Ed--
Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR R&D field are not
reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with respect
to magnetic fields. You may be right. However if you are, there are a lot
of fakers regarding this one basic parameter.
P&F did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge of
how an electric coil (obvious in the P&F experimental set up) creates a
magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the
resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, given
the magnetic properties of Pd.
A question begs an answer. With you long-term, extensive exposure to the
field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT
avoid revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to highlight
mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR.
In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmund Storms" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "Edmund Storms" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
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>
