I believe Axil is saying that researchers have not discounted the existence of transmutations themselves, but rather have discounted the correlation between excess heat and transmutations. It is similar to claims made by Larsen and Krivit amongst others.
Unfortunately there remains very little evidence that hints at a correlation between transmutations and excess heat. The Miley work has not been replicated and remains ambiguous, albeit interesting. Results cited by Krivit in Naturwissenschaften do not reveal anything convincing. Nowhere in their ICCF 17 or 18 papers do DGT claim transmutations as the prime mover for excess heat; at best they insinuate it may be a contributor. DGT has always been careful about what they say concerning the mechanism and have consistently situated themselves in the theoretical middle ground between multi-body fusion and/or virtual neutron transmutation. No data from DGT papers indicates transmutation rates that parallel excess heat. I'm not sure where Axil's and others confidence in these beliefs comes from. What other evidence am I and others overlooking exactly? Even if transmutations do end up being more relevant than originally believed in Ni-H systems (which is certainly possible because of course these systems are not as well tested/documented as PdD), Miles, McKubre, ENEA, and Arata have all put forward very good evidence that He4 is the relevant ash in PdD systems and other ash (i.e. transmutations) is incommensurate with the excess heat. Chest thumping about a mechanism at this stage in the game is a fools errand. It remains a swamp. We can all have a preference for what mechanism makes most sense to us personally, but lets not make bold declarations about who has the monopoly on truth. This reaction remains a deep enigma despite our own personal biases. Regards. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > Let me reaffirm that Defkalion has every right to demand NDAs from their > visitors. There is nothing unethical or unusual about keeping a product > like this under wraps. > > However, they cannot expect people to fully accept the claims as long as > they stick to this policy. They have a binary choice: secrecy or > credibility. They cannot have both. > > They put on a demonstration. That is suggestive. It is helpful. But it is > not proof. > > It is unreasonable for Axil Axil to say that other researchers should > accept these claims at face value. Defkalion does not get a free pass. They > must be held to the same standards everyone else is held to. If they want > people to believe their claims, they must reveal the data and the > independent tests supporting it. > > It is unreasonable to say that people reject the claims because they don't > want to believe in transmutations. I have never heard of anyone in this > field opposed to transmutations. There is a lot of evidence for them. >
