Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 5 May 2011 13:21:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Some trigger event happens to this collection of protons that convert some >substantial fraction of these many protons to neutrons comprised of one up >quark and two down quarks. Some ultra low energy based factor in nature can >transform up and down quarks into each other are beyond the pale of todays >physics. > > > > > >Even thinking that this mechanism of transmutation is even possible is a >burning offence at CERN. Is it even too extreme for Vortex? > ..but apparently not for NASA. What you describing is W-L "en masse". Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
>From all experimental indications, I agree that this multi proton fusion is what makes the Rossi reactor and go. To put some conceptual meat on this bone, at least 60 some odd protons and maybe many more are packed into a small (sub nanometer?) hole in the lattice of nickel. These protons are comprised of two ups quarks and a down quark. There is no anti matter clustering (allowed?) inside the hydrogen nucleus. Some trigger event happens to this collection of protons that convert some substantial fraction of these many protons to neutrons comprised of one up quark and two down quarks. Some ultra low energy based factor in nature can transform up and down quarks into each other are beyond the pale of today’s physics. Even thinking that this mechanism of transmutation is even possible is a burning offence at CERN. Is it even too extreme for Vortex? On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Add multibody H reaction; not H+H but H+H+H+H . . . Not sure how many > times. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
You may want to add the Brightsen model of "antimatter clusters" within the H nucleus. --On Thursday, May 05, 2011 7:42 AM -0700 Jones Beene wrote: The M.O. List It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical perspective, to have a list of all possible "gainful routes" which are either non-nuclear, "new-nuclear", supra-chemical, or a hybrid. Your submission will be appreciated. Since many of these overlap, I will await completion of a more complete, or better worded list - to arrange them in some kind of hierarchy. 1) Nickel-to-copper "new-nuclear" with little or no radioactivity. This comes under 'new' because all known transmutations of nickel to copper at the kW level would leave deadly levels of radioactivity. 2) H+H --> D "new-nuclear" comes under 'new' because all known fusion of hydrogen to deuterium involve a positron, which is not seen. 3) W&L ultra low momentum neutron. Clearly comes under 'new' but the lack of predicted radioactivity makes it seem unlikely for Rossi. 4) Cavity QED "only". Hydrogen enters Casimir cavity, gains energy from ZPE. No ash. 5) Cavity QED with nuclear makeup. Essentially these two involve asymmetric chemistry, the later leading to nuclear reaction which are stimulated by a prior energy deficit, and thus have no residual radioactivity. 6) Mills' hydrino 7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. 8) "Antenna" for neutrinos - hydrogen is changed or contained in such a way that it acts like an antenna for neutrino interaction. 9) Ballotechnic. Inner orbital chemistry, with or without a nuclear nexus. 10) your entries are needed Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
I think it is mostly number 1 with a little bit of 6 mixed in. Most of the energy is coming from fusion, but a few hydrinos may be produced. From: "Roarty, Francis X" To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 8:03:48 AM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy 7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. Jones, this might get into what Robin and I were discussing regarding why the heat extraction doesn’t draw down the gas temp to absolute zero – the “antenna” may be the h2 covalent bond where the large scale changes in Casimir force oppose antenna / h2 motion caused by local scale zitter. The fractional values taken on by h2 would represent the axis of deployment. Most people assume ground state doesn’t represent ZPE but… Regards Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy The M.O. List It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical perspective, to have a list of all possible "gainful routes" which are either non-nuclear, "new-nuclear", supra-chemical, or a hybrid. Your submission will be appreciated. Since many of these overlap, I will await completion of a more complete, or better worded list - to arrange them in some kind of hierarchy. 1) Nickel-to-copper "new-nuclear" with little or no radioactivity. This comes under 'new' because all known transmutations of nickel to copper at the kW level would leave deadly levels of radioactivity. 2) H+H à D "new-nuclear" comes under 'new' because all known fusion of hydrogen to deuterium involve a positron, which is not seen. 3) W&L ultra low momentum neutron. Clearly comes under 'new' but the lack of predicted radioactivity makes it seem unlikely for Rossi. 4) Cavity QED "only". Hydrogen enters Casimir cavity, gains energy from ZPE. No ash. 5) Cavity QED with nuclear makeup. Essentially these two involve asymmetric chemistry, the later leading to nuclear reaction which are stimulated by a prior energy deficit, and thus have no residual radioactivity. 6) Mills' hydrino 7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. 8) "Antenna" for neutrinos - hydrogen is changed or contained in such a way that it acts like an antenna for neutrino interaction. 