Thanks for your thoughts.   I must admit that a mechanism based on coherence has long been a favoured hypothesis of mine.  It is not a complete coincidence that the company I have formed as a vehicle for this is called 'Coherent Water Systems'.  I have known John Swain for many years, indeed he was responsible for me being involved in LENR, and he also strongly advocates mechanisms based on coherence  I also agree with him that such mechanisms are also likely to be present in biological systems, indeed it is this that was responsible for us finding ourselves at the same conferences.

There were a number of things that made me start considering alternatives, particularly the electrospray experiments where the experimental evidence for energy gain is good - I have been through the raw data.  However its only 1/2 mW and the COP is not wonderful so not something we will be using in power stations (yet).  I feel that the very directional water jets that seem to be associated with this effect are telling us something.

Note also the component of my model where the fusion is initiated by the acceleration of protons through a potential difference is something that John Swain has also considered (


On 29/09/2017 15:53, wrote:


I read your paper twice and have the following comments:

 1. As Jones points out, hiding .511Mev EM radiation from
    electron/positron reactions is not likely IMHO.  Therefore I doubt
    it occurs during CES.
 2. The model which includes high kinetic energy products is also hard
    to imagine in the water system without generation of EM radiation
    that  should be easy to observe.  Therefore, I doubt energetic
    particles are present in CES.**
 3. *I consider that the cavitation produces a coherent system that is
    coupled by electric and/or magnetic fields and within a very short
    time frame changes its potential energy to phonic (vibrational)
    kinetic spin energy of the entire coherent system of the remaining
    particles including the electrons.*
 4. *As the coherent system collapses, the constituents give up heat
    (vibrational L energy--spin energy) to the surround water in a
    normal slow transfer of heat and increase of enthalpy.*
 5. *Finally, all the model’s assumptions about virtual neutrinos and
    other virtual particles  are unnecessary and only uggest a
    non-real mechanism associated with understanding high energy
    physics experiments, not like condensed matter LENR of coherent QM
 6. *A good model which explains how spin quanta are redistributed
    within a coherent system in *_whole number multiples_*of Planck’s
    constant divided by 2 pie (h/2pie) is warranted with  conservation
    of angular momentum and total energy IMHO.*


*Bob Cook*



Reply via email to