If you want a natural emitter that would do a burst that would saturate a small NaI detector, that's easy. You would have to have access to something like a Cs137 or Co60/Co57 source, or even something as common as Tc99m, but any medical imaging facility or drilling outfit would have something.
The trouble is, each of those have very distinctive spectra that any detector with identification capability would recognise immediately. Most of the strong sources (that wouldn't get you in trouble with the big guys at DHS) have medical or industrial uses. He could have just bought a LOT of kitty litter or bananas (yes, a BIG LOT), and thrown a lead blanket over the pile and removed it just before showing in the room! Handheld detectors are not designed to see really large sources at close range. I bet if I ask the right people I can find out what it would take, based on easily-acquired sources, to saturate a handheld NaI detector. But if, instead of a burst, you get a collected spectrum, I can *tell* you what it is, with very high confidence. That is information, not data. We have lots of data, but very little information. It is very frustrating that someone with an ID-capable detector didn't collect something. Debbie On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: albedo5 > > > > If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, > what it wasn't. > > I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. > > > > > > Hmm … could it be simply a matter of deduction ? > > > > … connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being > disallowed, his earlier Cincinnati group replication paper (which Rossi must > have read), the range of common signatures that are possible for Celani to > have identified with a portable NaI meter, even if allowed, and the fact > that to produce power for $.01/kWhr, a natural emitter instead of an > expensive isotope would need to be used… > > > > … how many possibilities are there to chose from ? > > > > > > >
