Hi all In reply to Jones Beene
I cannot find via google search, the quoted text "“A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”, other than in the paper I linked, that you attribute to being something Ahern wrote. While I do not dispute that you have seen this text, or perhaps more likely something like it, I think it would help the community if you would quote your source, so that full context can be given. I do not dispute that Ahern may follow the same view as the author of the paper, but we must deal in evidence that we can see and judge ourselves. As you point out, a person "may claim..." something about themselves or others, and the claims may not hold up to inspection. On another matter Rossi seems to think the “discrete breathers” (DBs) are worth understanding and that particular paper should be read. "Andrea Rossi June 17th, 2014 at 6:50 AM Andreas Moraitis: The physics of the so called discrete breathers are very interesting. Good paper, thank you for citing it to our Readers. Warm Regards, A.R." I too think the paper is worth reading. Kind Regards walker On 17 June 2014 19:31, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: Ian Walker > > Ahern is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to > mention where you think the paper supports Ahern's view? > > OK. Dubinko starts out - the first sentence of his paper with this quote: > “A > new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large > amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”. > > This is the exact wording from Ahern, who does credit Fermi-Pasta-Ulam and > goes into great detail in his prior publications on large amplitude > anharmonic lattice vibrations. Dubinko is either not well-read on the > relevant literature of LENR, or else he is trying to take credit for the > work of others. > > >So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and > blacklight power espouses. > > Dubinko may claim not to support it, but he bases the energy of his > hypothetical DB (page 3) on “electrolytic reaction 2D++ 2e => D2+ 31.7 eV > which can proceed during the course of absorption/desorption at the cathode > surface” > > …and we must surmise that he knows this large amount of energy is not > possible without ground state redundancy, i.e. to derive 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV > from standard chemistry is impossible, and since it is exactly as Mills > suggests – he is supporting hydrino theory whether he acknowledges it or > not. > > IOW- Dubinko seems to be deliberately creating a smoke screen, since he > cannot have it both ways… and that may be why he seems to be using “31.7 > eV” > instead of breaking it down as 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV, which instantly invokes > Mills’ Rydberg levels. > > The paper does reference Swartz > > Yes, but only minimally. If I am not mistaken, Mitchell should be credited > with much more than this, but I do not have the inclination to make a point > by point argument. > > Walker, I suggest writing to Mitchell Swartz directly for his comment … if > you really insist on defending Dubinko. Where is the novelty? > > Jones >
