Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments. He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported. You cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated, experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally satisfying.
I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat. The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with a similar COP. The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions. We know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system. Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his reactor. Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state? It is an interesting, ironic conjecture. If such is the case, then H should work as well as D, because it is unlikely that the extra neutron in the D will have much affect on the DDL states or the ability of the electron to transition into them. To relegate Storms' theory to being "brain-dead" is the pot calling the kettle black. You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy that is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated. There is so much energy in sending the H/D atom into a DDL state [if not, then you have no argument that the excess heat is from DDL] that it must somehow be split among many atoms all at once or taken out serially by some mechanism. Those that are close to the DDL solution math insist that photons cannot be used to transition in the DDL states (inadequate angular momentum in DDL electrons - Meulenberg). I think Ed Storms provides a mechanism for serially removing the energy from the atom that is a match made in heaven. The hydroton is a multi-atom coupled resonant system - just the kind of evanescent coupling needed to move H atoms into DDL states. Even if fusion is rare, the hydroton may be the mechanism for shrinking the H/D into the deep DDL state. If hydroton DDL shrinkage is happening, then it is likely that the hydroton is going to shrink multiple atoms in unison, making the "pico-molecules" of Meulenberg a highly likely result, and fusion likely to occur. Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. Heat / mole of He produced suggests much greater heat per event than DDL can explain by itself, so DDL is not sufficient to explain the thermal gain. The heat-He correlates to nearly the 24MeV of a D-D fusion event in a Pd-D system. Even if the 24MeV per event were off by an order of magnitude, it would still be 3 times what is achievable via DDL. So we know that DDL cannot be responsible for the Pd-D data. It doesn't mean that DDL is not a part of the puzzle, just not the whole puzzle. Maybe it is a bigger part of the puzzle in Ni-H(D). Jones, you are standing on a stool with only 1 leg - you have more juggling to do to substantiate your position. Bob Higgins On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL > molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg > proposes that these "pico-molecules" will fuse in "10s of picoseconds". > > > > The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most > robust experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the > next best experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No > mass-4. No gammas. But plenty of excess heat. > > > > If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in > the thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of > fusion in the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that > we should focus elsewhere. > > > > Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going > to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we > do not need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas. > > > > The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is > lack of fusion. > > > > Jones > > > > > > > > > > >
