Jones, No I did not say it was blunt. BTW I changed my signature:) No, I said it was a little contradictory to the general complaints, here in Vortex, saying that there is no room for accepting explanations that does not jive with the book. I think the same goes for religious people who throws the bible at you in every juncture. It is not that the bible does not have merit or that established academia is clueless. Your critic I have no problem with. That you base it on what EVERYBODY knows - was my problem. Really more that I think it is inconsistent than a problem.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 YCDBSOYA On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel > particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms > to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all > billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this > latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation. > > All these neutron theories such as this one and L&W are unitary theories > where neutrons are moved one neutron at a time. This one neutron transfer > method cannot leave a pure isotope in large amounts(a billion atoms). > > > Furthermore, consider how neutrons would move from lithium 7 coverng the > surface of the nickel particle, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron > nickel particle. Being ultra low energy, each low energy neutron is highly > reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters. > This implies that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would > have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at > least Ni64 or even zinc near the surface of the particle. This atoms near > the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the > particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *From:* Bob Higgins >> >> Ø There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by >> this paper and the paper itself is poor. >> >> I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that >> it is being praised. >> >> *From:* Bob Cook >> >> >> >> Ø >> >> Ø The Li-7 would pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to >> Be-8 by giving up an electron >> >> Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few >> millibarn) – so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant >> for the proposed liquid metal reactor. >> >> In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher, >> but decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t. >> >> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a >> valid explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it >> is rude to be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys >> who proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I >> cannot understand why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it >> without asking the simplest of questions. >> >> Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable >> theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast >> further doubt on his claimed results. >> >> You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does >> help. >> >> >
