The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is expanding the universe.
I am dishartend that my posts on this dark issue are not convincing, but recupitualtion is my game On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was > correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like > the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last > year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed > to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your > interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems > with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. > > CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up > granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that > too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating > maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron >> orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a >> lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide >> the >> thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there >> is >> such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, >> such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of >> nickel. >> >> Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. >> They >> do not show that the DDL is impossible... >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf >> but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory >> >> To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please >> consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in >> early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. >> In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important >> reactant >> - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that >> Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active >> isotope. >> >> Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if >> he >> is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against >> infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to >> use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope >> having a >> mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the >> properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the >> patent >> for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". >> >> BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who >> is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - >> the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the >> PCT >> so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps >> for little else. >> >> Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? >> >> Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest >> binding >> energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no >> more >> stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually >> prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as >> Rossi >> suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be >> coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad >> that >> he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other >> nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot >> of >> weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. >> >> That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" >> >> This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially >> relevant >> for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be >> saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi >> level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. >> Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts >> are >> warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context >> of >> spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with >> which >> to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. >> www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf >> >> In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around >> for >> the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems >> to >> be one which is >> 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. >> 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into >> energy >> 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at >> small geometry >> 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which >> oscillates >> at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at >> the >> bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly asymmetric in >> energy >> 5) Thus there is net heat. >> 6) The gain comes mostly from Ni-62 by spin coupling to its high >> level >> of composite spin, >> 7) Oxygen if present in the nickel in small amounts could allow >> increased saturation capability >> 8) It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is >> a >> gateway to the Dirac "sea" ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also >> "non-fusion LENR" >> >> Any and all of these suggestion are subject to change as soon as better >> data >> arrives. All we can do now is look at the big picture as being shadows on >> Plato's cave. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
