The mention of a mysterious magnetic interaction at the basis of LENR also brings to mind the YT video of Tom Claytor’s lecture where he mentions that the output of tritium increased from pico-Curies to nano-Curies with a change in the electrode to Co-netic-AA (nickel-iron alloy).
Co-netic is an alloy developed mainly for magnetic shielding not for electrodes. Ostensibly – this would indicate that the (three orders of magnitude) increase in tritium output – over a palladium electrode - is due to some unknown feature of nuclear magnetism. He does not mention why the property of high saturation operates this way, but the fact that Co-netic is more active is puzzling and especially so in light of the recent Biberian report pointing to 105Pd as the active isotope when palladium is used (since 105 is the only Pd isotope with a nuclear magnetic moment). Claytor doesn’t say if there is helium output in his experiments as well as tritium, but certainly having the tritium evidence makes the results appear rock-solid… as there is almost no natural background source of the gas, as with helium… not to mention his own credibility at Los Alamos. From: Brian Ahern I have found D+D -> He-4 to be problematic. My own EPRI work, however found a repeatable excess with no radiation LENR is real but not yet understood. My year long experience with the device made by Arthur Manelas (deceased 2015) suggests that new magnetic interactions are in play. From: billcol...@iscmns.org Jed, I agree nobody said explicitly that only one reaction was occurring. In contrast, this is an implicit and overlooked assumption implied by the phrase "expected". How many times must this be repeated? If you have evidence of that D+D to He is occurring, why not tell us what it is, in a way that does not assume the very conclusion you want to make? Do you have evidence of comensurate consumption of deuterium? Do you have any theory which predicts d+d as opposed to d+p? Can you explain how heat is trasmitted without radiatrions? For the reasons I have explained many times, the Q/He4 ratio is not remotely persuasive as it is based on erroneous assumption of 1 (overall) reaction. If you would like to address these issues that would be constructive. :) Bill On 2018-06-26 08:35, Jed Rothwell wrote: <billcol...@iscmns.org> wrote: No Jed, my point is that there are many different ways to produce helium (and heat) and therefore it is wrong, without further evidence, to assume that only one reaction is occurring. Ed and I did not say that only one reaction is occurring. With other host metals there may be other products altogether. There is definitely tritium in some cases. We said this particular reaction, D+D to He is occurring. I said the path may not be as simple as D+D, but those are starting inputs and final outputs. It might resemble the complex path of the Krebs cycle, with intermediate reactions along the way. However, in any chemical or nuclear reaction, the total energy release depends only on the starting and ending products. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMNS" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cmns. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMNS" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cmns. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.