>
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion/
W komentarzu pod w/w artykulem jest cos takiego (co ChemFani na to?):
----------
TJK on May 28, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Potential answers to the objections. All the objections are reasonable but
there is too much validated fusion from D-Pd reactions.
1. The Coulombe barrier - - Coulumbe barrier is not relevant if the
reaction is creating non-energetic neutrons.
2. Gamma Rays - if the neutrons are non-energetic than the gamma radiation
would be similiar to background gamma and if the neutron is non-energetic
and absorbed by other atoms its decay would be in the form of alpha and
beta and the metal hydryde will be blocked by the thing chamber wall.
3. Transmutation - this is a proveable issue that requires no conjecture.
Simple mass-sprectrometer reading can prove or disprove this.
4. Testing - valid but they did have access to the device. There´s a point
where we have to trust those that gave the evaluation. They simply
confirmed that the reaction/whatever it is/ is beyond chemical.
5. Catalyst - why is that a red flag?
----------
Jesli chodzi o przezwyciezenie sily Coulomba to byla na ten temat praca,
do ktorej juz byl tutaj podawany link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2746057/posts
http://coldfusionnow.org/rossi-e-cat-ht-energy-density-off-the-chart/
Krytyka:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiTimeline.shtml
|