From: [email protected] … that D/H is a long time well known artifact, that newcommers and skeptics rediscover regularly because they don't have read all….Can someone more competent check if my arguments/interpretation are good ?
If you can overlook my incompetence for a while, here are a few comments against the completely bogus argument of an exchange reaction in LENR. 1) Exchange heating is a red herring for many reasons, and is emblematic of the shallowness of skeptics who grasp at straws to avoid the big issues. 2) Most experiments use either D or H and not both together. Exchange heating, to be significant, would involve both together in relatively equal proportions 3) Exchange heating is typically a one-time event. After a few hours it is over and of no further significance. LENR experiments continue for months. 4) Exchange heating is chemical energy, but if LENR does involves a mechanism to make a chemical route repeatable in such a way as to be gainful and avoid (3) above, who cares? 5) The strategy of some skeptics has been to suggest a chemical pathway, overlook the long-term gain, and yet maintain that because a chemical pathway exists, this reaction can’t be nuclear nor gainful. But that is a logical fallacy. 6) In fact, a gainful chemical pathway is preferable, if it exists is a compound process, like the Mizuno findings. This preference is one of several logical fallacies which skeptics are falling into. 7) In short, one cannot disparage the gain of LENR by simply finding a chemical pathway. The long-term gain itself, when proved, negates exchange-heating as the only input, and indeed suggests that a chemical pathway is part of the nuclear process. To wit: 8) If Mizuno has been correct all along, with his recent finding at MIT that D is being converted into H to produce gain, then this explains some of the unusual dynamics which have been completely missed by others and considered to be an exchange reaction. 9) If D is being converted into H, then it would look to the skeptic like an exchange reaction, and that would be their knee-jerk criticism. 10) The bottom line is that the only way to counter the skeptics is with good data, presented openly. 11) Mizuno’s recent MIT presentation of good data was such an example which may have opened up a facet of LENR which was overlooked for twenty-plus years because even the cold-fusion advocates could not explain how D converts to H gainfully. We still cannot, but we are finally seeing glimpses. 12) It is not out of the question that “deuterium fission” possibly involving a new hype of positron “decay” - in order to effectively convert the deuteron to two protons, has been a part of cold fusion from the early days, which was ignored by everyone for this reason: QUOTE: from old physics textbook: Thus, although it is theoretically possible to observe a fourth mode of beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron, this reaction does not occur in nature. This could be wrong. In fact, in textbooks of the future, this paragraph could eventually read something like this: beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron was not documented in nature until the advent of LENR Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