9) Ballotechnic. Inner orbital chemistry, with or without a nuclear nexus. 10) your entries are needed Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. Jones, this might get into what Robin and I were discussing regarding why the heat extraction doesn't draw down the gas temp to absolute zero - the "antenna" may be the h2 covalent bond where the large scale changes in Casimir force oppose antenna / h2 motion caused by local scale zitter. The fractional values taken on by h2 would represent the axis of deployment. Most people assume ground state doesn't represent ZPE but... Regards Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy The M.O. List It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical perspective, to have a list of all possible "gainful routes" which are either non-nuclear, "new-nuclear", supra-chemical, or a hybrid. Your submission will be appreciated. Since many of these overlap, I will await completion of a more complete, or better worded list - to arrange them in some kind of hierarchy. 1) Nickel-to-copper "new-nuclear" with little or no radioactivity. This comes under 'new' because all known transmutations of nickel to copper at the kW level would leave deadly levels of radioactivity. 2) H+H --> D "new-nuclear" comes under 'new' because all known fusion of hydrogen to deuterium involve a positron, which is not seen. 3) W&L ultra low momentum neutron. Clearly comes under 'new' but the lack of predicted radioactivity makes it seem unlikely for Rossi. 4) Cavity QED "only". Hydrogen enters Casimir cavity, gains energy from ZPE. No ash. 5) Cavity QED with nuclear makeup. Essentially these two involve asymmetric chemistry, the later leading to nuclear reaction which are stimulated by a prior energy deficit, and thus have no residual radioactivity. 6) Mills' hydrino 7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. 8) "Antenna" for neutrinos - hydrogen is changed or contained in such a way that it acts like an antenna for neutrino interaction. 9) Ballotechnic. Inner orbital chemistry, with or without a nuclear nexus. 10) your entries are needed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Add multibody H reaction; not H+H but H+H+H+H . . . Not sure how many times. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
The M.O. List It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical perspective, to have a list of all possible "gainful routes" which are either non-nuclear, "new-nuclear", supra-chemical, or a hybrid. Your submission will be appreciated. Since many of these overlap, I will await completion of a more complete, or better worded list - to arrange them in some kind of hierarchy. 1) Nickel-to-copper "new-nuclear" with little or no radioactivity. This comes under 'new' because all known transmutations of nickel to copper at the kW level would leave deadly levels of radioactivity. 2) H+H --> D "new-nuclear" comes under 'new' because all known fusion of hydrogen to deuterium involve a positron, which is not seen. 3) W&L ultra low momentum neutron. Clearly comes under 'new' but the lack of predicted radioactivity makes it seem unlikely for Rossi. 4) Cavity QED "only". Hydrogen enters Casimir cavity, gains energy from ZPE. No ash. 5) Cavity QED with nuclear makeup. Essentially these two involve asymmetric chemistry, the later leading to nuclear reaction which are stimulated by a prior energy deficit, and thus have no residual radioactivity. 6) Mills' hydrino 7) "Antenna" for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in such a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy. 8) "Antenna" for neutrinos - hydrogen is changed or contained in such a way that it acts like an antenna for neutrino interaction. 9) Ballotechnic. Inner orbital chemistry, with or without a nuclear nexus. 10) your entries are needed Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 4 May 2011 12:48:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] >When helium is the main ash, and when the strong gamma signature is absent >at ~24 MeV (invoking some kind of phonon explanation) then we have >essentially an alpha emission, and easily shielded. Therefore, you have to >look for the secondary reactions - the bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) >which would be way lower in energy. If you did not provide a good instrument >for that, then you might miss it at 10 watts but at 100 watts it should show >up IMO. If anyone out there knows differently - please speak up. If the energy is carried by alpha particles, then I think these are way too slow and heavy to create significant bremsstrahlung. That being usually associated with fast electrons if I am not mistaken. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 4 May 2011 13:54:29 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Storms thinks the neutrons are probably caused by a secondary reaction, >possibly something prosaic. The gamma rays could be as well, I suppose. >However, that has no bearing on the fact that their presence proves the >experiments are sensitive enough to detect them. > Some fast alphas could create the occasional spallation neutron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Let me refine this slightly: > But you are missing the main point. If gammas are seen at all, and especially at the low levels you mention - then it proves without question that deuterium is active for nuclear reactions at low energy. >Gammas are not seen with hydrogen. Hydrogen is not active for LENR. Yet we do agree that Hydrogen is active for excess heat in the same way that deuterium is active, so it is easy to miss the precise point. Hydrogen may be even more