-----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell > There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural > isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear?
JR: How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here? As I said stated: from the "best available evidence" - which is the Swedish isotopic analysis and the spectrographs in the patent. Helium and 3He do NOT fuse from hydrogen alone, as I am sure that you are aware - and that reaction would require deuterium. No deuterium, no helium. Tritium is radioactive, it is easy to detect in extremely small quantities, as are the radioactive copper isotopes. Again, the best available evidence suggests no nuclear reaction on the time frame of days. V&B would have seen something. You cannot expect 10^17 nuclear reactions and not see anything at all - and expect to hear any other conclusion than NON-NUCLEAR, at least for that time frame. Of course, if better evidence becomes available, then it will alter the "working premise" - but one purpose of this forum as I see it, is to provide those experimenting in this field of nickel-hydrogen with the best possible working premise. It is an ongoing and evolving process and anyone can contribute. You are free to present your own hypothesis or to echo that of Rossi. Actually I would like to hear yours, if it is different from AR. It could be helpful to see how any of these will evolve over time as more and more physical evidence is put into the record. My working hypothesis as of May 3, is that spillover hydrogen is formed catalytically, at a threshold temperature and collects in Nickel nanopores, gaining thermal energy from an unknown source at very close to the Curie point of the nickel. It is that simple. The reaction is temperature sensitive. The source of excess energy could be ZPE, dark energy, Mills' shrinkage and so forth. However, if there are nuclear reactions at all, they are greatly delayed, for days or weeks. V&B saw none at all, so this would indicate a long delay, most likely indicating that a QM 'makeup reaction' of some kind is involved. There are lots of good experimenters tackling this problem. Two months ago, I was aware of only three, and now at least a dozen. I am approaching this from the PoV of finding real understanding in a timely fashion to help others who are not associated with Rossi. You seem to be looking for further ways to please Rossi, even though you do not see it as pandering. Nothing that Rossi says can be taken at face value. It is the "George Kelly" effect, combined with his prior arrest record, failure to produce under DoE contract, and his acknowledged desire for no independent replication. At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says can be trusted. Jones
