Yes, but how to square this with the fact that the input energy balanced the output energy during the prep time. Could the combined margin error in both the input and output measurements allow for the storage of enough energy during the prep time?
harry On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be > operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later > release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which > showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being > charged. > > As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of cold > fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be more > physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it > involves "one less miracle." > > For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood properties > - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) arguably > could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in palladium > electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released later. > > In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come from > fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after months > of "hypercharging" ;-) > > This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on our > lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known > about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion. > There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the > reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent. > > BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question, > "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in > terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is > really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that > LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ? > H LV wrote: > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Jones Beene wrote: >> >> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the >>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a >>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was >>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it >>> did not point the way to a useful device. >> >> >> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no >> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one >> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time >> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an >> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting >> in line to take off. >> >> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know >> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot >> store that much energy. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > "You cannot store that much energy" is working hypothesis. > That much energy could be stored in nuclei. > Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the > nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating > how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism? > Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally > driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind > the clock up. > > Harry > > > > >
