Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you suggesting that Pd-D is fusion and Ni-H is not? > > Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Most of us on vortex agree that > Pd-D seems to have all the characteristics of fusion (to helium) but Ni-H > has no characteristics of fusion. > Have you taken a poll? How do you know what "most of us" agree upon? In any case, science is not a popularity contest. Until there is published data showing that Ni-H does or does not produce something equivalent to the He from Pd-D (but obviously not He), no one will have any basis to say Ni-H is not fusion. There have been no studies of this as far as I know. No one has looked for products. I think it might be even more difficult to find them than it is with Pd-D. McKubre and many others assume that Pd and Ni produce the same basic effect, because it seems unlikely there are many different heretofore undiscovered sources of anomalous non-chemical heat from hydrides. That is what he jokingly calls the "conservation of miracles" hypothesis. I agree with him. Granted, that is not based on theory or experimental observations. As I said, no one has done any experiments or made any observations. No one has looked for products yet. > And Krivit has looked into the proportionality issue (thermal gain compared > to claimed helium) and found none, but let's don't go there . . . Krivit has many fine qualities but his analytic skills seem wanting to me. > - we should strive to divorce the two fields. They are fundamentally > different. > Until there is some experimental evidence for this I will disagree. I do not think we should assume we know the answer to questions that we have never asked of nature. I do not think it is a good idea to assume we know for sure how experiments will turn out before we do the experiments. People often do that, but it is contrary to the scientific method. > The reaction demands a > ferromagnetic metal - either nickel or cobalt. When palladium is alloyed > with nickel, hydrogen will then become a valid fuel for thermal gain - but > NOT with pure Pd. > Obviously there are differences. Pd only works with D, for example. > That should tell you volumes about the underlying mechanism. > What does it tell you? (Serious question.) - Jed
