On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
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.
Not even close, Ed.
I specifically said that I do not address anything to do with "cold
fusion",
as opposed to LENR, and most importantly, this is not an "either/or"
proposition.
Please Jones, do not split hairs. You know exactly what I mean by CF
and LENR, which I explained before. We are discussing either a nuclear
process (CF or LENR) or a nonnuclear process (Mills). This is a clear
either/or situation.
LENR can have both heat with nuclear products OR heat without
nuclear products.
No LENR cannot be both. You are simply changing the definition to fit
your personal wishes. This is not how the rest of the world defines
the word. If you want to make up a different word, please do. This is
like calling an apple an orange because you happen to like oranges.
Your approach simply causes confusion because we can not discuss the
same effect.
And thirdly, we do not need Mills complete theory - but we
must borrow parts from his theory to understand Rossi. I have always
stated
your theory fits Piantelli's experiments, but not Rossi's.
The Mills theory is a complete and unified model. You can not extract
parts that you happen to like.
In addition, my theory explains both Rossi and Piantelli. Rossi simply
made the effect Piantelli observed stronger. I explain how this might
have been done. You might not agree, but nevertheless I have logically
explained how this might happen. You have not. I have predicted what
is expected to be observed. You have not. I have explained how the
Rossi effect must be controlled. You have not. You can accept or
reject, but please acknowledge what I claim and discuss the
consequences of the idea rather rejecting my ideas by redefining words
and proposing ambiguous mechanisms.
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.
Certainly not "everyone else". Ahern's fine replication of Arata
finds zero
evidence of a nuclear effect and Celani finds none either - basically
Piantelli supports the fusion viewpoint, but his work is less
convincing
Of course, some people do not see any effect. This failure is common
in this field. In contrast, the effect is clearly seen by other
people. Which experience you choose to believe determines how you
explain or reject the ideas. I make clear exactly what I accept and
reject, and why.
Plus - Rossi has possibly advanced the Mills effect - which is now
the Rossi
effect, by identifying Ni-62 as the active species. BUT in the end -
Bianchini has proved that there is NO nuclear products nor nuclear
radiation
in the Rossi effect.
No, Bianchini only failed to detect the energy of radiation his
instruments were designed to detect. In addition, he could not
demonstrate that radiation was not made inside and being absorbed to
below the detection limit. We do know that the light hydrogen system
makes low energy radiation that can only result from a nuclear
reaction. Whether the proper method was used to detect this radiation
emitted from the Ross device is still unknown.
Even Mills has apparently failed to make his method work
this effectively, which seems ironic.
Mills' proponents, such as Jeff Driscoll think he has proved this.
Many
others are not convinced. Rossi seems to have gone well beyond
Mills, and
best of all - by pinpointing the active isotope.
Rossi claims that Ni62 produces energy because it transmutes to Cu.
Mills claims that energy is given off when the electron in a H atom is
able to go below the quantum level of 1 by giving this energy to a
catalyst. Are you proposing that this catalyst is Ni62? Why would this
be the case? Please explain because it makes no sense using the Mills
theory.
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.
Wrong. I do accept that your theory fits the physical evidence for
some
experiments, like Piantelli, but NOT Rossi's work. You want your
theory to
cover everything, but unfortunately it does not.
It does not fit everything only because you say it doesn't. I say it
does and can predict behavior. We will see who is right when the
predictions are tested.
Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms are
operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release.
Yes. At least five similar mechanisms are present that all involved QM
tunneling in one form or another.
OK, this is clear. You are proposing at least 5 miracles. :-) I'm
proposing one miracle.
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.
Yes, this is all completely consistent with my hypothesis of multiple
related pathways. Rossi no longer uses lead, and the very best
testing for
radioactivity which has ever been done in LENR finds no radiation in
the
Rossi effect. I emphasize NONE since there is not the slightest hint
of any
radiation in Bianchini's results.
Of course and I can wave a detector over my TV and find no radiation.
However, if I use the proper detector, I can find a rich assortment of
radiation produced by all kinds of radioactive elements. Have you ever
waved a sensitive detector over a banana?
If Rossi is causing the Mills effect, then his e-Cat is
accumulating hydrinos, which should be easy to detect.
That could be true - but Rossi has an incentive not to permit this
kind of
testing. I have also provided a way to partially falsify my
hypothesis of
soft x-rays.
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.
No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been
detected by
Bianchini if it was there, and it was not there.
As I explain in another e-mail, you are wrong about this. Tritium can
not be detected in a steel container even if it were present in huge
amounts.
And it would not reject
Mills unless all the complete gain was attributable to fusion, which
cannot
be the case.
In any event, the presence of a small amount of tritium, which is not
commensurate with the thermal gain, would bolster my hypothesis of
several
routes to gain.
How would tritium be made?
Ed Storms
Jones
<winmail.dat>
