At 06:11 PM 3/24/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
BTW I find the whole idea of using the volume of the cathode to
compare energy
densities "proving" some form of fusion to be silly. Clearly the volume of
electrolyte is of far more consequence, given that it is this which
contains the
putative fuel anyway.
I disagree. Assuming it is fusion, the potential energy of the
electrolyte is so huge it is almost irrelevant. Only a tiny fraction
of the deuterium is consumed, which is why it is so hard to measure the helium.
Jed's correct, as usual, when he talks about the field. That the
reaction itself is so powerful, but that it occurs at such a low
rate, even in the most "successful" experiments, makes accurate
measurement of product very difficult. The heat can often be measured
quite accurately, it's the measurements of helium or other products
that are very difficult. We are lucky to get general correlation,
which was long ago accomplished by Miles. Really, Miles should get
huge credit for the work he did when he did it. It certainly was not
his fault that, even by 2004, his work was mostly unnoticed in the
DoE review. It's because of Miles that I say that, had the physicists
been paying attention, it would have been all over by 1995. Maybe
there are other research results that, by then, would also have been
sufficiently conclusive. But it's Miles' work with helium, reported
by Storms, that put me over the top, whereas most other work is like,
"Well, maybe, I guess that seems pretty strong." At best.
Heat helium *correlation* whacks the skeptical hypothesis upside the
head and leaves it spinning, with no ground to stand on except to
sputter vague charges of fraud or tampering or something that bad. By
the time that Miles was confirmed by other groups, it should have been iced.
The comparison to the volume of the cathode -- or if you like, the
volume of the entire cell -- is only done to rule out chemistry.
Heck, you can throw in the volume of the table and all the books in
the room in a few cases. Cells that produce 50 to 300 MJ far exceed
all of these limits. Strictly speaking however, this it cannot "rule
in" a nuclear effect. It is a figure of merit. It is the absolute
minimum limit of the energy release because there is no way a
significant fraction of the fuel could be used in the time allotted
to an experiment.
Right. It makes the chemical reaction hypothesis untenable. Even if
the integrated calorimetry is bad, to get the high power levels
sometimes found, one would have to have an energy storage mechanism
that is much better than anything known, as I understand this. Which
would, of course, be of fantastic interest all on its own. Which
makes the knee-jerk rejection based on "no theory," to use the
technical term in the sociology of science, "competely stupid."
As far as I know the energy release has never gone so high that it
exceeds the limits of the Mill's hydrino theory (superchemistry).
So, if you believe that the Mills effect is real, so far the only
way you can "rule in" a nuclear effect is to confirm the helium, and
not mistake it for shrunken hydrinos.
Right. The sanest position here is no position. There is helium, and
it's correlated at roughly the value for deuterium to helium
conversion (let's call that "fusion," okay?), so the *simplest*
hypothesis is that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
talks like a duck, it's.
You know.
But it might be a duck doll held by puppet strings by a puppeteer
using a duck call. Can't be ruled out.
