In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:37:31 -0800: Hi, This makes more sense. I was under the impression that the info on He not matching the heat output was a "whole experiment" measurement rather than samples taken over time. What was the source of this particular piece of info?
>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 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
