Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and unrelated phenomenon. Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief.
On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do this so that I can replicate his success? Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: Edmund Storms > > Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied > to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to > make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment > plays a role. > > Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of > cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not > consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear. > > Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new > SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky > or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want > to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better > ways. > > These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and > triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion > as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for > practicality if Ni-H is real. > > Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead > marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in > experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not, > it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are > not relevant to Ni-H. > > At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try > to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school > experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. > > That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN > which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some > glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not > interfere. > > Jones > > > > > <winmail.dat>
