From: Edmund Storms
OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose.... You
believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to produce
nuclear products and the Mills effect does not.
Not even close, Ed.
I specifically said that I do not address anything to do with "cold fusion",
as opposed to LENR, and most importantly, this is not an "either/or"
proposition. LENR can have both heat with nuclear products OR heat without
nuclear products. And thirdly, we do not need Mills complete theory - but we
must borrow parts from his theory to understand Rossi. I have always stated
your theory fits Piantelli's experiments, but not Rossi's.
You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy
using the Mills effect while everyone else who explored this combination
detected evidence of a nuclear process.
Certainly not "everyone else". Ahern's fine replication of Arata finds zero
evidence of a nuclear effect and Celani finds none either - basically
Piantelli supports the fusion viewpoint, but his work is less convincing
Plus - Rossi has possibly advanced the Mills effect - which is now the Rossi
effect, by identifying Ni-62 as the active species. BUT in the end -
Bianchini has proved that there is NO nuclear products nor nuclear radiation
in the Rossi effect.
Even Mills has apparently failed to make his method work
this effectively, which seems ironic.
Mills' proponents, such as Jeff Driscoll think he has proved this. Many
others are not convinced. Rossi seems to have gone well beyond Mills, and
best of all - by pinpointing the active isotope.
You do not accept my theory of how the presence of D, H, or
H+D can change the nuclear products from the same mechanism and account for
the behavior.
Wrong. I do accept that your theory fits the physical evidence for some
experiments, like Piantelli, but NOT Rossi's work. You want your theory to
cover everything, but unfortunately it does not.
Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms are
operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release.
Yes. At least five similar mechanisms are present that all involved QM
tunneling in one form or another.
You believe that no gamma is emitted by the e-Cat because no
gamma is reported to be detected outside the apparatus. You come to this
conclusion in spite of gamma being detected on occasion by several studies
using light hydrogen and that Celani claimed the e-Cat emitted gamma during
startup. Rossi was even concerned enough to put a lead shield in his early
design.
Yes, this is all completely consistent with my hypothesis of multiple
related pathways. Rossi no longer uses lead, and the very best testing for
radioactivity which has ever been done in LENR finds no radiation in the
Rossi effect. I emphasize NONE since there is not the slightest hint of any
radiation in Bianchini's results.
If Rossi is causing the Mills effect, then his e-Cat is
accumulating hydrinos, which should be easy to detect.
That could be true - but Rossi has an incentive not to permit this kind of
testing. I have also provided a way to partially falsify my hypothesis of
soft x-rays.
In addition, I'm asking him to look for deuterium and
tritium. The tritium would be easy to detect and would provide unambiguous
support for my model and a clear rejection of the Mills effect.
No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by
Bianchini if it was there, and it was not there. And it would not reject
Mills unless all the complete gain was attributable to fusion, which cannot
be the case.
In any event, the presence of a small amount of tritium, which is not
commensurate with the thermal gain, would bolster my hypothesis of several
routes to gain.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
