Jones, Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff of radon gas? There were longer background measurements that were entirely constant in photometric reduction. The indications of radon come primarily from the characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust being deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite predictable across the entire multiple-day data set. Most of the radon transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not gamma, and I don't think there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can be explained this way.
Attributing this to radon seems an ill considered remark. Show me the spectrum that even a massive outburst of radon would have provided in the scintillator spectrum. There are papers about detecting radon with gamma spectrometers, and you will find it is not an easy proposition. There was high energy outburst detected, with nuclear range energy photons. It was detected in sufficient quantity so as to be implausible as an environmental variation. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Daniel Rocha > > > > In figure 7 (compare with figure 6), it seems that the signal is above > the background, in the region of 10-50kev by up to 100. So, that like >10 > sigma. There is definitely something there. > > > > > > There is of course “something” there. But not necessarily LENR. > > > > The signal is entirely consistent with the increased Radon levels of this > particular area. Read the fourth paragraph here about Santa Cruz – triple > the national average: > > > > > http://patch.com/california/cupertino/santa-clara-countys-cancerous-radon-level-b948f150 > > > > Jones > > > >
