It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory.
One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons:**** > > ** ** > > **1) **There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if > the theory was valid**** > > **2) **The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know > and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” > neutrons**** > > ** ** > > Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may > apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively > are easy to detect when present. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* James Bowery **** > > ** ** > > The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate > for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the > array of competing theories.**** > > ** ** > > However, I see no such strong inference in evidence.**** > > ** ** > > Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what > sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing > results predicted by W-L?**** > > ** ** > > Jones Beene wrote:**** > > ** ** > > It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a > completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to > take Ni-H to the required level of true "on demand" repeatability - over > many months. To wit, something like this: > > > http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri > cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/<http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri%0d%0acation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/> > > Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons > (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... > > They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 > nm > will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) > but > the "space between the excitons" as shown in this image is already there > (for Casimir pits). > > This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be > going into Ni-H now. > > We need to expend - not simply millions for R&D for this technology - but > billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will > be > 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up > in > the coffers of OPEC. > > Jones > > **** > > ** ** >
