Abd, First, thanks for putting in so much effort into your review.
I think most of us find the reaction pathways bewildering complicated. I am perplexed, though, that you say that McKubre's experiments provide no evidence for W-L theory, since he is now a technical advisor for Brillouin Energy. Brillouin's video claims that (W-L theory) electron capture initiates a reaction chain that ends with alpha-particle production. Do you communicate with McKubre and have any update on his theory? - especially wrt Brillouin's LENR hypothesis. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > [...] > Bottom line, though, the McKubre experiments described provide no > evidence for W-L theory. They merely indicate a need for further work > to tighten up the search for helium. If, after doing so, a > discrepancy remains, this again would not be evidence for W-L theory, > it would merely be evidence for *something other than deuterium -> > helium heat. How much of "something else" would depend on the exact > values found. > > p. 27 reviews the McKubre result, but then criticizes it on the basis > of an alleged "belief" that cold D-D fusion was the only nuclear > reaction that could possibly take place in their experiments." No, > McKubre was pursuing helium evidence, which is the *only* solid > evidence that *significant* nuclear reactions are taking place in CF > experiments. McKubre is not nailed to a particular hypothesis of > mechanism. Some mechanism involving deuterium -> helium seems likely, > though, by Occam's Razor. This is consistently stated by > Krivit/Larsen as "d-d fusion," when there are other possibilities. > [...]
