Jed, Jones and others--
I too read the Craven’s report and found it very interesting--particularly his discussion of the theory. He points out the importance of the magnetic field aligning the D nuclei in antiparallel spin orientations as well as the importance of vacancies in the Pd lattice caused by alloying with gold and allowing a place for the D to gather. The thing he does not explain is how the energy (24 Mev) from the collapse of 2 D to form He is distributed to the lattice. AS I have maintained from the beginning of my attendance on Vortex, the energy is distributed by spin coupling to other spin oriented particles under the influence of the magnetic field. Is there any reason why the D nuclei could not form excited states of high but opposite spin states which collapse quickly to the zero spin He with distribution of small spin quanta to other entities in the lattice including spin angular momentum associated with orbital electrons found in the lattice.? The presence of BEC or Cooper pairs of D may initiate and mediate the spin energy distribution of the loss of mass associated with forming the He. A similar pairing of H in Ni alloy lattice may allow the formation of D and hence He. The mechanism of the formation of H from D in the Mizuno experiment is another matter. Seems like the reverse of the D,He reaction may also happen. The Cravens experiment is nice as Jed and Jones have already said. HE DESERVES A PRIZE FOR BEING A OPEN, REAL EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTIST. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 9:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and the great detail of information which he has provided on a most important experiment. He deserves a big award for this work . . . Yes! It is a fine paper. I copied it to LENR-CANR.org. Such an elegant demonstration! This is my favorite kind of experiment: one based on first principles without depending on instruments. Martin Fleischmann also liked this kind of thing, such as his boil-off tests. A experiment with lots of instruments yields more useful information, which I suppose is needed for a theory. You need both kinds, but this is sweet. I just read the paper again. . . . I noticed something on the first page that relates to the Defkalion fiasco. Maybe I should let bygones be bygones, but to keep the historical record clear, note that it says: "Two weeks before NI Week, in conjunction with ICCF18, Defkalion did a live Internet demonstration where they claimed they produced 4 kW of heat out from 1 kW of electrical power. In other words, you get four times energy savings with their device, if true. However, there seems to be questions about some of their water flow and magnetic field measurements." I recall hearing about that from various sources. As you see from the tone here, Dennis thought this was an honest mistake of some sort. So did I. I figured it was nothing to get excited about. People make mistakes during demonstrations. The Gamberale report makes me think it was more sinister. - Jed
