On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: Edmund Storms > > SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but > they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction. > Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier > and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do > this. > > Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent > application. > > Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the > entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input > and helium is seen as evidence of LENR.
Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required. > > If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of > the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too > weak. > > As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be > rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is > actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA. > > Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion > as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his > "reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be > siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it > would apply to Cooper's claim. Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of LENR and of even basic science? > > > If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the > same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more, since the > experiment is so simple and straightforward. Yes, if the measurements were valid, what you say is true. However, no evidence shows they are valid. Anyone can make claims. The only reason a claim should be accepted is if it can be proven. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and a distraction. Ed Storms > > Jones > > > <winmail.dat>
