First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to no transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion reaction. This points to photofusion.
The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to photofusion. The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot happen because of negative energy coming out of the fission reaction or multiple separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter elements are produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive fusion reaction of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a total removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine into two or more lighter resultant nuclei. Also the production of all those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension of nuclear repulsion. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/3/14, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let us discuss this reference:... > > No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which > would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and > >> experimental testing. > >> > >> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows > >> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by > >> economic those experiments may be quite practical. > >> > >> What is your experimental test? > >> > >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff > >>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great > >>> joy. > >>> > >>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by > >>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. > >>> > >>> In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the > >>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the > >>> references I list. > >>> > >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf > >>> > >>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies > >>> can > >>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is > called > >>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as > >>> simple > >>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even > >>>> more > >>>> so than ChemE. > >>>> > >>>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical > >>>> demonstration of that knowledge? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is > suppressed > >>>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons > do > >>>>> not > >>>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or > >>>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker > >>>>> <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell > >>>>>> <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have > >>>>>>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty > >>>>>> far-out. > >>>>>> Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is > more > >>>>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled > >>>>>> out by > >>>>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our > >>>>>> attention. > >>>>>> If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is > >>>>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it > >>>>>> will > >>>>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after > it > >>>>>> takes > >>>>>> place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is > >>>>>> allowed, > >>>>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much > of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> recent thread. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever > >>>>>> in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed > >>>>>> wants to > >>>>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low > threshold > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his > hydroton > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps > >>>>>> inherent > >>>>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this > >>>>>> discussion > >>>>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has > >>>>>> been a > >>>>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever > >>>>>> it is > >>>>>> that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion > that > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion. Rossi's terminology > >>>>>> confuses > >>>>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as > >>>>>> gammas. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Eric > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >
