I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations.
It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell 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. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. 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. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
