At 12:01 PM 10/30/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 30, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget
about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and
ambiguous signatures . . .
The people at SPAWAR did not "forget" about excess heat and hot
spots. They published papers and videos showing these things. They
were the first to show hot spots, as far as I know.
That is a strange thing to say.
- Jed
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained
in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to
prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be
obtained for pure research. You have to show high energy particles
or transmutation if you want to prove nuclear. Nuclear events appear
to be the most easily and cheaply demonstrated.
I agree with Horace here, in a sense. Heat is also an element of
proof, and if experiments can clearly show nuclear without depending
on calorimetry, funding isn't going to be copious.
If you want to make something practical with CF then you should work
on maximizing excess heat. If you want to prove it is nuclear, then,
unless 100 percent reproducible levels of excess heat not yet
observed can be produced, showing high energy particles, or neutrons,
as cheaply as possible is clearly the way to go.
There are other possible practical applications that don't involve
heat. But, yes, for the most part, heat is the ultimate practical
goal for much of the research. But I'm looking purely for
demonstrations of the science of low energy nuclear reactions, so
that Ed can sell more books....
It appears the current SPWAR protocol is at worst close to being able
to achieve irrefutable proof of nuclear events, and inexpensively.
Yeah, that's why I'm barking up this tree.
