Around here was an extensive discussion that may be worth reviewing:
Safety: Lithium Intoxication - Lithium Side Effects ?
Lipinskis made the same wrong calculations as Ekstrom and didn't see it too... They went even farther. They cheated the gamma line they measured with a wrong (impossible element) label...
They cheated the gamma line they measured with a wrong (impossible element) label...
More specifics please. That is which gamma line and where can we see this? Is the following quote the essence of what you state?
Wyttenbach wrote:
"The problem is that Ekstrom assumed the reaction would be 7Li +p --> 8Be what is wrong. It is 7Li + H* --> 8Li (intermediate). All radiation for this is clearly documented in the patent!"
Thanks.
If we look at figure 8 of the Lipinski patent, then we see, that Lipinskis show a perfect Beta spectrum (exact cut-off) for a 1.25 MeV mass excess of the 7Li + H* → 8Li reaction! As a result of an 7Li + H+ fusion such a signal would never occur! There is a known 8Li gamma line at 980.8 keV with t 1⁄2 8.2fs, which may be responsible for the slight asymmetry of the measured peak, what further confirms the hypothesis.
Another bit of evidence to confirm your contention: The highest yields of energy are seen in situations where the lithium target is positively biased. This would make no sense if the actual impacting beam were naked protons.
QuoteThe highest yields of energy are seen in situations where the lithium target is positively biased.
Source?
Their WIPO application itself.
Another bit of evidence to confirm your contention: The highest yields of energy are seen in situations where the lithium target is positively biased. This would make no sense if the actual impacting beam were naked protons.
Yes: But not the highest COP that is found at 100eV and low frequency (alternating +-100eV!)
The Li surface produces an Alvén plasma reaction, that finally leads to LENR. The polarity is not a contradiction.
I have not looked for a couple of years, but I think you will find that square waves are used in at least some of the alternating impressed voltages. Also there may be a disclosed or undisclosed positive DC bias superimposed on the alternating target biases.
To me the alternating bias is an indication of a less than simple mechanism at the "landing site". It is certainly worth spending time to understand the Lipinski results.... and with an open mind, rather than a prescriptive view. But if you (Wyttenbach, or others) have a comprehensive understanding that explains all of their results, I'm glad to yield to your communicated understanding.
