Follow by Email

Sunday, November 20, 2011

195 - truth to tell

Dear Reader,

I suppose I keep banging on about 'cold fusion' because I'm hoping that, sooner or later, our academics will consider that - just perhaps - they're looking at that new dark force that has managed to stay hidden for these centuries past. The point is that there's no evidence - whatsoever - of those emissions. I've mentioned this ad nauseum. No emissions means that it's NOT the nuclear force. Not even a low energy nuclear reaction. There's no acceptable term for this energy - yet. In which case? Could it be that this is, indeed, that dark energy that's been lurking on the outskirts of our theoretical models - with rather less recognition and interest than it probably deserves. There's nothing else on offer. No other theoretical model to explain these anomalous heat signatures.

Also. We were hell bent on promoting our own evidence of surplus heat. Unequivocal proof. Careful measurements. Very repeatable. Only lacking expert accreditation. The difference here is that - unlike Rossi et al - we could not get ANY academic to a demonstration. Which also meant that there was no official stance - for or against. Just the rather toxic flavour of scepticism and opinion which has, historically never really played a constructive role in science. One is reminded of a kind of medieval mindset. A prejudice that values 'belief' above 'evidence'. Which really has nothing whatsoever to do with the proud bases of that noble art.

Now that Rossi's results are out there - now that we have this delicious proof of more energy available than can be reasonably explained in any context at all - then we're rather anxious to again remind you all that there is - indeed - a perfectly viable explanation for all of this. And that it falls within the standard model. One hopes that our learned and revered wake up to this before too much time is wasted in that tedious debate of the 'lack of evidence in emissions' or even in the reconstruction of our theories. If it IS dark energy - then there should be no emissions. That's a good thing.

Anyway. The simple truth is that this wonderful technology of Rossi's entirely eclipses our own - until such time as we can get this to the robust wattage levels that Rossi manages. But the nice thing is this. Unless they prove that cold fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction - then the chances are that those many of us who claim evidence of over unity - are also merely accessing the same thing. And that's enough for the time being.

Over these last 10 years or so, I've been in touch with a number of academics. There are those among them that are offensively bigoted. And there are those that are simply not interested. But there are, very obviously, only a small but growing number, who are prepared to look and even to ask questions with an open mind - as referenced by Dr Preparata. And that's the thing that is likely to actually get this ball rolling - get us moving, however gradually, to some kind of theoretical platform where these academics can stand together - more comfortably.

And frankly, I think they'll be delighted to find that there's very little that's wrong with the standard model. In fact, from where I sit, there's no difference at all - provided only that they impose the theoretical construct of a magnetic dipole as the basis of a magnetic field. That's just a modest variation. And it has the real merit of then vindicating all our theorists whether they're classical, quantum, string or dark energy subscribers.

Where our own tests merit some close attention is that unless one proposes the existence of this particle then there is absolutely no other explanation for the waveform that is evident from our own circuit performance. It thereby constitutes proof of postulate. I trust that, by now, I've given enough links to argument in our second part of that two-part paper. When I get back here I'll add the one link, nonetheless.

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary

Here's the link to that second paper for anyone with the appetite for an appraisal of the evidence that proposes this 'small variation' to the standard model.