active for heat than deuterium, which essentially is the Rossi breakthrough, but the M.O. - the way the excess heat turns up is not the same. Before Rossi - we all thought deuterium was more active because helium was seen. Hydrogen does not produce noticeable radioactivity in the short term nor helium. Which is part of the premise behind the original posting. Now, the reaction which produces the excess heat with hydrogen could involve quarks (among many possibilities) and quarks are found in the nucleus, but that does not necessarily equate with a nuclear reaction because the IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) state, which would permit can be characterized as much as a mass of quarks (quark soup) as a mass of protons. That is my interpretation of Miley/Holmlid and the dense hydrogen state. I don't think the average vortician appreciates how dense a 2D state can be. Which brings up another point - does anyone know Miley's take on Rossi??? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
But you are missing the main point. If gammas are seen at all, and especially at the low levels you mention - then it proves without question that deuterium is active for nuclear reactions at low energy. Gammas are not seen with hydrogen. Hydrogen is not active for LENR. QED -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: > JR: There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less. > Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them > from 0.1 kW. > > 100 watts continuous and no signal? Where and when? F&P, Nice, France. They had every kind detector money can buy. Also, as I mentioned there have been several positive observations of gamma rays at much lower power levels, such as Iwamura, so I do not see how the power level can be the limiting factor. They have been detected with confidence at a fraction of a watt, so they were definitely there at times, and missing at other times. I don't see how the results would be any different with a much larger Pd-D cell that produces 4 kW. If gamma rays were not sporadic, Iwamura and many others would have seen them constantly. Since they were sporadic even when the power level was steady, they are not proportional to the power. They do not appear in a fixed ratio; they resemble the tritium and neutrons detected in these experiments, rather than the helium. It is clear that they can sometimes appear, under some unusual set of circumstances, but they usually do not appear. Therefore the reaction is usually -- but not always -- both aneutronic and sans-gamma-rays. Storms thinks the neutrons are probably caused by a secondary reaction, possibly something prosaic. The gamma rays could be as well, I suppose. However, that has no bearing on the fact that their presence proves the experiments are sensitive enough to detect them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Jones Beene wrote: JR: There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less. Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them from 0.1 kW. 100 watts continuous and no signal? Where and when? F&P, Nice, France. They had every kind detector money can buy. Also, as I mentioned there have been several positive observations of gamma rays at much lower power levels, such as Iwamura, so I do not see how the power level can be the limiting factor. They have been detected with confidence at a fraction of a watt, so they were definitely there at times, and missing at other times. I don't see how the results would be any different with a much larger Pd-D cell that produces 4 kW. If gamma rays were not sporadic, Iwamura and many others would have seen them constantly. Since they were sporadic even when the power level was steady, they are not proportional to the power. They do not appear in a fixed ratio; they resemble the tritium and neutrons detected in these experiments, rather than the helium. It is clear that they can sometimes appear, under some unusual set of circumstances, but they usually do not appear. Therefore the reaction is usually -- but not always -- both aneutronic and sans-gamma-rays. Storms thinks the neutrons are probably caused by a secondary reaction, possibly something prosaic. The gamma rays could be as well, I suppose. However, that has no bearing on the fact that their presence proves the experiments are sensitive enough to detect them. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell > And yes, I think that if you can find any cold fusion reaction with > deuterium, which is operating a 4 kilowatts of excess - then the V&B setup > would have shown gammas. JR: There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less. Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them from 0.1 kW. 100 watts continuous and no signal? Where and when? At 100 watts there "should be" a strong detectable signal with the V&B setup, which is superb. Maybe not detectable with a gamma-scout ;) Can you give specifics of the 100 watt deuterium reaction which did NOT show any gammas with a sophisticated instrument? That would certainly change my opinion on this particular point, but let's defer to anyone who can add an expert opinion and this would be worth posing to V&B. I think it is an important point because 100 watts is getting up there. For instance 200 watts into a Farnsworth Fusor will peg any and every meter. I am certain of that. A Fusor with only hydrogen instead of deuterium gives you zero BTW - which is essentially my point. Hydrogen is not active but deuterium is. When helium is the main ash, and when the strong gamma signature is absent at ~24 MeV (invoking some kind of phonon explanation) then we have essentially an alpha emission, and easily shielded. Therefore, you have to look for the secondary reactions - the bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) which would be way lower in energy. If you did not provide a good instrument for that, then you might miss it at 10 watts but at 100 watts it should show up IMO. If anyone out there knows differently - please speak up. Much of the bremsstrahlung would be below the 200 keV level but these have a long Boltzmann's tail. Therefore, at 100 watts into a Deuterium setup - IMO, there should be a strong signal when a high quality gamma setup is provided. