Re: [Vo]:LENR Cold Fusion website- Investing in LENR Cold Fusion
Rossi, at the end of his taxi talk with Sterling Allen, said that the eCat is too risky to invest in *YET*! On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:11:02 PM Nicely done: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/best-lenr-investments-or-at-least-companies-to-watch Rossi, at the end of his taxi talk with Sterling Allen, said that the eCat is too risky to invest in! It's also interesting that he's down-playing the applications of the eCat -- he's already said that its use in cars is decades away, and aircraft, never (despite NASA/Boeing penciling it in on a 15-year time frame). Now he dismisses another area : Andrea Rossi September 16th, 2012 at 5:54 AM Dear Pekka Janhunen: We are honestly thinking, after due diligence, that it will be impossible to compete against reverse osmosis, which costs 1 $/1000 liters: we will never reach this target , unless something really revolutionary comes up. Anyway we now are focused on the electric power consumption. Warm Regards, A.R. Sure is a curious scam --- rather than claiming that the eCat is the best thing since sliced bread (send money now), he's discouraging too much speculation (in a logical and financial sense).
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
Half of my brain thinks that this is brilliant and just what is needed, and the other half thinks that it is not. From my personal experience the problem is not so much a conspiracy as people, such as scientists in universities who do know something about this stuff, having read about this in the past, decided from the evidence then that there was nothing in it, and there not being the evidence available now that would convince them otherwise. If they encounter the rap video I suspect it is as likely to change their mind as would an equivalent video presenting theological evidence for free energy. What is needed for them is evidence in a language, and from people that they can believe. Nigel On 16/09/2012 22:37, Harry Veeder wrote: FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry
[Vo]:Rossi on the Hot-Cat Mk II
Andrea Rossi September 17th, 2012 at 7:02 AM DEAR GIO: I WANT TO ADD THAT SO FAR THE MEASUREMENTS MADE BY NEW SYSTEMS HAVE CONFIRMED, SUBSTANTIALLY, THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE REPORT OF ZURICH. IN PARTICULAR: WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE INTERNAL CYLINDER, TO MAKE EASIER THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY, BEING NOW ALL THE ENERGY EMITTED THROUGH THE EXTERNAL CYLINDER SURFACE, AND WE ARE USING A VARIAC INSTEAD OF A TRIAC, TOGETHER WITH CERTIFIED INSTRUMENTATION. NEVERTHELESS, MORE MEASUREMENTS ARE CARRIED ON BY THE VALIDATORS TEAM. WARM REGARDS, A.R. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
The art of rehtoric http://youtu.be/2q4_M3J-N3o Ethos, Logos, Pathos Harry
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
A video like this only raises awareness. It gets people thinking that is all. harry On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Half of my brain thinks that this is brilliant and just what is needed, and the other half thinks that it is not. From my personal experience the problem is not so much a conspiracy as people, such as scientists in universities who do know something about this stuff, having read about this in the past, decided from the evidence then that there was nothing in it, and there not being the evidence available now that would convince them otherwise. If they encounter the rap video I suspect it is as likely to change their mind as would an equivalent video presenting theological evidence for free energy. What is needed for them is evidence in a language, and from people that they can believe. Nigel On 16/09/2012 22:37, Harry Veeder wrote: FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
yw harry On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Thanks for this Harry. I put it up on our front page. Jammin great find! On 9/16/12 2:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
...and that should be enough to expect from such video. harry On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A video like this only raises awareness. It gets people thinking that is all. harry
[Vo]:Refurbishing old nuclear bombs
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-b61-bomb-a-case-study-in-needs-and-costs/2012/09/16/494aff00-f831-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html?hpid=z1 This article has a surprising amount of technical detail, and some close up photos of a 50-year-old bomb and the components in it. - Jed
[Vo]:unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
I've shown my open letter, at least the first paragraph shoul raise doubt... seing National instruments behavior... but it did nothing... no limit to self delusion. 2012/9/17 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com A video like this only raises awareness. It gets people thinking that is all. harry On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Half of my brain thinks that this is brilliant and just what is needed, and the other half thinks that it is not. From my personal experience the problem is not so much a conspiracy as people, such as scientists in universities who do know something about this stuff, having read about this in the past, decided from the evidence then that there was nothing in it, and there not being the evidence available now that would convince them otherwise. If they encounter the rap video I suspect it is as likely to change their mind as would an equivalent video presenting theological evidence for free energy. What is needed for them is evidence in a language, and from people that they can believe. Nigel On 16/09/2012 22:37, Harry Veeder wrote: FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:39 AM 9/17/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. I agree -- the Defkalion article is really a set of notes and shouldn't be considered a confirmation.  