ‘back of the envelope’ to determine the total number of fusion reactions in Big T in the ‘shot’ days earlier, the number of fusion reactions was something like e17 based on calculating the neutrons caught in the few tiny detectors multiplied by the full 3d cross-section. My reactor typically made about e16 4He atoms in a test run. My isoperibolic calorimetry showed heat and helium were roughly commensurate. No question Big T was more potent but then again it drew more electric power than the entire city of San Diego to run while my assymettric sonofusion reactor ran on a few watts of input. No matter how many major labs I trotted my gear to and ran experiments demonstrating cold fusion heat and helium reality the forces of evil, aka the institutional physics community, never did anything but disparage and discourage the work… albeit studying it carefully. My sonofusion reaction was and is easily scalable to generate hundreds of kilowatts steady state output running with duty cycled input of a fraction of 1% of the output. Such sonofusion development to large scale energy production would cost a few million to refine into devices that would cost mere thousands to mass produce. Don’t think for a moment that the Big T money folks will ever allow their pork barrels, aka retirement funds, to be run dry by competition. From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:15 PM To: John Milstone Subject: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi) Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means. 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a lethal dose, being close to the source, in minutes. It's just that hot fusion sources are much more easily detected. If hot fusion research relied on COP, there would be no proof of it, save for H-Bomb explosions. There must be other ways to measure the yield cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
