OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose.
You believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to
produce nuclear products and the Mills effect does not.
You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy using the
Mills effect while everyone else who explored this combination
detected evidence of a nuclear process. Even Mills has apparently
failed to make his method work this effectively, which seems ironic.
You do not accept my theory of how the presence of D, H, or H+D can
change the nuclear products from the same mechanism and account for
the behavior. Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms
are operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release.
You believe that no gamma is emitted by the e-Cat because no gamma is
reported to be detected outside the apparatus. You come to this
conclusion in spite of gamma being detected on occasion by several
studies using light hydrogen and that Celani claimed the e-Cat emitted
gamma during startup. Rossi was even concerned enough to put a lead
shield in his early design.
If Rossi is causing the Mills effect, then his e-Cat is accumulating
hydrinos, which should be easy to detect. In addition, I'm asking him
to look for deuterium and tritium. The tritium would be easy to detect
and would provide unambiguous support for my model and a clear
rejection of the Mills effect.
This this summary correct?
Ed Storms
On Jun 1, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful
radiation testing.
Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over
hundreds of hours, including Pd-D ones.
Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not
use the very sophisticated setup of Bianchini – who after all is
measuring kilowatts and is a leading expert at this.
Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
tritium have been documented in Rossi.
I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult
to find.
Moderately difficult but not “very difficult” - but as a practical
matter for a theoretician – is it wise to build a theory on a
foundation that depends upon the viability of an extremely rare
reaction (P-e-P), unless you have tested the ash in some basic way -
and found a skewed H/D ratio or other indication of excess D?
In short, the Rossi effect looks very
much like the Mills effect.
And the Mills effect looks like cold fusion.
And that is precisely why it was a mistake to bifurcate the two,
circa 1992.
So we're back where we started. I agree with Mike McKubre about the
conservation of miracles.
But cold fusion requires more miracles than Mills, who with his
funding has now proved many details. Mills predicts UV lines and
finds them – miracle erased. He predicts no gamma and there is none.
He predicts and captures the fractional hydrogen as physical atoms,
and has the species tested - and it shows up differently from
hydrogen in NMR etc.
In fact the only problem with Mills in the miracle department is the
lack of the commercial product – and if Rossi gets there first due
to the high level of a more robust reaction, and especially if AR
has accurately predicted Ni-62 then he wins the big prize...
Gulp. Three cheers for Rossi, but in the end – it is LENR, and not
cold fusion per se as Ed wants to define it. The ultimate source of
energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s hundreds of hours
of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly indicates NO
fusion.
Which is to say, the Rossi effect is not fusion but can still be a
new kind of nuclear reaction if one can be found with no gamma
radiation.
I expect that all of these effects are either nuclear in something
like the conventional sense, or they are Mills superchemical
shrinking hydrogen. I doubt there are two unrelated phenomena so
similar in nature.
Agreed– and there is one common denominator – QM tunneling.
Things tend to be unified at some deep level, as are combustion and
metabolism (to use Chris Tinsley's favorite example).
Exactamundo! There are probably 5-6 similar variations on the theme
of quantum tunneling which result in either
1) full fusion (as in the cold fusion of deuterium into helium)
2) some kind of weak force beta decay (W-L or related theory)
3) accelerated decay or internal conversion decay
4) UV supra-chemistry (energy coming from electron angular
momentum)
5) QCD strong force effects (quantum chromodynamics)
6) Any combination of the above – even several of them in the
same experiment!
Any theory which aspires to encompass all of these begins with QM
tunneling, but no simpler theory from there on - works.
It cannot be true that all excess heat in Ni-H comes from a single
kind of reaction, as the result do not allow this. Even in the same
experiment, one could see three similar but different pathways to
thermal gain that all share QM tunneling as the starting point, but
differ on everything else.
Ockham be damned ! Don’t forget that appeals to “parsimony” were
used by skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues -
against DNA for instance, as the carrier of genetic information.
There is a long list of Ockham failures and the workable LENR theory
will be on the next one.