I'm thinking of the ten or so experiments summarized in section 4.5 of Ed Storms's book in which transmutations were seen in a nickel substrate under hydrogen.  This seems like enough evidence to adopt as a working assumption that Ni/H is bona fide LENR; this might be correct or it might not, but one cannot avoid making assumptions, and that seems like sufficient evidence for adopting the assumption that Ni/H is LENR until there is further evidence to call such an assumption into doubt.  If the confirmation one seeks is correlation with heat, I agree, this is important, and I have not seen it a report of it yet, aside from anecdotal evidence.  But that level of evidence isn't needed for exploration. There is easily enough evidence for NiH LENR to justify exploration. However, there is a skeptical position that deserves recognition. A lot of people, after 1989, started looking for LENR in various places. There is probably as much work done and not published as there has been published. People tend to publish what they consider interesting. In transmutation work, there are ready and knotty contamination problems. EarthTech attempted to replicate some of Miley's work, as I recall, and was able to track down some unexpected contamination sources. A certain level of report, then, may not mean as much as we might think. Rather, a report is a report, and deserves respect. The general assumption in science is that reports are to be trusted as reflections of what the observer found. That does not mean that we assume the observer's interpretations were correct. Data intepretation. So when some unusual report is of interest, what we hope for is replication or other confirmation. A general something unusual report can be quite misleading. This is what undisciplined investigation of a field will commonly produce. Rather, for different researchers to find the same transmutations would be of interest, and if this is correlated with other experimental conditions, across variations, it would be major confirmation. I don't think we have seen that with NiH. We have with PdD, which is why I consider PdD heat -- and even fusion -- to be established science. Established science can be overturned. All someone would have to do is disconfirm heat/helium, to throw it into doubt, and this were done with conclusive identification of the responsible artifact(s), fusion would be dead as an explanation for the FPHE. We'd then have an enormous mystery again: what's the source of the heat? Because it's highly unlikely that all that calorimetry is wrong. The reaction is unreliable, but it does correlate with H/D ratio and with current density and other variables, even if we could somehow shoot down the helium results. Unlikely, I'd say. Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. I think I've heard him say this as well.  But I also understand that the characterization of transmutations has not been carefully pursued until more recently, so it would be premature to conclude that the levels are known to be low. The levels are known to be low. Remember, I'm talking about PdD. I'm not sure about the levels for NiH, but if there were high levels, I'd think we'd have been hearing a lot more about it.  The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. We agree on this point. Great. The helium seen in Pd/D systems seemsà compatibleà with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decayà occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H. à It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. I looked further into the question of
Re: [Vo]:LENR Cold Fusion website- Investing in LENR Cold Fusion
At 12:50 AM 9/17/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: It's also interesting that he's down-playing the applications of the eCat -- he's already said that its use in cars is decades away, and aircraft, never (despite NASA/Boeing penciling it in on a 15-year time frame). That study has been given way too much significance. This was a what if study, what if NiH LENR is real. The study was a bit naive. It seems to assume that reality will automatically mean that engineering is possible. That, in fact, has been an assumption of the pseudoskeptics. If cold fusion is real, how come we don't have a cold fusion hot water heater? after all, it's been over twenty years. Obviously, it's not real. Real practical Especially if most physicists, who might have the tools to actually figure out what is going on, dismiss it as a fantasy, leaving the field to a few specialists applying quantum field theory, like Takahashi. This may take a major effort, one person is not enough!
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
At 04:27 AM 9/17/2012, Nigel Dyer wrote: From my personal experience the problem is not so much a conspiracy as people, such as scientists in universities who do know something about this stuff, having read about this in the past, decided from the evidence then that there was nothing in it, and there not being the evidence available now that would convince them otherwise. Well, not quite. The evidence is available, but it would take some actual effort to look at it. Robert Duncan was skeptical, the evidence existed, but he hadn't looked at it. CBS paid him to look. That's why his position changed! This is going to shift, because since about 2005, the skeptical position entirely disappeared from the journals, and there have been about 16 reviews of the field published in mainstream journals since then. All positive. It's going to change even if NiH turns out to be a big flop. And it may turn out to be real and even practical. I'm just not holding my breath. If they encounter the rap video I suspect it is as likely to change their mind as would an equivalent video presenting theological evidence for free energy. What is needed for them is evidence in a language, and from people that they can believe. I think I can do it in person. It's harder to do in writing, but I'm working on that, too. And so are others, of course. Part of my approach is to cling to my own skepticism, to be very careful what I take as established fact.
