In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:44:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] >-----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com > >In reply to David Roberson's message > >>At this point we need to have a long term experiment that exhibits the same >type of correlations before we can be certain that the process is nuclear >instead of some unknown chemical effect. You can be confident that the >behavior is nuclear if indications of this type persist for a month. >Perhaps someone would like to calculate how long a chemical cause could >exist that leads to this same observation set to establish a lower limit >upon the time required to prove LENR beyond any doubt. > >> If you look at the Lugano experiment, and assume that all the energy came >from H, then given the small amount that was present, each atom would have >to have delivered near 9 MeV of energy. This is out of reach of any Hydrino >reaction, so the process must have been nuclear, to a very large degree. > > >This conclusion is not logical either, Robin. Since there is also no known >nuclear reaction involving hydrogen which can provide the amount of energy >claimed by Levi, especially not without radiation - we must look elsewhere >than nuclear.
Note that I specifically said that it was about 9 MeV if all the energy came from Hydrogen. I doubt it did. I was simply trying to point out that pure Hydrino shrinkage could not account for all the energy. Not by a long shot in fact. There may be no *known* nuclear reaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one (or more). Furthermore, the total energy produced does appear to be in the nuclear ballpark, which IMO makes it likely that a nuclear reaction, of some sort, is the source, and I think neutron transfer from Li7 is as good a candidate as any, though that would mean that the total energy output was somewhat less than the reported value, yet still in the ballpark. > >Either there is another source of energy... or else we cannot trust what has >been claimed. Clearly the Levi report was flawed, and much less energy was >involved than what is stated in the report. It would have to be about 20 times less for Hydrinos to even be in the running, and I think an error that large is unlikely. > >Nevertheless, Watson ... another source of energy is possible - in the zero >point field. As Sherlock sez: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever >remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." If Levi is correct on >the 1.5 MW-hrs, then ZPE extraction - which may be improbable, is not >impossible and would be a strong candidate for truth (by the process of >elimination) ... > >... and BTW - this can bring us back to the Hydrino reaction. It is as >simple as this: > >Premise: there is a previously undescribed mechanism will convert DDL all >the way back to hydrogen, at the expense of ZPE. Thus the hydrogen that was >converted to maximum redundancy is "expanded" back, sequentially with zero >point energy from outside our 3-space. This must happen dozens of times for >the numbers to add up ... but, according to the experts on zero point, there >is massive energy available from this avenue. I don't think this can be ruled out, but I also don't think it's the most likely explanation. However it would be interesting. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
