Jed, a point of information, from this non-scientist:
I understand that you are saying that heat, above all else, is the required product, and that any other products are of secondary importance when it comes to asserting that the effect has been produced. Separately, you are saying that experimental design tends to search for one product - heat, or nuclear emissions, or flashes, or noise - but that if heat has not been verified any other product leaves one uncertain as to whether the effect was produced to begin with. Is this a fair summation? Is it generally accepted within the cf community? On a practical level, as I understand it, heat is likely to be the useful product, in any case, and the other products that are suggested are less likely to prove of technological or commercial use, though they might well be useful, along with the heat, in trying to formulate a theory of why the effect is taking place. Am I on the right track? Lawry _____ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heat is the principal signature of the reaction Michel Jullian wrote: Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of LENRs than calorimetry aren't they? Not in my opinion. I will not put words in Martin's mouth but I doubt this is his opinion either, and it is his dictum. Nuclear reactions were first discovered in the late 19th century because they produce excess heat. For some purposes, sensitive calorimetry is still the best way to detect them. I realize that for many purposes particle detection is far more sensitive. But everyone knows that particles are difficult to detect with cold fusion. I presume this is because the ratio of neutrons to heat is 9 to 11 orders of magnitude lower than with conventional fusion, and neutrons appear to be missing altogether in many cases. As far as I know this is also true with co-deposition. I have not heard that the SPAWAR technique boosts the number of neutrons per joule of heat, but only that they have managed to detect the neutrons despite the inherent difficulties. Their cells probably produce macroscopic heat, but they cannot detect it because the equipment is optimized to detect neutrons. The people at SPAWAR have already confirmed heat. They do not need to do this. People starting out on this experiment do need to, in my opinion. Walk before you run. Confirm that you have the effect first, then look for particles. Otherwise you are probably fishing in a dry hole. I do not think many people have been convinced by the SPAWAR results, although of course I acknowledge these results are important. I am not opposed to looking for neutrons! But before you look for them you should confirm that you have a cold fusion reaction, and the one and only certain method of doing this is to confirm excess heat. Perhaps in the future particle detection will become the primary means of detecting cold fusion but that is not how things are today. Lomax suggested that audio noise or possibly light flashes may also be a means of detecting cold fusion. Perhaps that is true. The way to find out is to first confirm there is heat, then listen for audio noise with a microphone. We know there is heat. We do not know if there is audible noise. So look for what you know has to be there if the reaction is occurring, and then look for what you suspect may also be there. - Jed