[Vo]:Question Concerning Celani's Charts
I am just beginning to take a closer look at the paper presented by Celani at the recent conference http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnalloa.pdf and an unusual behavior appears that I would like to have explained. The first major calibration curve on page 26 seems like an excellent one to use in an effort to determine the degree of cross coupling between the two test wires within his device. A well calibrated power at several different levels is injected first into the inactive heating wire and then the future active LENR wire. The R/R0 ratio for each wire is shown throughout the test which I was hoping to put to good use. I noted that the inactive wire demonstrated an R/R0 ratio of approximately 1.02 at the beginning of the test when there was no power applied to either wire. This value rose as expected for each elevated power level until the final 48 watts was reached at which point it dropped unexpectedly to a level lower than that seen at 15 watts of input. I estimated the reading was 1.03. The drive power was next removed and the reading became lower than the starting value where the input drive power was also at 0 watts. Then, the R/R0 ratio increased when power was applied to the active wire in a fairly well behaved manner. From that time forth, it appeared that the ratio of the inactive wire settled down and could be relied upon. Unfortunately, the fact that the two different regions disagreed prevented me from obtaining the calibration I was seeking. Has anyone discovered an explanation for this discrepancy? Dave
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The back side tracks could only be caused by neutrons, basically. And a gold cathode, from their work, produces a lot more neutrons. This is very interesting. You need to understand that the limit is not absolute. Hagelstein is not saying that the radiation doesn't exist, but that it's not significant, compared to whatever is happening with the main reaction. It occurred to me today that Peter Hagelstein might have in mind a central tendency of some kind in mind. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR Cold Fusion website- Investing in LENR Cold Fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The study was a bit naive. It seems to assume that reality will automatically mean that engineering is possible. Assuming the high power reported by Rossi, Celani and others is real, that proves beyond doubt it is possible to engineer a practical system. There is no example in history of an energy source that was discovered, scaled up to this extent, but proved physically impossible to control. Many sources are too expensive, but anything that can be scaled up can be controlled. Muon fusion obviously cannot be. I am sure it would be possible to scale up and build a Pd-D cold fusion reactor too. Probably it could be done on the kilowatt scale right now. But it would cost a fortune and it would be of no use. Still, if you kept working on it, it would be a lot cheaper than the Mars Curiosity Pu power supply. That, in fact, has been an assumption of the pseudoskeptics. If cold fusion is real, how come we don't have a cold fusion hot water heater? after all, it's been over twenty years. Obviously, it's not real. That argument is silly. It is just a matter of money and politics. If a few hundred million dollars had been made available, or maybe a billion, and the political opposition dynamited away, I am sure we would have had prototype cars years ago. Once you get to this stage of development it is just a matter of money. There can no fundamental reason why this problem cannot be solved, when every single similar problem in the history of technology *was* solved. The scientific method has not magically stopped working. Scientists who say they don't believe it are merely demonstrating Szpak's Law: 'Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.' In other words, when you announce the cold fusion has been funded, hundreds of thousands of scientists will suddenly realize they believed it all along. The conversion will be so sudden and complete they will forget that they ever held any other opinion. This may take a major effort, one person is not enough! I am sure it will take thousands of people before we actually have working machines. Hundreds of thousands of people, and billions of dollars. Heck, it took a billion to develop the Prius, which is a minor incremental improvement in comparison. - Jed
[Vo]:fission question
