Most casual observers of the Rossi device believe that the only two choices for the kilowatt levels of heat which is seen (aside from trickery) are chemical or nuclear. What else is there?
During a chemical reaction both mass and energy are conserved, and the weight of the "ash" (reaction end-products) will equal the mass of the reactants. In contrast, a nuclear reaction turns a tiny amount of mass into energy, and the ash weighs slightly less. Because the 'c' or lightspeed component of e=mc^2 is large - and then is squared, it does not take much mass to provide lots of energy. Are those the only two choices? Obviously, there could be external energy being pumped in, but in the Rossi demo we are fairly certain it could not be the "usual suspects" - hidden wires or RF radiation. The wild card is the zero point field, but few casual observers know much about it. Even so, perhaps these limited choices may not be the end of story - even without wading too deeply into zero point - and that is because the nucleus is composed of smaller particles than protons and neutrons - quarks. Almost daily we are seeing reports from Fermilab and the LHC of how quarks are influenced by a "fifth force" (which may end up being a subset of ZPE) Of course, there is a semantics issue: of 'quark energy' being a subset of nuclear energy but that argument fades once we have the instrumentation necessary to analyze quarks and gluons in detail, since semantics is always about the observers' ignorance. Quarks are almost too small to specify and describe correctly in 2011, as having a unique identity, but that is changing daily. In chemistry - breaking bonds with high potential energy into bonds with lower potential energy results in gain. That is a clue as to where this is going. The chemical reaction involves valence electrons, and energy has merely been transformed from one form of energy to another, but is conserved. This may offer an analogy to quark energy, because there are six kinds of quarks, all having differing mass, and all are associated with packets of energy in a nucleus that provide a possible way in which potential energy can be converted in any kind of 'reorganization'. This can happen with input from the zero point field or not, but the bottom line is this: when bare protons are very close together, as Miley and Holmlid have proved is possible in the IRH state (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) - then they can act more like a bunch of quarks - the so-called "quark soup" than individual protons. About a month ago, I tried to frame this argument for the first time - and it got a bit too complex, but the time now seems right to take it under consideration, once again. It was not as clear then, as now, that this Rossi reaction has NO radiation signature. It all goes back to the excellent V&B report - which in summary suggests that 10^17 nuclear reaction should have been detected over the long and energetic run, but in fact no nuclear reactions were detected. Here was the prior attempt at putting some of these ideas into words - "Quark Power" and it has a nice ring to it. Fran Roarty is also suggesting ways that cavity-QED can provide the impetus for the quark soup reorganization, but just as with any emergent meme, the proper wording is not yet in place to make this argument convincing to a broader audience. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg44224.html Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
