I think COE presently depends on isotropy above the Planck scale and that the same HUP responsible for gas motion can be exploited by lattices that aggregate and segregate the isotropy at the nano scale to provide inexhaustible energy from natures' wheel works. I contend that reports of modified decay rates and lack of nuclear ash point more to a relativistic solution than fusion and I think it is the sudden breaches in isotropy as opposed to the slow square law changes of a gravity well that also breach COE .. or at least the rule about HUP being too random and too small to contribute. Fran
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> keeps saying thing like this, which I find a little tiresome: Okay, an anomaly. Very important point: anomaly does not equal cold fusion. It means something unexplained. If the level of heat is high, it may indicate a nuclear effect. I don't think that is the case here. The heat is simply unexplained. Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with. They are: 1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No other heat effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking hydrogen or some other exotic new thing, but I doubt it. 2. We assume that Kidwell observed the same phenomenon as other people have seen with hydrides. It is unreasonable to assume there are many different, unrelated, heretofore undiscovered anomalous heat generating phenomena in hydrides. (McKubre's conservation of miracles.) 3. In other experiments, the heat has been correlated with helium. Again, it is reasonable to assume that it correlates in this experiment as well, even thought that has not been measured. You do not need to start from scratch and prove every single aspect of cold fusion in every single experiment. The helium means this is fusion. Whatever else it may be, it is also fusion. The WL theory is pretty much the same as fusion as far as I can see. Those who disagree are quibbling, like people who say that Shakespeare did not write his plays; it was another man of the same name. These are not laws of physics. They are reasonable assumptions. We assume the unity of nature. We assume that a phenomenon seen in one experiment is probably the same one seen in similar experiments under similar conditions. That is true even when we cannot explain the phenomenon. We assume that conventional explanations are more likely than radically new hypotheses. - Jed
