"which essentially means everything decays. On Friday, December 13, 2013, Jones Beene wrote:
> How does your reaction differ from nuclear decay? > > > > There seems to be some confusion in precisely what you are looking for. If > the isotope in question does not decay naturally, the wait can be very long > J > > > > For instance, many common foods contain potassium, which is slightly > radioactive – so you can measure the decay rate in say - bananas - with a > good GM detector. The rate of decay can be increased in some cases. There > are reports of a billion fold increase in some isotopes. (see Bosch, F. et > al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical > Review Letters 1996 or the Barker patents. > > > > Curiously – potassium is also a catalyst for the Ni-H reaction, but the > radioactive isotope is not to blame… or is it? To add to the confusion, > some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which > essentially means everything decays. > > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe > > > > I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. > > > > E.g. a receipt like > > > > Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to .... > > From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) > > Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get > P(system) >> P(single atom) > > > > So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, > that you can induce a > > nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might > take advantage of this > > mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can > happen! > > > > Hope that it's a bit clearer now. > > > > /Stefan > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I cannot judge whether any of the theory is "substantial proof." I can say > there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the > field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. > > Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental > proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of > material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the > satisfaction of most people. > > > > Generally speaking, in science a theory is not "proof" of anything. > Theories explain that which experiments prove. > >
