Just responding to this because travelling. Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is my exegesis of Sterling Allan's presentation of Steven Jones's recent > research: > > 1. There is piezonuclear fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery was not > this. Definitely not this. Piezo fusion is hot fusion. > 2. There is metal-assisted d-d fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery > was also not this. That's nuts. Maybe Jones is using some special definition. The article said lots that made no sense without other information, and it looks like Jones wasn't asked. > 3. There is anamalous xs heat, or "Freedom Energy," which is what Fleischmann > and Pons investigated. They did not discover it. Peter Davey, in the 1940s, > also researched it. People do not know what goes into anomalous xs heat, but > to call it "fusion" Beating dead horse. P&F claimed two things. Heat and neutrons at a low level. If not for the neutron artifact, they wouldn't have said "fusion." It was clear from the levels that what they found was an "unknown nuclear reaction," and that's what they wrote in the original paper. They made a tentative claim of fusion to explain the "neutrons." However, from what we now know, it's almost certainly *some kind of fusion.* And Jones should know this. But for some strange reason, the power of correlation is neglected. > 3a. confuses the issue, because people want to see radiation if there is > fusion. Unfortunately, what people expected with fusion was an unnecessary constraint. Conservation of momentum is a basic principle, and this generally requires that there be two or more products of any nuclear reaction. However, there exist exceptions, at least transiently. Because it *might* turn out to resemble the reaction, here is a theoretical possibility: molecular fusion through a Bose-Einstein Condensate, 2 D2 -> Be-8*. Notice: single product. However, no energy has been released yet, it is entirely a nuclear excited state. So then, two things happen: Be-8* -> Be-8 + photons (23.7 MeV) (a series of transitions at relatively low energy, this might be Mossbauer recoil- suppressed.) Be-8 -> 2 He-4 + electrons (from the original molecules) However, this proposal is incomplete. My point is only that we cannot predict the behavior of an "unknown reaction." In any case, the radiation expectation massively confused the issues. > 3b. is incorrect. > > I couldn't tell whether Jones insisted on (3b) or was just emphasizing (3a) The interview was poor. The obvious questions were not asked. From the fuel and heat/ash relationship, though, the FP Heat Effect is fusion by an unknown mechanism. Get over it, if you can't provide a better fit to the experimental evidence. > > Eric > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It's a really weird article. It starts off with this title: >> Steven Jones replica: Pons & Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion
