There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is wrong.
In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor is in a maximum power configuration. Jones, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it. To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as supported by the boson condensate. This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is participating in a boson condensate. Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina. The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat. This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a nuclear source. We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source. The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to protest is from oxidation. The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was LENR active. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he > refers to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs. > > > > Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about > the isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single > issue. > > > > Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, maybe > more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more important > to understand. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our > collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes > on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts > is actually a big deal and necessary I think. > > > > John > > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal > imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right > kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy > said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows > something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and > wavelengths he would select. > > > > Brian said his own doubts have been resolved. > > > > Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name, > but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars. > It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee . . . If > he does not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it. > > > > This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I > told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are > good for uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena. > > > > Details to follow. > > > > Brian is a good egg. > > > > - Jed > > > > >
