On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Ed: "the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply
WRONG."
Jones: "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."
Ed: "the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so
implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely
ignored."
The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced.
Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know about?
Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct? On the other
hand, I can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I
were uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong
enough to give confidence. What are your reasons for not agreeing?
Science is based on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices
are based on knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the
reasons are clear. What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT?
As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough,
transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting
sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be
produced. In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction,
which eliminates the claim unless a method to overcome it is
identified. I have suggested a method, but the rate would nevertheless
be small.
As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without
any evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no
value even in law, much less in science. Of course, a small magnetic
effect might occur or a small magnetic field might alter the rate.
However, no magnetic field can be created at the atomic level that is
known to cause a nuclear reaction. Some very intense magnetic fields
have been generated without producing fusion, which is the process we
are discussing. Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in
the apparatus they have shown?
Ed Storms
Eric
