Abd,
I recently blogged 2 articles on the hydrino issue on Science blog.
My intent was to release this information as an amateur to the public
domain. Right or wrong I hope you will find the ideas intriguing.
1.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-casimir-cavities-create-%E2%80%9Cgr
avity-hill%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cgravity-well%E2%80%9D-23935.html
2.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-lorentz-multiplier-quantum-states-2
4437.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Commercial cold fusion proposal, should be immediately
practical.
At 02:27 PM 8/28/2009, you wrote:
>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>>I think it is pretty well agreed by Fleischmann that calling it
>>"fusion" was a mistake.
>
>I do not agree at all. The effect fuses deuterium atoms to form
>helium and heat in the same ratio to the helium as plasma fusion
>does. That makes it fusion.
Ah! Jed, you have confused "truth" with "not a mistake." We know now
that fact about helium and excess heat. Fleischmann didn't know it as
a fact, though he might possibly have inferred it -- or not -- and
Fleischmann's evidence that the heat was specifically nuclear was
actually artifact, the neutron findings.
>The helium ratio is about the only rock-solid fact about the physics
>that has been established so far, thanks mainly to Miles and the
>Italian researchers.
Yes. Krivit contests it, I'm not sure why -- maybe he's only
contesting the specific numbers -- but it's still quite close, even
if it were off by an order of magnitude, and it isn't, it would be
quite a coincidence; the real proof is the correlation, which,
statistically, is just about impossible if there isn't a decent
connection between the heat and the helium.
> Everything else, such as tritium and transmutations, is still up
> in the air. The tritium ratios vary wildly. A lot of people still
> argue that the transmutations are caused by contamination. I have
> never heard a serious argument that the helium just happens to hit
> the right levels every time by coincidence.
Shanahan waves his hands. Since the excess heat could be junk, since
the helium could be junk, therefore the correlation is junk. I'm
amazed that Shanahan could be considered a scientist and still think
that way. The correlation solidifies both the calorimetry and the
helium measurements.
> The levels are usually far too low for it to be contamination. And
> yes, you heard that right: too low. Miles once pointed to a slide
> with a laser pointer and said: "if this were contamination from
> air, the levels would vary uncontrollably and that line would be
> five stories high" (way above the conference room screen). People
> think that helium concentration exceeding atmospheric levels is the
> only sure proof, but actually, helium levels far below that
> concentration are just as good. In any case, McKubre observed
> cumulative helium concentration above atmosphere.
Further, the charts showing helium vs. time don't asymptotically
approach ambient.
>I do not know of any evidence for hydrino formation in cold fusion
>experiments, although it could be that no one has looked for
>hydrinos, or would recognize them.
Right. It's merely a possible explanation for excess heat, and it's
also a possible explanation for fusion, because hydrinos should be
able to shield the Coulomb barrier.
I'm very skeptical about hydrinos, but, hey, it was pretty normal to
be skeptical about cold fusion, eh?
