I agree with you Eric, the jury is still out. Ed's way of thinking is more in line with my recent thoughts about a retarding magnetic field effect. He may not agree, but it is easier for me to understand how a process that slows down the snap action associated with the acceleration of the charged particles by the strong force could allow the energy to be dissipated slowly instead of in one large pulse.
I visualize forcing the proton(s) to crawl to the nickel nucleus or each other kind of like moving through molasses. After all, it is well known that electromagnetic radiation is generated by the acceleration of charged particles and the rate of that acceleration must determine the spectrum of the radiation emitted. Large magnetic fields have been shown to divert moving charged particles. As I have mentioned previously, DGT has reported the presence of a much larger external magnetic field that anyone would have expected and I assume that they would not have placed that report into the public arena had it been false. I am taking them at their word about this measurement until proven otherwise. A large external magnetic field might well translate into an extremely large internal field at the active sites. Couple that with positive feedback and you get a significant amount of power generation. So far this is the theory that I favor. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. How is it a diversion to bring up an apparently well-established conclusion that a large quantum of mass energy can be fractionated without penetrating radiation? That was the point that was at issue. Answer: it's not a diversion. The conclusion may be flawed, the evidence may be flawed, the interpretation may be flawed, and/or the research may be flawed. But a consensus conclusion about the fractionation of a 24 MeV quantum into non-penetrating radiation is something to be addressed in a conversation dealing with the question of whether fractionation is possible. I'm not trying to say that the fractionation conclusion is for sure what is going on, either in NiH or in PdD. Only that it's not out in the wilderness either, as some would tendentiously make it out to be. :) Eric
