Robin, > This may be so, but it isn't a logical counter to my previous point, which was that if most of the heat is coming from shrinkage then H should work as well as D.
Well, not exactly - and yes it is a logical counter-argument - but what you are leaving out is the time sequence. That is what was not explained well. Second try. Most of the heat in A/Z, in the unpowered experiments with nanopowder - yes, that may come from non-nuclear shrinkage initially - but remember that a population pycno is being accumulated over time. (this is my interpretation of the results, not theirs, since they do not acknowledge CQM). Things will change, however, after days or weeks of operation, since eventually there is a larger and larger population of pycno, and the threshold for quasi-BEC becomes more probable over time. ERGO- If you were look at an ongoing experiment at day two, then 90% of the excess heat might be characterized as non-nuclear at that point in time, based on the low Helium which can be documented; .... but if you came back at day 22, and checked for two days, then at that point in time 90% of the excess heating might be coming from apparent fusion, due to the documented helium content, and due to a working population of pycno having been present. In fact the excess heat at any given point in time would be a mix of both types of reactions (mixent?) and it will never be easy to allocate relative contribution, except to note that since hydrogen (protium) misses out on the fusion heat, but can produce the shrinkage heat, then the difference between the two after months of operation could be a way to get a rough idea of the nuclear fusion contribution (as opposed to the nuclear contribution). This is because, as you indicate, some protium can shrink all the way to the virtual neutron level and can combine with Pd to create via beta decay a bit of helium as well as other transmutation reactions. However, H even at the v-n level, cannot fuse - and that reaction is much more energetic - thus the difference in the two reactants. The part that Mills got wrong is that deuterium is FAR FAR more active after a period of time, due to the BEC-like fusion; which he never could have anticipated. Had BLP been using deuterium instead of hydrogen, then he would likely already be over the hump in terms of commercialization IMHO. Either way, the BLP reactor will absolutely and with zero doubt (in my mind) become activated over time, and will produce radioactive species in a matter of months of operation (or weeks). The radioactivity level is therefore just a "matter of degree", and you can bet that when a public demo does take place, BLP will not allow rad monitors to be brought in. That may be the very reason there has been no public demo. You might say BLP is in denial now, since there is little doubt from what I have seen that they must know this, but are not prepared to acknowledge it due to the little IP "problem" of P&F being a year ahead of them, and with the far greater array of brainpower on the LENR side of the aisle. My opinion of the politics involved. Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] In reply to Jones Beene's message Hi, >Maybe I am not explaining it well, but it makes sense to me, so far. It is >essentially equating the strong magnetic alignment you mention as providing >the same effect as ultracold - IF and only if there is a group of highly >shrunken bosons present. This may be so, but it isn't a logical counter to my previous point, which was that if most of the heat is coming from shrinkage then H should work as well as D. If your BEC conjecture is valid, then one would assume that fusion only occurs with D, but the problem is the statement that nowhere near enough He is found to account for the heat, and nowhere near enough He mean few fusions and hence little BEC formation. BTW one would normally expect fusion not to occur with H anyway because of the weak force interaction required to convert a proton into a neutron. The exception being when a proton fuses with another nucleus which already contains at least one neutron (e.g. the Piantelli H + Ni experiments). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
