To be clear:
Yes the reaction is NOT chemical, but it is NOT the fusion of nickel and hydrogen. 1) The copper and iron are incidental, and come from electromigration. 2) The ash would be isotopically different otherwise, and radioactive. 3) Since it is not radioactive nor isotopically different, there is ZERO evidence of the fusion of nickel and hydrogen. Sherlock's default conclusion: There is another kind of reaction, either "new physics nuclear" or ZPE or Millsean with not deep shrinkage - no matter how improbable that may seem at first - which is responsible for the excess heat. Why? you ask: cannot the fusion of nickel and hydrogen be this same kind of "new physics nuclear"? Simple Watson, that involves two levels of new physics - not only a new non-radioactive reaction, but one with improbably long odds of matching precisely a natural balance, which BTW is probably a balance which is unique to our solar system. The odds of both happening are . shall we say: astronomical? If one wants to imagine the ludicrous proposition that some kind of "new physics nuclear" reaction can be so lucky as to match exactly an isotopic primordial balance of isotopes in two elements in one star out of trillions, be my guest . J. 25 kilowatt hours is 80 megajoules. That is over ten times the energy of any diesel fuel at 50ml. The energy prohibits a chemical source. > From: jone...@pacbell.net > -----Original Message----- > From: SHIRAKAWA Akira > > Thank you for posting this but for the record, the conclusions of Kullander > are wrong. Not just wrong but irresponsible and foolish. > > First he says: > > "Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi's energy catalyzer show that > a large amount of copper is formed." > > The Facts: There is evidence of the presence of copper but that is all. If > it were formed by transmutation some of it should be radioactive. In fact > there is a mundane explanation for the presence of copper. > > Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction" > > "For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to > capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi's reactor > is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned - it would consist > of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen." > > The facts: Yes but if this were the case there would be a wide variation in > the balance of isotopes. Element and isotopic analysis showed that the > isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn't show any deviation from the natural > > isotopic composition of nickel and copper. > > The mistakes of Kullander are juvenile and silly. There is a mundane > explanation for both copper and iron so why invent a reaction that does not > exist? > > Jones > >
