From: Bob Higgins ….In Parkhomov's experiment, his 0.1g of LiAlH4 would have had 10.6 mg of hydrogen and given the natural isotopic ratio of deuterium, there would have been 3.3 micrograms of deuterium. If the reaction is as you describe, producing 233 keV per 2 atoms of deuterium, producing 100W of excess power would exhaust 5.36e15 atoms/second, or .0187 micrograms per second…
Bob, I agree that the accelerated decay scenario described cannot apply to Ni-H – and therefore not to Parkhomov or Rossi… since, as you suggest, the tiny amount of deuterium is not enough to account for the net excess energy. In fact, I said this at the end of the post. “…leaving open the related question of explaining Ni-H… but let’s face it, there is no possibility of a single explanation for both, other than Holmlid’s complete disintegration. Like many here, I find “complete nucleon disintegration” with only laser input - hard to accept, especially compared with accelerated decay.” In short, there can be no blanket explanation to cover both deuterium and protium and it is counter-productive to suggest that they can be. If we wish to stay with the imperative for “conservation of miracles” then we must look elsewhere for Ni-H. Obviously there is no accelerated decay involved with protium and the Parkhomov/Rossi reaction looks more like what Randell Mills describes, as opposed to deuterium. Mills’ reaction can be a “single miracle” but it is non-nuclear. The end result is that the only workable approach is to completely separate the two– deuterium-based from protium-based, as being fundamentally different. And why not? Deuterium is twice as massive and has so many other physical property differences from protium that the two are closer to being different elements than isotopes of the same element. In fact there can be many different routes to energy gain with both protium and deuterium, and some of them may be applicable to only one or the other and NONE of them are likely to be mutually exclusive.
