At 01:01 PM 4/10/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
I am interested in the life after death
phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of
multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems
show life after death and others do not;
Rossi
yes, the Brillouin Energy system
no. A
single cause should show the same type of behavior.
Not necessarily. A "single cause" may exist in various states of "setup."
First of all, what is "heat after death"? The
term was developed to name the phenomenon
sometimes observed, that a Fleischmann-Pons cell,
which is maintained at high loading by continuous
electrolysis, shows anomalous heat -- even
increasing -- *after* the electrolysis current is
shut off -- or the cell has boiled dry, or has
used up its heavy water, in some cases, so that the current stops.
HAD tells us little about the mechanism for
generating excess power, only that it obviously
doesn't depend on continued electrolysis, per se.
This appears to contradict the finding that XP
directly varies with current density, but that
finding may be indirect, i.e., based on a
variation with deuterium loading or flux.
However, deuterium loading will decline as the
deuterium escapes. The process of escape, the
resulting deuterium flux, could explain the
process as well. That is, the long-term general
suspicion has been that triggering the reaction
is enhanced by movement of the deuterium. In or out!
HAD doesn't mean much with gas-loading work,
unless a gas-loaded cell is being heated to be
elevated in temperature. (That would be the case
with Rossi, but certainly not with all gas-loaded results.)
What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in
explanation of this life after death behavior?
I haven't been able to figure out what they say
about "Heat *before* death." They are proposing a
mechanism not previously seen, and without any
evidence for the mechanism itself. It's purely
"Well, if Magic could happen, then the mystery of cold fusion is explained."
Fine. If "Magic" can happen. Can it? I don't see
specific predictions in the W-L papers, only
masses of speculations and possibilities (or
impossibilities!) asserted as if they were fact.
I don't see any considerations of rate, and rate
is crucial. Fusion can happen at room
temperature, you know. The only problem is *rate*! Way silly low.
By ignoring rate considerations, then, once they
get us to accept that neutrons can form, they
then can assert a whole series of reactions, and
you don't notice the rate problem. Even so, they
need to invent a perfect gamma shield. They
actually patented it, I just read the patent.
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/us-patent-7893414-b2
There is no coverage of any experimental evidence
that gamma shielding actually occurs, no
described demonstration or operating parameters or characteristics.
Just assertion without evidence. That patent is
full of utterly irrelevant information.
The "preferred embodiments," as far as I can
tell, do not describe how to build a working
model. They seem to assume that metal hydrides will "just do it."
Interestingly, they predict reaction enhancement
by laser stimulation at resonant frequencies. But
they don't specify the frequencies. That way,
they can then claim that any stimulation effect was "predicted" by them.
I see no sign that they actually built the device
they have patented. Amazing, isn't it, that CF
patents have generally been banned, but this
patent was allowed. Did CF patents depend on a
particular theory of operation? Very strange.
