Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following >> mass change occurs: >> >> 12.0000000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass >> equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does >> not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, >> this much energy MUST be removed. >> >> Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If >> the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin >> said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the >> mechanism does not matter. >> >> Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends >> on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount >> of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur >> under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell >> requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how >> they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as >> Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if >> significant C13 were made. >> >> >> Ed > > > Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of > all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been > reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent > excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism > exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have > proven the entire LENR field to be bunk.
Ahem ... I believe the argument here is not that no such reaction could have taken place, which is what you seem to be responding to. The argument is, rather, that if the enormous number of transmutations which are being claimed actually took place, then the aggregate energy released would have been far too large for the observed effects. This argument does *not* apply to (most?) cold fusion experiments. Keep in mind, in a typical CF experiment the amount of material which is transmuted is microscopic, and is an insignificant fraction of the material present in the experiment. In this case the amount supposedly transmuted was a major fraction of the input material mass, if I've properly understood the discussion up to this point. That's a gross difference, and is in fact the whole point being argued by Ed and Jones: Either there is a mechanism with allows the transmutations to take place with (almost) no energy imbalance, or the number of transmutations can't be as large as claimed because there was insufficient observed excess heat. The issue is not how the excess heat made it from the reaction site to the calorimeter without disrupting parts of the lattice. The issue is that the excess heat which should have been present simply didn't make it anywhere; it was not observed. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
