I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with the model as well -- such as the instability issue.
CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron > orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a > lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the > thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there > is > such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, > such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of > nickel. > > Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. > They > do not show that the DDL is impossible... > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf > but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory > > To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please > consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in > early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. > In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important > reactant > - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that > Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active > isotope. > > Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he > is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against > infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to > use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having > a > mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the > properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the > patent > for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". > > BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who > is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - > the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the > PCT > so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps > for little else. > > Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? > > Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding > energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more > stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually > prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi > suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be > coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad > that > he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other > nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot > of > weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. > > That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" > > This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially > relevant > for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be > saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi > level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. > Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are > warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of > spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which > to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. > www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf > > In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around > for > the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to > be one which is > 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. > 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into > energy > 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at > small geometry > 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates > at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the > bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly asymmetric in > energy > 5) Thus there is net heat. > 6) The gain comes mostly from Ni-62 by spin coupling to its high level > of composite spin, > 7) Oxygen if present in the nickel in small amounts could allow > increased saturation capability > 8) It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is a > gateway to the Dirac "sea" ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also > "non-fusion LENR" > > Any and all of these suggestion are subject to change as soon as better > data > arrives. All we can do now is look at the big picture as being shadows on > Plato's cave. > > > > > > >
