Interesting analysis, Jones. I agree there is a scenario such that the current fuel he has is economically prohibitive which would be motivation for him to mess with the results.
Another scenario is he simply doesn't want other people to replicate his work just yet and is using these guys for the purpose of obfuscation and misdirection. It was inherently a mistake to publish the results and have Rossi involved in the way that he was. For this reason alone, I do not believe paper is worthy of publication. The mere fact they don't have a video (even though a camera was clearly available in the top corner of the room) and the extremely peculiar response by Rossi who felt the need to deny a video exists (why does he care people think there is one?). That being said, I am still encouraged by Darden's desire to call "Industrial Heat" our company. He's taken responsibility for all of this. He must have good reason to believe there is something here. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > problem is there is no motive, and strong opposite motiveµ. > > he have no explanation for that, it cost much, it bring only doubt, > moreover it may mean tha the reactor consume nickel, that it was > exhausted... > > we have a complex phenomenon called LENR, that clearly does not respect > the free-space 2-body rules you see in text book. > > it is as stupid to blindly use disintegration tables, fusion or fission > tables, as it is to use balistic to understand birds, ohm laws inside > intricated systems liek superconductors or laser. > > of course the conservation laws apply (energy, momentum, charge,numbers) > but above that we shoudl be careful using our experimence in nuclear > physics out of it's validity domain. > I don't say that some phenomenological laws of dayly nuclear physics don't > apply... we simply do'nt know when they don' apply. > > it is sure something happen differently. > > > > > 2014-10-13 22:31 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene <[email protected]>: > >> *From:* Randy Wuller >> >> >> >> With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any >> nuclear change under the circumstances. What makes NI62 which is found in >> nature and was in both the before and after sample disturbing? >> >> >> >> The energy release from 58Ni to Ni62 is massive. Gamma radiation would be >> evident for one thing - but more troubling is that there is no feasible >> pathway to get there, which does not leave a long trail of “debris” so to >> speak or involve multi-body reactions. >> >> >> >> When a person is known to have the pure isotope, then the most likely >> scenario for how it appears in the sample is that the individual put it >> there intentionally. >> >> >> >> As to the LI6, why is that product any more unlikely than the nuclear >> process itself which many would say is impossible as to any isotopic or >> elemental change? >> >> >> >> The massive isotopic shift is the problem. Li6 is rare in nature and it >> does not decay from Li7 which is the common isotope. But Li6 can be bought >> as a nearly pure isotope. >> >> >> >> There are more details of course, but ask any nuclear physicist. >> >> >> >> These results are absolutely preposterous to the extent that intentional >> deceit is the only possible explanation. A massive shift in isotope >> balance, as a probability - would be akin to two unrelated people having >> identical DNA. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> > >
