In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding were under the insulation.
Also I see a "Gamma Scout" device on the table. These are not sensitive instruments for lower energy gammas. Jones -----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to francis 's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 Hi, >SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. A fission reaction such as I proposed in previous posts might preferentially produce stable isotopes (since stable isotopes are by definition the lowest energy nuclei and hence the most tightly bound). Taking into account that a cluster of 4 atoms should be able to get closer to a target nucleus before being destroyed by dipole forces than smaller clusters, then 4 atom cluster fusion should be much more likely than for smaller clusters. IOW clean fission reactions may dominate (and possibly by a very large margin). This would easily explain the lack of gammas, though wouldn't explain a preponderance of Cu as an end product. [snip] >FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! Correct. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
