*However, I will declare a possibility: continued research into PdD *will*
resolve the mystery of cold fusion. It could happen accidentally at almost
any time, some researcher could stumble across evidence that leads to the
solution.*

The neutron is transmuted into a proton by pions that are instantiated out
of the vacuum by a strong magnetic field.

That must be the way that 2D (two protons and two neutrons) becomes 4
protons.


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain
> mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to
> the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically
> rather low.
>
>
>
> Secondly, however, the Mizuno reaction releases approximately two protons
> for every deuteron, not one as in stripping.
>
>
>
> That would imply that the neutron decays, instead of being absorbed in
> nickel or something similar which gives about twice the number of gas
> molecules as before.
>
>
>
> Also – there is a long half-life associated with nickel following neutron
> activation. This will be easy to characterize, for Mizuno - if that is what
> is happening.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
>
> Since Yoshino did include slides showing
> the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have
> been seen.
>
>
>
> I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the
> class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic),
> where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction.  If this is
> the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect.  It would
> be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular
> hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium.
>
>
>
> Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well
> correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and
> the control (as noted by Bob).
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Reply via email to