In a Mike McKubre presentation at SRI a year or so ago he described a series of experiments in P-D where they measured and correlated Helium production with excess heat and (if I recall correctly) got a result very close to the expected heat release from D-D=>He and He concentrations that increased to far above atmospheric partial pressure of He, also very little Tritium (hot D-D fusion normally produces a lot of Tritium). To me (and Mike) this is pretty solid proof that Pons Fleischman is mostly D-D => He and any other reactions are mostly incidental. Sorry I can't remember where in this lecture the relevant info is.
What Happened to Cold Fusion? (eight parts, total: 102 min) ======================= SRI Mike McKubre's Presentation at Cafe Scientifique Silicon Valley (1/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc Major Segments (2/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeikEgjC1qg Department of Energy Reference (3/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqeA8n37XFg Necessary but Not Sufficient Conditions (4/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XN52jXl78 Gas-Loading Experiments (5/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZfgvSFYDM Experiments by Italian Scientists (6/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3N3dWlIPUQ Recap (7/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QhIWrA4pGI Q&A Discussion (8/8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWkVyg_iul4 On 14 July 2012 23:26, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > At 02:15 PM 7/14/2012, Axil Axil wrote: > >> The fact that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash of the cold >> fusion reaction is unequivocal proof that LENR is caused by the lowering of >> the coulomb barrier and NOT a fusion process. >> > > Sorry, not so. > > It is proof that the mechanism, whatever it is, is not some form of > standard d-d fusion, with the Coulomb gate blasted out of the way by some > sort of unexpected energy concentration, perhaps, or diverted by something > as simple as uncomplicated catalysis, as with muon-catalyzed fusion. > > But there are many kinds of fusion, many possibilities other than this > naive "known fusion" hypothesis, that did so much mischief in 1989-90 et > seq. It came to the point that the lack of neutrons was used to impeach all > nuclear explanations as impossible, when, it really should not have been > controversial, there are known possible nuclear reactions that don't emit > neutrons, and "unknown nuclear reaction" -- the actual claim of Pons and > Fleischmann, is wide open. > > Why nuclear? > > Good question. Pons and Fleischmann thought they saw some neutrons. They > were mistaken. So all they had is heat, and they were experts at measuring > heat. They believed that the heat was more than could be explained by > chemistry. Hence what they really were claiming, beyond the neutron error, > was "this isn't chemistry." > > However, some years later, the ash was identified, it's correlated with > the heat. It's helium. The immediate counterclaim was that the helium was a > result of leakage, since the detected helium was usually below ambient > helium levels. > > Nice try. No cigar. The detected helium was strongly correlated with the > anomalous heat. Leaked helium would not do that. Further, time measurement > of helium in some experiments shows helium levels rising toward helium with > no slowing of rate, and passing beyond ambient. > > Further, that the measured heat/helium ratio is consistent with that for > deuterium -> helium, a known fusion reaction, would be an astonishing > coincidence if due to leakage! Note that this does *not* show that the > reaction is d+d -> He-4 + gamma, because *any reaction* that starts with > deuterium and ends with helium will show the same ratio. > > The gamma rays are not observed, which was used by Huizenga to dismiss the > helium results, but he knew full well the import, he merely thought that > Miles, who found this, would not be replicated. > > He was wrong. >
