On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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.
I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not
wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the
claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy
produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for
intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by
any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected
based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to
be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts.
Ed Storms
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
