On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires
testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made
difficult if mechanisms are proposed that cannot be tested. For
example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and,
in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy
involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of
possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities.
But Ed – it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which
we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium.
But Jones, we do not know this can not work. You are taking the
conventional approach that eventually proves that LENR is impossible.
I'm proposing a new approach must be used. Suggesting obscure and
untestable processes such as spin coupling does not help. The data can
be explained without using these processes. Consequently, why insist
they be used. Does nature's behavior not have the last word?
We know that tritium is made when D and H are present and this can
only result from p-e-d fusion. Is it unreasonable to assume p-e-p also
occurs? Nevertheless, this proposal shows where to look for the
evidence. I'm waiting for someone to find the d and the subsequent
tritium when H+Ni is used. Absence of data is not absent of proof, as
many people point out including yourself.
What would you expect to find if spin coupling were the process?
Ed Storms
Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts –
the lack of tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse
two protons, and the lack of 1+ MeV quanta.
Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction
which cannot happen.
Jones
