To recap this alternative theoretical approach (for the record). There is an explanation to the Rossi results which may better fit the Bologna demonstration and the reported findings, since almost all of the (known) possibilities with nickel transmuting to copper should have observable levels of emissions in the ash. Rossi says these are absent. Copper migration in electrochemistry is well-known, and could be the reason for the problem he is having in pinpointing the source of excess energy. He thinks it is ash but it is merely displaced reactor metal – not uncommon. He specifically mentions copper as being an interior component of the reactor in the first patent application.
Of course, the gainful reaction could be one that is completely unrelated to everything in prior physics, as we constantly remind ourselves. If it is completely new, then disregard all of the following wrt Rossi, but it still may have a place elsewhere. Dense hydrogen, such as described by Miley is shocking to many observers, since the density is in the same range as on our sun. Catch-22 the hydrogen does not need to exist in three full dimensions. It can be a surface or cavity effect. The dense clusters may only consist of a few atoms. Moreover, Miley and others: Holmlid, Hora, etc have data for the 2.5 pm spacing between protons, and even this is not exactly “new” either. Kelly came first, it can be argued. The Lawandy hypothesis has been confirmed by extrapolating data from Arnold J. Kelly (Princeton) in 2005 which establishes the existence of very dense ion concentrations on dielectric surfaces in two dimensions. The charges should exhibit extreme Coulomb repulsion, but this does NOT happen. These are electrons, but they would scale as the inverse of mass, and when scaled, this comes out to very close to the density of the Miley finding. Even without Kelly, Miley’s claim stands its own – especially for the single atomic surface layer, or 2D case. >From there, we can move on to JS Brown and the enhanced level of dipole >attraction, which overcomes Coulomb repulsion to fuse hydrogen. This can also >be on a 2D dielectric surface, at a minimum. That is why I am so excited about the Brown formalism leading to direct nuclear pathway to what is suspected to happen with ‘pycno’ or dense hydrogen on a dielectric surface. Brown also gives an explanation for the lack of observed radiation, based on the same geometry. I hope he will flesh that out further, at some point. The Rossi device may, or may not, be in this category of a “dense hydrogen” device. If the Rossi device is “pycno fusion”, or “Bethe fusion”, then the testable, and falsifiable result is going to be the appearance of deuterium, instead of Ni -> Cu as seen in the ash of the reaction. However, to muddy the water, there could be some of both. Jones
