On Oct 30, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
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.
I see that. Physicists are impressed by neutrons, bless their
hearts. I do not think 100% reproducibility has been achieved in
these experiments, but I do not see any need for it, either.
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.
This experiment does not strike me as easy or cheap. It is valuable
and I suppose it is a relatively clear-cut demonstration. Also,
unlike heat, the tracks remain indefinitely and can be
independently investigated long after the experiment.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this
thread, which I sense some people have not have addressed or
appreciated, is that a person who cannot generate measurable heat
probably cannot generate neutrons. I could be wrong about that: it
might be a coincidence of history. But as I said, with other less
sensitive methods of detecting neutrons I do not think anyone has
ever seen neutrons in the absence of heat, whereas heat without
neutrons has often been seen. So it seems clear to me that heat is
the more reliable signal.
- Jed
I think maybe the branching ratios in CF can be changed usefully here
by use of external fields. SPAWAR discovered that external fields
anomalously affected both signature quantities and codeposition
structures, but of course haven't fully investigated this. That is
pretty exciting because it means (a) a simple means of manipulation
may be used to gather data over a spectrum of field strengths, thus
providing information key to theory development, and (b) the odds of
generating detectable particles can be increased by appropriate
application of fields. This is not meant to be of practical use,
because suppression of particle generation would be wanted for
practical application. For the purpose of demonstrating CF is
nuclear, however, that ability could be critical to achieving a high
reliability. The reliability looks like it is fairly high, and thus
probably close to a threshold of some kind. A little extra energy
applied to the reaction might go a long way in changing the neutron
branching ratio, because neutron generation threshold appears to be
multiple sigma out there in an energy tail.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
