On 04/06/2011 11:28 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
> >From Stephen
>
> ...
>
>
>> It's more likely that Levi is in on the gag than that
>> transmutation from nickel to copper produced "natural"
>> isotope ratios in the ash. The former merely requires
>> the assumption that a few humans are acting unusually
>> stupid (which happens frequently). The latter requires
>> something close to a miracle (and miracles are very rare).
>>
> Stephen, why is it that when expected results (such as in this latest
> case, the predicted isotopic shifts don't materialize the way we
> assume they should) the suspicion of fraud, misinterpretation of the
> data, and/or collusion once again become the most likely explanations
> for you.
>
They don't. I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to pick specifically on
fraud. I was merely pointing out that this shoots a big hole in the
assumptions that underpin the conclusion that it's nuclear.
Let me reiterate.
* We've been told that after long operation, up to 30% of the nickel
has been found replaced with copper.
* In this particular case, about 10% of the nickel was apparently
replaced with copper.
* The assumed mechanism for the appearance of the copper was Ni+H -> Cu
* The assumed nuclear reaction in the device, which was assumed to
be the reaction generating the energy, was also Ni+H->Cu.
* If it's nuclear, as widely assumed on this list, then the
reaction, as I just said, has been *assumed* to be Ni+H->Cu.
* If that's what's going on, then we can expect with just about 100%
certainty that the copper won't have the natural isotope ratios,
and the remaining nickel also won't have the natural isotope ratios.
* But they do.
Obvious conclusion: If the isotope test was done correctly, then the
reaction is almost certainly *not nuclear* -- or is, at any rate, *not*
the assumed reaction: Ni+H->Cu.
My point was that the certainty that it is *not* nuclear, if the
measured isotope ratios are correct, seems far more solid than the
certainty that...
* it isn't chemical
* no fraud took place
* the steam was dry
* the temperature of the tap water used in the second test was
stable while it wasn't being measured
* the thermocouples were properly calibrated
* the pump was working properly with advertised pumping volume in
the first published test
* the hydrogen tank was weighed correctly
* the World Trade Center was brought down by airplanes
* George Bush won his second election with an honest majority of the
popular vote
* Elvis really is dead
These are just a few things which seem *less* certain than the
conclusion that the reaction is *not nuclear*, if the isotope ratios are
dead-even natural.
OTOH I suppose we can assume that lots of copper migrated, a little
nickel transmuted, and the isotope test wasn't sensitive enough to pick
up the tiny bit which actually did transmute. To check that, it would
be necessary to determine how much transmuted copper would need to be
found in order to account for the generated energy, and see if there was
way, way, /way/ too much copper for the energy produced. If there was,
then the isotope test results are irrelevant. But if there wasn't, then
we're back to square 1.
Whatever, take it or leave it ... Jones has gone much farther along this
road already, and I am once again all out of time to post.
