-----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter.
What do they know. ;-) Well that's it, isn't it ... what do the experts know? Of course, one can throw all of nuclear physics out the door, but why? Ask yourself "why do I want so badly for this to be nuclear?" "Do I want it to be nuclear so badly that I will throw out - not only all of nuclear physics, but common sense and logic as well?" "What do I gain by alienating most of science to blindly insist that it is nuclear, when there is no evidence for that ?" ANSWER: this tactic is beyond stupid. Analyze your real motive and you will see that it is ego-driven, not intellect-driven. It gets down to this: "most of them were wrong about deuterium, which we proved is nuclear, so why can't they be wrong about hydrogen?" The logical error is that that there is no "them" and every isotope stands on its own merits. In simplest terms there are NO isotopes in all of nature that are more different from each other than D and H. The are extremely different and you simply cannot make the connection between cold fusion and the Rossi effect. Deuterium LENR is nuclear, but that is because of physical evidence - the known indicia were eventually found (helium and tritium) but this reaction using only hydrogen is NOT in that category: no helium, no tritium, no radioactivity. That is what intellect-driven observation tells us. There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear? Isn't it a lot simpler to accept that the billions of man-hours put into the field of physics is worth something, and that we DO NOT NEED to reject that? Or is the reason for reaction to be nuclear, because it is gainful? Put you self into the position of the Curie's before they discovered a new source of energy. They could have decided to make it look like new chemistry, and they may have tried for a while - but they went where the facts led them. We should do the same. The Rossi effect is simply not nuclear, based on the best available evidence. Why are observers so reluctant to accept Roarty's suggestion for instance, or something along the lines of ZPE being involved? Or Randell Mills? These are not new suggestions. Mills published in 1990, only months after P&F and in a peer-reviewed journal (Fusion Technology, ironically - even though he stated NO FUSION) Both explanations offer insightful non-nuclear pathways that should be carefully investigated before ever even considering a nuclear reaction that produces no radioactivity and no ash ... and rather than thumbing one's nose at all of physics, just because you "want it to be nuclear for some god-forsaken personal reason" (like you think deuterium LENR is comparable, when in fact it is not comparable). Jones
