On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
There would be a net decrease in gas quantity under any scenario in which > D2 reacts with nickel – never wound an increase be expected, even small - > much less a ~2:1 increase in gas quantity. Amazing. > I think the lead that you and Axil are pursuing on the possibility of some way of splitting the deuterons in a special near-field magnetic field in the environment provided by nickel cavities is a thought-provoking one, and I'll be interested to see where the thought experiment goes. For the moment, I figure we each of us gets to egregiously ignore at least one major claim or implication of any item of news until one has lost enthusiasm for what one gets in return (in doing this, I'm just formalizing the existing practice on this list). The claim I will egregiously ignore for the moment as either being artifact or something that is different from what we currently understand it to be is the idea that there were twice as many gas molecules after the experiment had run than at the time it had started. (Because I'm *egregiously* ignoring the detail, I make no claims as to the plausibility that something is wrong with it.) What this gets me in return: - The p+Ni lead appears to align with the thoughts of the experimenters themselves, who included graphs of the neutron capture cross sections for nickel in their slides. - The p+Ni lead takes on a similar shape to earlier speculations about proton capture in the NiH system and to 4He generation in the PdD system (e.g., involving electric arcs between insulated grains). - The authors mention that if you calculate the amount of energy that would be expected of reactions generating between 3-4 MeV each, you would get less energy than they observed. This is a detail you have to egregiously ignore to put forward a reaction that produces on the order of 400 keV apiece. (Another detail *I'm* egregiously ignoring at the moment is the expected Bremsstrahlung radiation from fast protons; I'm starting to wonder whether whatever is going on can diffuse even kinetic energy into the electronic structure.) But, again, I like where you're going with the deuteron splitting and the neutron either decaying over a period of minutes, or instantaneously changing to a proton due to the weird way the process unfolds. Can we agree on this -- your argument will not be expected to predict beta+ or beta- decay signatures in any significant amount, whereas mine will? Eric
