Well, there are degrees of fancifulness … and to my mind it is less of a leap of faith to say that “LENR gamma suppression”, if it were to be proved, could be made as useful as basic lightweight shielding of fission reactors, if not more so - compared to being solely used as the way that transmutation is hidden during operation of a thermal cell.
IOW – if gamma suppression exists at all as a physical reality, for which
there is little evidence, then it is very likely (to my thinking) that it
can be extended to other uses than the one in which it was found. Why not?
Makes no sense to say it is limited to LENR, if it is a physical reality.
Of course, if the COP in LENR was really proved to be in the range of 6 or
higher, which Rossi claims but for which there is no proof, then maybe this
point would be moot, and then we forget the other options and go with LENR
only.
But what if the COP in Ni-H turns out to be about the same as the Thermacore
results – which was somewhere in the range of 1.4 over a year of operation?
Since you have not investigated Thermacore, you probably did not realize the
low COP that they were struggling with. Many who have looked closely at
Rossi’s results see the same kind of slight gain, a proved gain but not a
large gain… and Rossi has continually lowered expectations as the months
pass with no proof of any gain.
It is quite possible that DGT has a COP of less than two also. That explains
why they do not want the test data released. Their data does show gain, but
only slight gain, and they cannot sell $50 million licenses with COP<2.
Although a low COP is not enough to use commercially for LENR, even for hot
water, due to the overhead it brings with it – nevertheless – if there
really was a shielding effect, then who cares about the low COP?
Use if with accelerator driven fusion on a small scale (tabletop
accelerator).
If you're suggesting that what is being proposed is more in
the realm of sci-fi than science, I have no issue with that. But we should
keep an open mind about various possibilities and not rule them out of hand.
So far I have seen nothing in what has been suggested in connection with
active gamma suppression that is so far-out that an explanation could not
eventually be found for it. You have given reasons against it, and they are
well-taken. But you have not made a case that is so compelling that the
possibility is obviously simply a fanciful one, which is the conclusion you
seem to want to draw here.
Eric
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
