Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But Villa measured no gammas above background with *no* lead. ... Villa would have detected gammas in that range. All right, probably no or negligible gammas above 200 keV. (c) We don't know if the gammas are emitted isotropically. The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. So they say. It would be more credible if someone could imagine a reaction that produces heat and no radiation. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
just about the shielding, what about the chamber itself as shielding (what material/thickness?) for some kind of emissions. at least it should stop alpha and beta, protons, weak X, and reduce X, and maybe soft gamma. 2011/12/5 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract.
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, Right. Anything can be explained that way... and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma.
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. That's another debate. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. How do you know it's just wild speculation? The slide doesn't say My guess: 50 - 200 keV. Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and asked him? Or is this your resonant mind-reading ability at work? And if he's randomly speculating, why do you think he put a lower threshold of 50 keV? Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. That's why he's contracting to University of Bologna for the theoretical research. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. Therefore, if Rossi's device works, then WL is wrong or doesn't apply to it. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma. (1) This is Piantelli. Rossi developed his own thing with Focardi. It's something different, so at this level of knowledge, spectra don't need to match a priori. Also, aren't they using a different catalyst? Maybe the high-energy photons come from the catalyst. (That's my random speculation.) (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when he got excess heat. (3) You cannot exclude a small amount of energetic gammas being produced. So you could get most of the heat from 200 keV photons, plus the occasional 750 keV photon. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Cude could not have impeded much less stopped quantum theory. Unlike Rossi's story, decent experiments were independently performed and reported. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. Debunking is important -- unless you like bunk. And debunkers rarely if ever will meddle about experiments which are properly performed and replicated independently. They are interested mostly in extravagant claims without proper proof. Fortunately, there are always plenty enough of those to stop even the most ardent debunker from getting bored. Just see Sterling Allan's free energy cell phone recently for an example. And his web site is a fertile source of bunk all the time. So is Craig Brown's Free Energy Truth blog. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks)
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Except that when Planck tried to understand the ultraviolet catastrophe, he didn't just say: Well it's new physics. He suggested E=hf, and showed that with that equation, blackbody radiation fit his predictions perfectly. Einstein didn't just say that the photoelectric effect disagrees with classical physics because it's new physics. He used Planck's E=hf in a new theory that fit experimental results perfectly. Bohr didn't just say only selected orbits are allowed because it's new physics (he did say that, but not *just* that). He showed that if he quantized angular momentum he could reproduce the Rydberg formula. Schrodinger and Heisenberg didn't just say the particle-wave duality is because of new physics. They developed formal theories which included the duality, and which represent two manifestations of the most predictive physical theory in history. Do you see a pattern there? It's all about suggesting specific new physics that fits the data, and can be tested. WL is not that. Again, that doesn't make it wrong. But at the moment, it has no experimental legs to stand on, and remains energetically highly implausible. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? Only that they switched on a frequency producing device at low power. It's hard to imagine it as anything other than a coil of some sort, and not a high enough frequency to influence nuclear reactions. But, you're right. I don't know. Just wild speculation. An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. True, with a vacuum, and dc high voltage. No sign of any of that in the ecat. And x-rays are produced by atomic, not nuclear, reactions. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. No. But again, nuclear reactions in a powder triggered by heat are unlikely to be directional. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. To me it's not about debunking so much as denying evidence exists for bunking. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. How do you know it's just wild speculation? The slide doesn't say My guess: 50 - 200 keV. Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and asked him? If it's not supported by data, it's speculation. Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. He's been working with Focardi for a few years already. (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when he got excess heat. The one thing that's consistent in cf research is inconsistency. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? Right. The best evidence for cold fusion is some guy who saw something sometime. Rothwell loves to talk about the buckets of water that boiled away when no one was looking. Depending on anecdote just makes cold fusion seem needy.
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The lies and double-talk, from both DGT and Rossi are too bizarre for words. I cannot tell which side is lying, but I agree the double-talk is bizarre. It sure is! And as I said, the fact that Defkalion has allowed this dispute to fester for months, when they claimed they could demonstrate a device, is appalling. I told them that. They did not want to hear it. I tell many people in this field things they do not wish to hear. So does Krivit, but I am much more polite about it, I hope. Plus he makes stuff up, as far as I can tell. - Jed
