Jed,
Good points all but I think there has been a long standing
"chemical" component involved here ever since the day of Langmuir. There
appears to be a need for the hydrogen to go from monatomic to diatomic
states -maybe not the simple oscillation proposed with the atomic hydrogen
generator but still an enabling parameter for whatever the anomaly turns out
to be. Heating the hydrogen population to a majority of monatoms or cooling
it to a majority of diatoms would both slow the reaction momentarily but I
wonder if the heating method is a little more dangerous - as the cooling
loop starts cooling the monatoms you could be working with larger
populations of both...perhaps this is why gas pressure is also reduced to
extract the monatoms more quickly from the most confined and likely most
active regions.
Time and temperature analysis is probably being complicated by the same
effect responsible for claims regarding change in radioactive decay rates -
just because hydrogen isn't radioactive doesn't mean it isn't experiencing
the same environment responsible for the decay rate claims. Perhaps a
latency/dilation proportional to the suppression/confinement of the Ni
powder.
Regards
Fran
Jed Rothwell
Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:01:31 -0700
vorl bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote:
> > First of all, "ignition" is only an analogy here. Nothing is or
> > can be ignited or burned in the chemical sense. There is no
> > oxygen. There is no fuel. No chemical changes occur in the cells.
>
> Thanks, I needed that reminder. Now I see that pretty much anything
> goes.
>
No, not "anything." The only thing that "goes" is what replicated
experiments reveal to be true. It makes no difference how unlikely or
contradictory the truth may seem. Experiments are the only standard of
truth.
What you need to be reminded of is that you do not know what goes on here.
You are not omniscient. This phenomenon is newly discovered and not yet
understood, so you cannot assume anything, and you cannot tell it should or
should not work.
- Jed
