> IThe is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the way seen. T
This is probably true, there might be a dog buried, we need to look in that direction. But also, it is our current view of nuclear science, all reaction chains depends heavily on some extra constraints that you impose on the reaction (conservation of (angular) momentum, conservation of energy) If you can connect the nuclear reaction with a deallocated electron field - very much like a field, not a particle, and we don't know if QM is some kind of probability density of an actual particle or an actual field, so you have fraction matter to carry momentum and energy between the reaction cite and the surrounding. Nuclear physics is not designed and developed to handle this scenario so, really, with some imagination you can construct a system where all 100 years of experience in nuclear science fall flat on earth. Of cause this is whishful thinking, but we cannot prove it false especially since well if QM probably is just a advanced curve fitted theory, which Randi Mills theory really proves quite well by it's simplicity to handle many body problems and atom physics. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Jed Rothwell > > > > Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we > can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him > like a harp. > > > > He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for peer-related reasons > does not want to be identified with LENR. > > > He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent > with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and > he says they were indeed accurate." > > > > Not exactly. Since that time, I have heard from Mitchell Swartz who is > highly qualified as well. He says that the person whom Brian spoke was > talking about measured temperature only. Rossi's group did not calibrate at > that high temperature- which they should have done. Thus they could not > account for heat loss (thermal power). I am assuming that this controversy > is not over now that Mitchell brings his expertise into the fray. > > > > Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults over the > years, so the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy artillery. > > > > Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted the > high COP level only – not the excess. > > > > Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that Rossi > – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not because he > “has no motive”. > > > > I say that he did because physics does not permit the results which were > seen, they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus some other evidence. > > > > The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the way > seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with the financial > motive. Follow the buck. > > > > More to come on that. > > > > Jones > > > > > > >
