At 07:01 PM 5/27/2011, [email protected] wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 15:55:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The detection >of iron in the used sample is >even stranger: there is no reaction >with positive Q-value, i.e. positive >developed energy, which leads from the nickel >to iron.
Just, please, realize that I didn't write that, I merely posted a translation.
Actually there is:- Ni62 + H => Co59 + He4 + 0.34 MeV + Co59 + H => Fe56 + He4 + 3.2 MeV or taken together (if the H is a Hydrino molecule) Ni62 + 2H => Fe56 + 2He4 + 3.6 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Ekstrom's article represented a massive failure of the imagination. What he's come up with is the same as a lot of pseudoskepticism about cold fusion: this doesn't behave like hot fusion, therefore it must be bogus. The paper began with the usual nonsense about Pons and Fleischmann's work. Shallow crap, basically. It would not pass peer review with knowledgeable reviewers, but this was just a science magazine, and Ekstrom was considered, my guess, an expert. An expert in what? Surely not in CMNS! He clearly doesn't know the history and the issues, he's just declaring as fact what he's heard.
People who know more about the Rossi claims are less convinced it's fraud! They still worry about it, as we all should. To a degree!
What I'd worry about, more, myself, would be that the damn thing works, but still isn't practical, because it doesn't work for long enough to justify the manufacturing cost. That would be a larger-scale variation on the classic cold fusion problem: CF works, but that doesn't make it practical.
