Perhaps a dumb question, but would there be enough deuterium in natural hydrogen to carry the reaction forward?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > The main problem I see with this line of reasoning is that Rossi and DGT > are getting positive results. Why would that happen unless the normal > hydrogen reacts with nickel directly? There may well be a reaction of D > taking place within the system, and if singular hydrogen is the result, > then that should start reacting by itself generating heat. There remain > too many questions and it is prudent to consider that this experiment needs > to be replicated before the total story unfolds. > > I would much rather see normal hydrogen reacting with nickel as the main > energy source for several good reasons. Rossi and DGT appear to have > strong positive results and of course the cost of D is far in excess to > that of 1H. Let's allow the dust to settle a bit. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 11:06 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming > > *From:* Eric Walker > > I would have thought that the protons would migrate out and recombine > to form H2. But I don't think that would account for a twofold increase. > > There would be a net decrease in gas quantity under any scenario in which > D2 reacts with nickel - never wound an increase be expected, even small - > much less a ~2:1 increase in gas quantity. Amazing. > > The chances of measurement error are minimal with this kind of > instrumentation, especially since they performed a control run which did as > expected - so the best assumption is that what they reported was at least > fairly accurate. > > This takes a while to sink in, but it most likely means essentially that > almost every deuterium atom is converted into 2 hydrogen atoms, with a net > gain in energy. This also means that very few deuterons could have reacted > with nickel, or else the quantity of gas would not have increased so > remarkably. > > That is our most likely starting premise, unless there was severe > measurement error. If there was measurement error in this aspect - then the > calorimetry is also highly suspect, since it is much harder to perform. > However, the control run indicates that they did everything correctly and > we should at least start our analysis with that premise. > > Jones >