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Jed, I think they both share the same initial ZPE source that turns the quantum blender. The environment once established can be exploited by more than one energy extraction method. The ZPE doesn't have to be the extraction method - the blender is formed naturally and doesn't have any asymmetry but it gives you relativistic effects and possibly a relativistic radiation shield that down shifts any radiation or particles created inside inertial frames of low vacuum energy density. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy Jones Beene wrote: > Hydrogen and deuterium are extremely different in many ways. There is plenty > of reason why deuterium can be active for nuclear reactions and hydrogen not > active. So you are suggesting that the mechanism for the Pd-D effect may be entirely different from Ni-H? One is fusion and the other may be ZPE? > And yes, I think that if you can find any cold fusion reaction with > deuterium, which is operating a 4 kilowatts of excess - then the V&B setup > would have shown gammas. There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less. Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them from 0.1 kW. Yet they do not. Except sporadically, on rare occasions such Iwamura's early electrochemical experiments. And these were at much lower power levels. So I do not think that the low power levels of Pd-D cold fusion are the barrier that prevents detection of gammas. I think there are none, and there would not be any even if you could afford to run 1 kg, 1000-cathode Pd-D experiment to produce 4 kW (or 1 kg of Zr-Pd nano-particle powder, or whatever it would take). > In fact no cold fusion setup has come close to 4 kW, and that is why this > comparison is irrelevant. Based on Iwamura and other who have detected gamma rays, and on cold fusion reactions that have come within an order of magnitude of Rossi, I think a rough comparison can be made. Also, people have barely begun looking for products of the Rossi reaction so we have no idea what they might be. For all anyone knows, the product might actually be copper with natural isotopes. I realize you reject that based on conventional theory, but anyone can reject all of cold fusion based on conventional theory. It is based on experiments, and you can never be absolutely certain what experiments will reveal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Jones Beene wrote: Hydrogen and deuterium are extremely different in many ways. There is plenty of reason why deuterium can be active for nuclear reactions and hydrogen not active. So you are suggesting that the mechanism for the Pd-D effect may be entirely different from Ni-H? One is fusion and the other may be ZPE? And yes, I think that if you can find any cold fusion reaction with deuterium, which is operating a 4 kilowatts of excess - then the V&B setup would have shown gammas. There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less. Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them from 0.1 kW. Yet they do not. Except sporadically, on rare occasions such Iwamura's early electrochemical experiments. And these were at much lower power levels. So I do not think that the low power levels of Pd-D cold fusion are the barrier that prevents detection of gammas. I think there are none, and there would not be any even if you could afford to run 1 kg, 1000-cathode Pd-D experiment to produce 4 kW (or 1 kg of Zr-Pd nano-particle powder, or whatever it would take). In fact no cold fusion setup has come close to 4 kW, and that is why this comparison is irrelevant. Based on Iwamura and other who have detected gamma rays, and on cold fusion reactions that have come within an order of magnitude of Rossi, I think a rough comparison can be made. Also, people have barely begun looking for products of the Rossi reaction so we have no idea what they might be. For all anyone knows, the product might actually be copper with natural isotopes. I realize you reject that based on conventional theory, but anyone can reject all of cold fusion based on conventional theory. It is based on experiments, and you can never be absolutely certain what experiments will reveal. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
