The particularities of this reaction could be simply caused by the proximity of nuclei to each other, that is, the distances between atoms as a result of chemical bonds. If no nano particles are formed by deuterium, from a chemical standpoint the positions of their nuclei are not in close proximity when nuclear disruption occurs, So when the strong force is disturbed, only one nucleus would be affected, that is, disruption just upon the single deuterium nucleus.
In the Rossi and DGT reactors, nano-particles are built in a tight lattice structure which puts many nuclei close to each other and they stick closely onto nickel micro particles. Now when the strong force is disrupted, cluster fusion can occur within the zone of disruption. If this is true in this system, we should not see any transmutation and isotopic shifts in the nickel which makes up the electrodes in this system. On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: David Roberson > > The main problem I see with this line of reasoning is that > Rossi and DGT are getting positive results. Why would that happen unless > the normal hydrogen reacts with nickel directly? > > Protium does react directly ! This goes back to the superset hypothesis: > which is that there are many routes to gain in LENR. Moreover, D is > completely different from H in how it reacts in a metal. Plus, several > different reactions can happen at the same time in any experiment. In fact, > Mizuno's results show gain with both H and D. Apparently he thinks D is > more > active in the extended time frame. > > There may well be a reaction of D taking place within the > system, and if singular hydrogen is the result, then that should start > reacting by itself generating heat. > > Yes. That is completely consistent with these reported results so long as > the H reaction does not remove H from the system. If it did remove H, then > the gas quantity could not be nearly doubled, as reported. > > There remain too many questions and it is prudent to > consider that this experiment needs to be replicated before the total story > unfolds. > > However, is it ever helpful to ignore well-done experimental results and go > silent - especially on what could be the most important LENR experiment > since 1989? > > Before this is replicated, there is almost no valid reason not to look at > the various implications. Knowing the implication and appreciating the > dynamics of the situation in advance should facilitate more accurate > replication attempts. > > Jones > >
