In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:52:17 -0800: Hi Jones,
Actually I largely agree with your position. I too think that fusion reactions are unlikely in this case (though not impossible). I'm trying to keep an open mind here. Note also that I think the H+H->D reaction is very unlikely because the reaction cross section is incredibly small. The only reason for my previous post was that you were so adamant that it was ruled out. >-----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com > >> No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. > >You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also >happens in >the Sun, but at a low rate. > > >Hi Robin, > >If the EC reaction happens in the sun (at a low rate), given the high >temperature of the sun, intense gamma radiation, and the massive gravity >well... > >... then why would anyone think that this route could be a significant >contribution to gain in a cold environment, when all of the conditions for >nuclear fusion or weak-force reactions are orders of magnitude less >conducive to it? You answer that here below yourself.... > >Realistically, in terms of known probabilities - one might be better off >invoking proton decay than either W&L or H-H fusion, or even Ni-H -> Cu. > >I do not understand why so many vorticians seem so desirous to find a >nuclear reaction here as the main source of excess heat, when good testing >shows no gammas (not just low, but none) and the Swedes found no radioactive >transmutation in the ash, and Rossi has proven to dishonest over and over >again (his supposed belief in Ni transmutation is worthless). Plus no >deuterium or neutrons are seen. > >It must be a holdover from years of following Pd-D - where there is ample >transmutation, ample helium or tritium and moderate gammas. Were it not for >our shared background in Pd-D, then it would be absurd to suggest any type >of nuclear reaction is happening, based on the weight of evidence in the >record. > >Yes, I do appreciate that Robin's angle (usually) is that Mills' shrinkage >to a maximal state obviates many of the problems with EC. There is no huge >problem with that, other than Mills' reputation. ...right here. >But if one tries to >conflate the Mills modality with the known type of EC, thus to avoid the >negativity of Mills to the fizzix mainstream, then if makes little sense to >me- how that can help. You appear to be confusing physics with politics. (Whether or not mainstream physicists accept a theory has nothing to do with whether or not nature uses it.) > >At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is >not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a >different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The >best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to >substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron >activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' >transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as >electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural >isotopic ratios. > >Jones > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
