Jones Beene wrote:
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.
I would say the best available is hardly adequate for anything. So far,
all we have are puzzling hints. Who knows what the history of that
Swedish sample might have been. This has to be done from start to finish
under controlled circumstances.
Rossi is good at doing calorimetry and brilliant at optimizing this
system, but he does not strike me as the kind of person you would pick
to do mass spectroscopy studies or sort out isotopes. I have seen lots
of people try to do that sort of thing unsuccessfully in this business.
It is difficult. It is even difficult just to keep a sample
uncontaminated so that someone in another lab can look at it. That's why
I say we need a "start to finish" analysis by experts.
Helium and 3He do NOT fuse from hydrogen alone, as I am sure that you are
aware . . .
Helium-4 is a byproduct of many fusion and fission reactions. I wouldn't
know but if the metal is involved somehow, helium might show up. Anyone,
no one has looked for it, and with the equipment used so far you could
never look for it.
- 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.
Tritium is easy to detect, but only if you try to detect it. As far as I
know, no one has. Also, you cannot detect it if it is allowed to escape
from the cell into the air. You would have to open the cell carefully in
a controlled environment to capture it. Rossi does not seem like the
kind of person who would do that. No one else has had the opportunity
yet, as far as I know.
Again, the best available evidence suggests no nuclear reaction on the time
frame of days.
Rossi says they have looked the second day, but not within the first 24
hours or so.
Note that many Pd-D cells produce no radiation or radioactive particles,
yet that is definitely a nuclear reaction as far as I am concerned. Some
do, of course, produce tritium.
You are free to present your own hypothesis or to echo that of Rossi.
My hypothesis is that it is much too early to be spinning hypotheses. We
do not have enough information.
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.
You keep saying that. So far, everything he has claimed that has been
tested for has been verified. Many of the things he has claimed have not
yet be tested for, such as enhanced nickel isotopes or the production of
copper with natural isotopes. You cannot claim these are lies or
mistakes until someone does a serious test to see if they are real.
Rossi is, of course, often wrong. An experimentalist who does something
worthwhile will always be wrong. Fleischmann was wrong about neutrons,
for example. As Stan Pons says, "if we get it half right, that's a victory."
I think Rossi is often confusing, and sometimes confused himself, but
with regard to technical issues I see no evidence that he cannot be
trusted. Frankly, you seem to have it in for Rossi, for some reason. I
think you are biased. You have made many statements against Rossi
without evidence, or contrary to evidence, such as your claim yesterday
that they used the same device in all tests, instead of a 1 L cell in
the first test, and a 50 ml cell in the most recent tests. That kind of
thing hurts your credibility. You should admit you were wrong, and set
the record straight.
- Jed
