Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium? If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium.
Harry On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of > the latter comments. > > Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: "If I thought of it, so > it must be right." We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to > synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. > The DDL works by Maly & Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive > the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your > knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of > experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that > just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound > synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he > has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this > technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has > shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at > face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my > own view. > > Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are > convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less > transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just > not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. > > As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in > the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the > measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results > are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. > That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was > swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. > > As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is > ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per > second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero > data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely > useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) > provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly > valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have > some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the > reaction mechanism. > > You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL > are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out "spin > coupling" as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that > would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition > [you might as well throw out "ice cream sandwich"]. Are you positing that, > as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you > are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are > you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range > event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever > you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase > statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure > of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the > concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at > these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation > may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely > speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of > miracle). > > You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd > statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, > would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. > With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are > cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones > unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in > Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the > features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the > effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he > got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot > expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these > SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment. > > Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a > thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to > this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are > similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR? > > I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before. I > can tell you it is possible to make a good seal against He, and He would > not pass through in any measurable way through even a millimeter of Pyrex > over a fairly long duration. These Heat/He experiments were expected to be > controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make sure the data > was many sigma above the background and control. Experiments of similar > analytic control simply have not been done (or not reported) for Ni-H. So, > we don't know where Ni-H is in terms of energy/event. You seem to be able > to dismiss experiments too easily that don't fit with your view. > > This business of the gamma in Rossi's experiments coming from an added > radioactive ingredient is another absolute absurdity. Focardi, a well > reputed nuclear scientist, ascribed the measured gamma to the Ni-H reaction > in his paper. He would not have associated the gamma seen with the > reaction if he suspected a radioactive source was an ingredient - he would > have looked like a fool. This business of Rossi using a radioactive > ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is > not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment - at minimum, Ed > Storms has also reported this. > > Nuclear effects are unquestionably being seen. What is not clear is the > balance between possible DDL transitions and nuclear effects. > > Bob Higgins >