No - with palladium and deuterium - helium is expected and documented. Tritium is also expected in another branch and is documented Deuterium is very active for nuclear reactions as Farnsworth demonstrated (in his Fusor) long before P&F. The Fusor is not cold fusion, but it shows how easy it is to get nuclear reactions with less power going in than a TV set. Hydrogen and deuterium are extremely different in many ways. There is plenty of reason why deuterium can be active for nuclear reactions and hydrogen not active. The two isotopes are 2:1 different in a.m.u - more than elements like carbon and oxygen for instance, and hydrogen has no neutron. That is the main thing. Hydrogen cannot fuse into helium in one step. Period. Hydrogen cannot fuse into tritium in one step. Period. Without a neutron, hydrogen cannot be shield or screened, so the probability of a nuclear interaction with anything else is extremely low. Deuterium is much more likely. And yes, I think that if you can find any cold fusion reaction with deuterium, which is operating a 4 kilowatts of excess - then the V&B setup would have shown gammas. There would be enough bremsstrahlung if nothing else - for a strong signal at 4 kW. In fact no cold fusion setup has come close to 4 kW, and that is why this comparison is irrelevant. Jones -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: > It was not as clear then, as now, that this Rossi > reaction has NO radiation signature. It all goes back to the excellent V&B > report - which in summary suggests that 10^17 nuclear reaction should have > been detected over the long and energetic run, but in fact no nuclear > reactions were detected. Why is this any different from any other cold fusion reaction? The instruments V&B used would not detect any nuclear reactions from a Pd-D experiment, yet there are other indications that is a nuclear reaction. Is your thesis that all cold fusion reactions are actually ZPE? Or are you suggesting Ni-H is but Pd-D is nuclear? Two radically different explanations for such similar phenomena seem one too many. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Jones Beene wrote: It was not as clear then, as now, that this Rossi reaction has NO radiation signature. It all goes back to the excellent V&B report - which in summary suggests that 10^17 nuclear reaction should have been detected over the long and energetic run, but in fact no nuclear reactions were detected. Why is this any different from any other cold fusion reaction? The instruments V&B used would not detect any nuclear reactions from a Pd-D experiment, yet there are other indications that is a nuclear reaction. Is your thesis that all cold fusion reactions are actually ZPE? Or are you suggesting Ni-H is but Pd-D is nuclear? Two radically different explanations for such similar phenomena seem one too many. - Jed
[Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Most casual observers of the Rossi device believe that the only two choices for the kilowatt levels of heat which is seen (aside from trickery) are chemical or nuclear. What else is there? During a chemical reaction both mass and energy are conserved, and the weight of the "ash" (reaction end-products) will equal the mass of the reactants. In contrast, a nuclear reaction turns a tiny amount of mass into energy, and the ash weighs slightly less. Because the 'c' or lightspeed component of e=mc^2 is large - and then is squared, it does not take much mass to provide lots of energy. Are those the only two choices? Obviously, there could be external energy being pumped in, but in the Rossi demo we are fairly certain it could not be the "usual suspects" - hidden wires or RF radiation. The wild card is the zero point field, but few casual observers know much about it. Even so, perhaps these limited choices may not be the end of story - even without wading too deeply into zero point - and that is because the nucleus is composed of smaller particles than protons and neutrons - quarks. Almost daily we are seeing reports from Fermilab and the LHC of how quarks are influenced by a "fifth force" (which may end up being a subset of ZPE) Of course, there is a semantics issue: of 'quark energy' being a subset of nuclear energy but that argument fades once we have the instrumentation necessary to analyze quarks and gluons in detail, since semantics is always about the observers' ignorance. Quarks are almost too small to specify and describe correctly in 2011, as having a unique identity, but that is changing daily. In chemistry - breaking bonds with high potential energy into bonds with lower potential energy results in gain. That is a clue as to where this is going. The chemical reaction involves valence electrons, and energy has merely been transformed from one form of energy to another, but is conserved. This may offer an analogy to quark energy, because there are six kinds of quarks, all having differing mass, and all are associated with packets of energy in a nucleus that provide a possible way in which potential energy can be converted in any kind of 'reorganization'. This can happen with input from the zero point field or not, but the bottom line is this: when bare protons are very close together, as Miley and Holmlid have proved is possible in the IRH state (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) - then they can act more like a bunch of quarks - the so-called "quark soup" than individual protons. About a month ago, I tried to frame this argument for the first time - and it got a bit too complex, but the time now seems right to take it under consideration, once again. It was not as clear then, as now, that this Rossi reaction has NO radiation signature. It all goes back to the excellent V&B report - which in summary suggests that 10^17 nuclear reaction should have been detected over the long and energetic run, but in fact no nuclear reactions were detected. Here was the prior attempt at putting some of these ideas into words - "Quark Power" and it has a nice ring to it. Fran Roarty is also suggesting ways that cavity-QED can provide the impetus for the quark soup reorganization, but just as with any emergent meme, the proper wording is not yet in place to make this argument convincing to a broader audience. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44224.html Jones <>
