In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:04:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Robin, > >We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion >reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to >suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways.
I agree. However I am criticizing their theory, not their experimental findings. I simply pointed out that if the theory they propose were the correct one, then one would expect to detect lots of gammas even outside the shielding. However there is a catch. My calculations were based on beta+ decay (as they suggest), and EC may be so enhanced during Hydrino fusion that it completely swamps beta+ decay (it's usually the other way around). That would essentially eliminate most of the annihilation gammas. This could be a truer picture of what's going on. The fusion energy would be emitted as kinetic energy of electrons (& protons?). About 1% of the electrons would create energetic X-rays, and a small percentage of these would be bremsstrahlung X-rays with a top edge equal to the electron energy (about 3.4 MeV). Even so, only about half of all Cu-59 decays go directly to the ground state. Those remaining still emit gammas of varying energies, and at least some of these ought to be detected. > >The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for >copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be >completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof. > >Why wasn't this done? From one document I got the impression that it was done and a ratio tilted toward Cu-63 was detected. > >Jones [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
