From: Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
testing.
Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds
of hours, including Pd-D ones.
Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not use the
very sophisticated setup of Bianchini - who after all is measuring kilowatts
and is a leading expert at this.
Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
tritium have been documented in Rossi.
I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult to find.
Moderately difficult but not "very difficult" - but as a practical matter
for a theoretician - is it wise to build a theory on a foundation that
depends upon the viability of an extremely rare reaction (P-e-P), unless you
have tested the ash in some basic way - and found a skewed H/D ratio or
other indication of excess D?
In short, the Rossi effect looks very
much like the Mills effect.
And the Mills effect looks like cold fusion.
And that is precisely why it was a mistake to bifurcate the two, circa 1992.
So we're back where we started. I agree with Mike McKubre about the
conservation of miracles.
But cold fusion requires more miracles than Mills, who with his funding has
now proved many details. Mills predicts UV lines and finds them - miracle
erased. He predicts no gamma and there is none. He predicts and captures the
fractional hydrogen as physical atoms, and has the species tested - and it
shows up differently from hydrogen in NMR etc.
In fact the only problem with Mills in the miracle department is the lack of
the commercial product - and if Rossi gets there first due to the high level
of a more robust reaction, and especially if AR has accurately predicted
Ni-62 then he wins the big prize...
Gulp. Three cheers for Rossi, but in the end - it is LENR, and not cold
fusion per se as Ed wants to define it. The ultimate source of energy cannot
be determined as of now but Rossi's hundreds of hours of operation at
kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly indicates NO fusion.
Which is to say, the Rossi effect is not fusion but can still be a new kind
of nuclear reaction if one can be found with no gamma radiation.
I expect that all of these effects are either nuclear in something like the
conventional sense, or they are Mills superchemical shrinking hydrogen. I
doubt there are two unrelated phenomena so similar in nature.
Agreed- and there is one common denominator - QM tunneling.
Things tend to be unified at some deep level, as are combustion and
metabolism (to use Chris Tinsley's favorite example).
Exactamundo! There are probably 5-6 similar variations on the theme of
quantum tunneling which result in either
1) full fusion (as in the cold fusion of deuterium into helium)
2) some kind of weak force beta decay (W-L or related theory)
3) accelerated decay or internal conversion decay
4) UV supra-chemistry (energy coming from electron angular momentum)
5) QCD strong force effects (quantum chromodynamics)
6) Any combination of the above - even several of them in the same
experiment!
Any theory which aspires to encompass all of these begins with QM tunneling,
but no simpler theory from there on - works.
It cannot be true that all excess heat in Ni-H comes from a single kind of
reaction, as the result do not allow this. Even in the same experiment, one
could see three similar but different pathways to thermal gain that all
share QM tunneling as the starting point, but differ on everything else.
Ockham be damned ! Don't forget that appeals to "parsimony" were used by
skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues - against DNA for
instance, as the carrier of genetic information. There is a long list of
Ockham failures and the workable LENR theory will be on the next one.
