DTRA: Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Mosier Boss, L. Forsley, PK. McDaniel

Quote from Shane D.

AlainCo wrote:

Krivits being his usual aggressive, rude self. I do not know why anyone that is aware of his tactics even answers the phone when he calls. His conclusion that this was *not* a DTRA sponsored report is splitting hairs, and he reports it like it is some hot scoop...which it is not.

Krivit's report is indeed classic Krivit. Over half the story is about .... Steve Krivit, intrepid reporter, learning almost nothing, really, but making it look like something. Did DTRA write the report? No, of course not! It's explicitly attributed! It was apparently reviewed by DTRA (or by a process approved by DTRA) and approved for publication under the DTRA name.

The first half of his report is useful, though it is being used to flog his book, which is propaganda about his "not-fusion" theory, which has become a conspiracy theory. Mosier-Boss does, apparently, still talk with him, perhaps because he has not -- yet -- attacked her work.

The report largely focuses on evidence of nuclear reactions, but ignores the direct evidence that the main reaction in the FP Heat Effect is the heat/helium correlation. What does not seem to be noted is that the radiation results reported by SPAWAR are at very low levels, and thus not characteristics of the main reaction; instead, helium is. They, of course, do not report on that because it was not part of their experimental work.

They do mention a correlation between electrolysis current and neutron detection. I have not reviewed that, but this could also be direct evidence that some sort of nuclear reaction is taking place. Correlation is a powerful tool. Electrolysis current should not affect neutron emission, unless there is a nuclear effect. So how reproducible was this? What's the data set? Etc.

Low levels of neutrons, however, may reflect low levels of what is called "hot fusion," which may be caused by some other nuclear reaction. The evidence we have points to helium as the major ash, no other candidate has been identified and confirmed.

Anomalous heat does correlate with electrolysis current; however, it is easy to imagine some systematic artifact for this, i.e., that calorimetry error correlates with current. However, helium correlates with anonymous heat. The correlation with current, though, does not explain HAD, "heat after death" which refers to continued anomalous heat after the electrolysis current is shut off. It would also not explain gas-loaded results, where there is no electrolysis involved.

There is much material for study in the DTRA report. This was many years of work, often wel- enough-reported that independent confirmation should be possible, and Pam Boss is known to cooperate with replication attempts. This is real science, even if mistakes might be made here and there. Remarkably, even Robert Park acknowledged that this was real science.