I have said this before, but it bears repetition after veiwing the recent thread. CF and LENR will be of academic interest, and the arguments will all be with academics over QM until massive heat realease can be achieved on demand with 'affordable' reactors. The near-term value of particle production is demonstration of *nuclear* reactions. Speculating about hydrinos as pseudo-neutrons is not the way to go. Mills has clearly stated that there is a hydrogen three-body reaction that can generate hydrinos and release anomolous heat under conditions found in LENR cells. [Mills does not make that exoplicit statement, but it is obvious from reading recent Mills papers.
Mike Carrell ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Krivit To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:53 PM Subject: [Vo]:Perspective on Heat Vs. Everything Else Jed, Thanks again for your thorough reply. I understand your perspective now. Heat, heat, heat. That's what it's all about. Heat > Energy > Useful Application Sorely Need by Society. I get it. Switching threads now once again.... I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory. It is also common, and unfortunate, that people charge off inventing new and unlikely methods of calorimeter instead of reading Himminger and Hohne or consulting with an expert. Or even reading Storms' papers on calorimetry at LENR-CANR.org. Bockris is no slouch at calorimetry, and needless to say he is a world-class expert on electrochemistry, but when he began these experiments, he took the trouble to hunt up the best calorimetry expert in Texas. The guy came to the lab, looked at the equipment and asked some questions, the way Rob Duncan did at Energetics Technology. Then he asked: "How much heat are we talking about? What is the power level input and output?" Bockris told him and the guy laughed and said, "you don't need me. Any calorimeter can measure that." He was right, but he meant any calorimeter constructed by a professional chemist using proper instruments. Not the many peculiar instruments that have enlivened the history of cold fusion much like the multi-wing airplane designs in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf What was the basis on which you had derived/developed your "feelings" about the Piantelli-Focardi work? Please note the use of "feelings" in my writing is academic jargon. It means I am trying not to be too insistent. It doesn't mean I have only vague or initiative "feelings" in the normal sense of the word. - Jed Let me throw out what might seem like a thought out of left field. Please bear with me in PART 1, I will get to my point in PART 2. PART 1 What if I were to say that the researchers in the field do not know how to make heat, and do not know how the heat is made when it does come. But, surely, you will quote even myself, from my presentations in the past when I have said that people like McKubre have identified the required conditions prerequisite to making heat (Loading, current density, disequilibrium and D flux). And we may both remember McKubre once saying that every time he attains the prerequisite conditions that he can produce heat. So...Hey! Where's the heat? (Said to the tune of "Hey, Where's the Beef!") McKubre et al published the results of their international collaboration to produce heat in the ACS book that I co-edited last year. On average, I think they got heat about 60-70% of the time, if I recall, all but one properly loaded experiment gave PxH. That one gave Tritium. So why is loading so crucial in bulk Pd expts? Why didn't the other 30-40% load? Nobody knows! Crucial information is missing. Also, why does the SPAWAR co-dep protocol produce results for them every time they do a run? All we can say about the known parametric requirements to produce PxH in bulk Pd is what does NOT work. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with D/Pd < ~ 0.85. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with < 2.5 amps/cm2. PxH does not work in bulk Pd when the cell is at equilibrium. PART 2 My only point in all of that - NOT TO ARGUE ANY MINUTIA - is that some crucial knowledge is missing. Hopefully we are in agreement that some knowledge is missing that is preventing the full development and the arrival of the inevitable Useful Application Sorely Need by Society. Considering that the mystery to 100% PxH is unsolved, what sense does it make to wear blinders with any of the related aspects of LENR research, be they transmutation, tritium, neutrons or theory? Steve ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
