>From what I read of the paper, it's a very short range force;  perhaps 12fm
but the signal seen was at 6.8 sigma,  The paper is located here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07411v1.pdf   Interesting read.  Where this
becomes relevant is in the electron screening that metals provide in Pd(D).
Maybe Ni(H) and as Jones point's out, how D+D->He4  goes to heat without
gamma, neutrons or a signature of a 24MeV radiation signature.   It's a
good hand-waving argument Jones.


On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:

> In answer to an offline question about testing or falsifying this 5th
> force hypothesis without the expense of heavy isotopes of palladium – one 
> option
> comes to mind just now.
>
> Remember the “bubble fusion” experiment of Rusi Taleyarkhan? He was
> vindicated in his use of the very heavy element Californium as an
> accelerant for fusion (it’s been a long time but his name is still in my
> spell-checker, along with bremsstrahlung J
>
> Well – the heavier and more neutron rich the element used, the more
> likely it would be to have a surplus of neuglu bosons – at least as I
> understand it. Californium would not decay fast enough to help on its own
> in terms of anomalous energy – but it could supply a steady source of
> neuglu to fuse deuterons in other ways - which would then provide the
> thermal gain in many types of experiments including electrolysis and
> Arata-type.
>
> In fact, Rusi used an amount so tiny it should not have mattered, expect
> to his jealous peers. Yet the Cf was beneficial – and the reason could and
> probably did relate to neuglu. Cf is not cheap or available however.
>
> As Bob Cook implied from a recent IE article – there could be some of the
> same magic with U, a bit lighter … but if cost is important -  by far the
> most economical thing to do for a potential neuglu source is to
> cannibalize a few smoke detectors for the Americium. There are vids on
> YouTube to show you how to remove handle the stuff.
>
> But even in micrograms, this is risky business and I am not advocating it.
>

Reply via email to