Jones wrote: "Why the hell does everyone keep trying to shoehorn these reactions into KNOWN reactions?"
Exactly! Because they can't think out of the box! They are "parroting" the 'laws of physics' which is what they learned, but they fail to ask themselves "Are the conditions in which the experiment was made similar to the conditions that were present in the experiments that served to establish the theory"? Theories are good, but they have LIMITS as to their applicability. About the only theoretical foundation that we can use for all the LENR research data is Conservation of Energy... Discovering the model (theory) that explains this and LENR and Mills, is going to require a significant amount of "out of the box" thinking, and not everyone is up to that task. That's what the Vort collective is for! :-) Just an intuitive suggestion... Look for harmonic relationships between the entities involved. Is that not the entire premise upon which absorption and emission spectroscopy work!? We should begin looking at the subatomic particles as oscillations, and try to find harmonic relationships between them... All of the theories of nuclear fusion/fission are based on BRUTE FORCE... i.e., there's this thing called a coulomb barrier and the only way to get thru it is brute force (particle accelerators, extreme temperatures, etc)... I say that's the cave-man approach! Perhaps if you were able to bring the oscillation frequencies of certain parts of the Ni atom into a harmonic relationship with those in the hydrogen atom, things might just naturally join together, or 'get absorbed', just like in spectroscopy. I.e., there are two ways to shatter a wine glass... With a sledgehammer (neanderthalistic or mainstream fission/fusion methods), or thru a small, but persistent application of resonant sound (energy). The analogy is very appropos... You could crank up the volume of all kinds of different sounds and never shatter the glass, but if you apply a pure tone at just the right frequency, the glass doesn't stand a chance... And the later requires so little effort (energy), and you didn't even physically have to touch the glass! But, we all know that it's impossible to break a glass w/o physically hitting it!!! Perhaps the purpose of the catalyst is to bring oscillators in Ni and H into resonance, so the proton gets absorbed by the Ni nucleus, and the oscillation frequencies of the catalyst are not resonant with either so it does not interact with either Ni or H... -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Radiation issues with Ni+p->Cu->Ni Robin, "There could however be the occasional neutron from collisions of the S with other nuclei" Occasional? I don't think so. My recollection it that the rule of thumb for spallation neutrons is 1 neutron per MeV of the accelerated particle (proton)... wouldn't more neutrons that be likely with the heavier accelerated ion, no? Even if not, I would think that there would be substantial spallation neutrons. That reaction seems most unlikely to me. But it raises the larger issue. Why the hell does everyone keep trying to shoehorn these reactions into KNOWN reactions? I'll give you big odds that eventually we will find that the culprit reaction is presently UUNKNOWN to us. Jones
