On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
If you think about that logically for a while, you will probably realize > that your conclusion is false for reasons related to the incompleteness of > the chart. > Far from the conclusion that the location on the Ragone chart suggests that the process involved in NiH is probably nuclear in origin is false, it seems to me that it's quite reasonable, and perhaps the most reasonable. What the chart shows us is that there are few if any known chemical processes as far to the right as the red pentagram (and none shown that have as much peak power). In this context one might draw the following conclusions: 1. There is a chemical reaction that has the same peak power and specific energy, and we just don't know about it, or it hasn't been included. 2. The process in NiH is somehow nuclear, and a lot of nuclear mass is being converted into energy. 3. There is something driving the NiH reaction that is neither nuclear nor chemical (e.g., dark matter). 4. The measurements in the March 2013 E-Cat test were in gross error. I am quite comfortable with (2). Option (1) strikes me as lacking credibility. Option (3) is possible, but it doesn't stand out as being the first hypothesis one would want to adopt. If you are inclined towards (4), I would like to know what the flaws in the test might be. If I have missed an option, please point it out. Eric
