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. JB: 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. ES: But Jones, we do not know this can not work. You are taking the conventional approach that eventually proves that LENR is impossible. Not accurate! Let's be clear: I am very much taking an expanded conventional approach - but it is one which says that in order for LENR to be proved, there must be an energetic reaction for gain which does not produce gamma nor does it produce more than minimal transmutation. Spin coupling, for instance - is well known, and has not been ruled out. That does not mean it is correct, but at least it is not ruled out by experiment. Deuterium fusing from protons can be ruled out. I'm proposing a new approach must be used. Suggesting obscure and untestable processes such as spin coupling does not help. They are not obscure at all - and they are testable. You are incorrect on that point. Several of the alternative theories for Ni-H have a good chance even though real "fusion" as it is known to the mainstream, is not in evidence. We must find a way to convert nuclear mass to thermal heat and yes spin coupling can do that. Your approach, as it applies to Ni-H does not match experiment, and that is the bottom line. We must rule out fusion of protons to deuterium. That says nothing about the fusion of protons to helium in palladium, which can happen in that kind of reaction BUT NOT in Ni-H. The Rossi experiment absolutely rules out P+P -> D. Jones
