Higgins and Jones-
Dr. Va’Vra Identified QED as being the correct theory to consider spin energy and coupling to many-body systems. (He or Dr. Vary may have an informed opinion on the issue of spin energy dissipation in LENR.) I think Bob Higgins pointed this out in his nice evaluation of the Va’Vra papers. If I get time I intend to follow up on this question with one or both of them. However, feel free to beat me to a possible conclusion on this issue based on some recognized analysis, if not accepted theory Bob Cook PS Jones--I do not know you apparently as well as Eric does. I would only gloat to myself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:00 PM To: [email protected] From: Bob Higgins * 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. First of all – we all agree that the Farnsworth Fusor produces nuclear fusion on a very small scale at very low energy. We have a clear boundary condition for understanding LENR - where at a sufficient voltage (which translates into acceleration gradient) there will be fusion, but it is far from breakeven and it shows that almost no He4 comes from deuterium fusion at low power, at least in that kind of design. The Fusor ash is tritium and He3 (equal proportions) and it has exactly the expected amount of gamma radiation. The Fusor gives clear and unambiguous results of fusion with a few hundred Watts of input. Understanding this difference is of extreme importance as LENR moves past this power level toward the kW level but many observers want to write the Fusor off as “hot fusion” since it does not meet their expectations for what “cold fusion” should be. In fact, there could be no such beast as cold fusion, and this is a semantics issue. Yet the Fusor is clearly fusion at 100 watts - and that is LENR by definition - unless you are trying to hide something – like the fact that there is almost no helium 4 produced with its distinctive signature gamma. Most of the experiments where helium-4 is seen in “cold fusion” have been subwatt to watt. The helium could be incidental or due to contamination, or a QM relic, in the sense of low probability – and with reverse economy of scale. The attempts to solve the disproportion problem via gettering deuterium can introduce huge errors. The only two large power experiments in cold fusion- Roulette and Mizuno – did not show helium, and they may account for more net gain in megajoules (hundreds) - than all the others which purport to show helium, combined ! Claytor produces tritium, but is a tiny amount, like the Fusor - and he uses relatively high voltage. No one doubts that with sufficient voltage, fusion can happen but it is far from breakeven. Claytor admits he is thousands of times below breakeven. It almost imperative in pursuit of accuracy, after 25 years to completely marginalize all claims that helium is proportional to excess heat when we are dealing with watt level systems, and especially using gettering to solve the disproportion problem. (not to mention that Pyrex is porous to helium and the background levels of helium in many labs is enormous, compared to normal atmosphere. * 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. Because this experiment stands head and shoulders above everything prior in deuterium LENR, and because of the Cravens similarity of result – it is disingenuous to suggest that this experiment does not represent the state of the art in the field. It should be given benefit of doubt until someone tries and fails to replicate. It is more convincing than anything from Rossi in my mind, but that could change with the TIP2. * 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? Rossi was using a radioactive emitter to start the reaction at one time - but there is no evidence of gamma from the reaction now or ever, and he no longer uses lead shielding, even with the HotCat. * 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. Well, let’s be clear that I am not heavily promoting a book that claims, but fails, to explain LENR; and moreover – a book that conveniently overlooks the hero experiment in the field. Cannot that rejection by Storms, almost without comment - of the most robust experiment in 25 years of deuterium fusion (by a factor of 600%), and rejecting it ostensibly because it nullifies one’s own conclusion … hmm… isn’t that troublesome to you? It is extremely troublesome to me. And by the way, there are no “cracks” in the images of active nickel from Mizuno, which is the crux of the problem – essentially adding insult to injury. But at any rate, rejecting an obviously wrong explanation for lack of gammas does not demand that one have the full correct answer - when the other is so completely wrong. Nevertheless, in answer to your question, a methodology with less obvious errors (which is not mine) – is “spin-coupling” and this has appeared in dozens of posts here - many from Bob Cook – going back to when Storms was here … so an arguably superior proposal has been out there. Storm’s summarily rejected that one also, since by then he was already committed to his version. Jones
