On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. > ... These are facts, not assertions. > Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any > meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been > seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You > are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
