From: Ian Walker
Ahern is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to
mention where you think the paper supports Ahern's view?
OK. Dubinko starts out - the first sentence of his paper with this quote: “A
new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”.
This is the exact wording from Ahern, who does credit Fermi-Pasta-Ulam and
goes into great detail in his prior publications on large amplitude
anharmonic lattice vibrations. Dubinko is either not well-read on the
relevant literature of LENR, or else he is trying to take credit for the
work of others.
>So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and
blacklight power espouses.
Dubinko may claim not to support it, but he bases the energy of his
hypothetical DB (page 3) on “electrolytic reaction 2D++ 2e => D2+ 31.7 eV
which can proceed during the course of absorption/desorption at the cathode
surface”
…and we must surmise that he knows this large amount of energy is not
possible without ground state redundancy, i.e. to derive 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV
from standard chemistry is impossible, and since it is exactly as Mills
suggests – he is supporting hydrino theory whether he acknowledges it or
not.
IOW- Dubinko seems to be deliberately creating a smoke screen, since he
cannot have it both ways… and that may be why he seems to be using “31.7 eV”
instead of breaking it down as 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV, which instantly invokes
Mills’ Rydberg levels.
The paper does reference Swartz
Yes, but only minimally. If I am not mistaken, Mitchell should be credited
with much more than this, but I do not have the inclination to make a point
by point argument.
Walker, I suggest writing to Mitchell Swartz directly for his comment … if
you really insist on defending Dubinko. Where is the novelty?
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