I have a question about fission that someone here, perhaps Robin, might be able to address. Suppose you have 90-TH-232(P,F)51-SB-128. EXFOR does not appear to make it straightforward to determine the products apart from antimony. What I'm wondering is how much I can infer from the shorthand form. Can I do this with it? 232Th + p - 128Sb + 105Zr + 189 MeV Note the energy, and the fact that the mass deficit is less than that of a proton or a neutron. I am not attempting to find all of the possible reactions; a single one would be fine in this instance. Also, would there be a gamma? Eric
[Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
I don't have an issue with the MM experiment disproving any etheric bias in a SPATIAL direction but think Lorentzian contraction and time dilation are evidence of an etheric river of virtual particles intersecting our 3d plane from a perpendicular dimension at a velocity we as chalkboard figures can only experience as C, In our 3D plane we can only remotely observe the effect of dilation by comparing objects in vastly different inertial frames. My posit is that VP don't pop into and out of existence so much as they grow into the present from the future and then shrink into the past and are responsible for the normally unexploitable force that moves gas randomly in all directions. Casimir plates by their geometry aggregate and segregate these forces from below the plank scale up into the nano scale while restricting gas motion to 2d such that the perpendicular forces the VP exert on the gas are no longer divided equally between 3 spatial axii and therefore is no longer random motion. becoming exploitable to generate heat or if driven in reverse to exert force on the ether for propulsion. Fran
Re: [Vo]:fission question
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:08:52 -0700: Hi, [snip] I don't think you can fission 232Th with a slow proton. My reasoning is as follows. 1) A neutron is 782 keV heavier than a proton (and hence lends more energy to the reaction). 2) A neutron slow neutron won't do the job. OTOH 2 protons concurrently would probably be more than adequate. However if just want a list of potential reactions ;) (Most energetic are near the bottom of the list). 1H+232Th = 233Pa + 5.247 MeV 1H+232Th = 229Ac + 4He + 9.554 MeV 1H+232Th = 226Ra + 7Li + 4.160 MeV 1H+232Th = 227Ra + 6Li + 1.472 MeV 1H+232Th = 221Fr + 12Be + 4.382 MeV 1H+232Th = 222Fr + 11Be + 6.213 MeV 1H+232Th = 223Fr + 10Be + 11.747 MeV 1H+232Th = 224Fr + 9Be + 9.732 MeV 1H+232Th = 4He + 4He + 225Fr + 13.977 MeV 1H+232Th = 217Rn + 16B + 1.996 MeV 1H+232Th = 218Rn + 15B + 8.547 MeV 1H+232Th = 219Rn + 14B + 10.243 MeV 1H+232Th = 220Rn + 13B + 15.562 MeV 1H+232Th = 221Rn + 12B + 14.896 MeV 1H+232Th = 222Rn + 11B + 17.696 MeV 1H+232Th = 223Rn + 10B + 10.380 MeV 1H+232Th = 224Rn + 9B + 7.873 MeV 1H+232Th = 211At + 22C + 1.103 MeV 1H+232Th = 212At + 21C + 5.436 MeV 1H+232Th = 213At + 20C + 11.777 MeV 1H+232Th = 214At + 19C + 13.691 MeV 1H+232Th = 215At + 18C + 19.065 MeV 1H+232Th = 216At + 17C + 19.442 MeV 1H+232Th = 217At + 16C + 24.648 MeV 1H+232Th = 218At + 15C + 24.766 MeV 1H+232Th = 219At + 14C + 29.320 MeV 1H+232Th = 220At + 13C + 25.258 MeV 1H+232Th = 221At + 12C + 25.924 MeV 1H+232Th = 222At + 11C + 11.315 MeV 1H+232Th = 223At + 10C + 3.565 MeV 1H+232Th = 208Po + 25N + 3.665 MeV 1H+232Th = 209Po + 24N + 11.597 MeV 1H+232Th = 210Po + 23N + 20.313 MeV 1H+232Th = 211Po + 22N + 23.136 MeV 1H+232Th = 212Po + 21N + 27.854 MeV 1H+232Th = 213Po + 20N + 27.622 MeV 1H+232Th = 214Po + 19N + 31.345 MeV 1H+232Th = 215Po + 18N + 30.163 MeV 1H+232Th = 216Po + 17N + 33.082 MeV 1H+232Th = 217Po + 16N + 31.152 MeV 1H+232Th = 218Po + 15N + 34.278 MeV 1H+232Th = 219Po + 14N + 27.112 MeV 1H+232Th = 220Po + 13N + 21.929 MeV 1H+232Th = 205Bi + 28O + 9.959 MeV 1H+232Th = 206Bi + 27O + 17.774 MeV 1H+232Th = 207Bi + 26O + 27.115 MeV 1H+232Th = 208Bi + 25O + 34.128 MeV 1H+232Th = 209Bi + 24O + 41.928 MeV 1H+232Th = 210Bi + 23O + 42.914 MeV 1H+232Th = 211Bi + 22O + 45.309 MeV 1H+232Th = 212Bi + 21O + 42.792 MeV 1H+232Th = 213Bi + 20O + 44.170 MeV 1H+232Th = 214Bi + 19O + 40.602 MeV 1H+232Th = 215Bi + 18O + 41.870 MeV 1H+232Th = 216Bi + 17O + 37.672 MeV 1H+232Th = 217Bi + 16O + 38.653 MeV 1H+232Th = 218Bi + 15O + 26.561 MeV 1H+232Th = 202Pb + 31F + 12.409 MeV 1H+232Th = 203Pb + 30F + 18.620 MeV 1H+232Th = 204Pb + 29F + 27.513 MeV 1H+232Th = 205Pb + 28F + 33.253 MeV 1H+232Th = 206Pb + 27F + 41.559 MeV 1H+232Th = 207Pb + 26F + 46.913 MeV 1H+232Th = 208Pb + 25F + 53.215 MeV 1H+232Th = 209Pb + 24F + 52.788 MeV 1H+232Th = 210Pb + 23F + 54.140 MeV 1H+232Th = 211Pb + 22F + 50.435 MeV 1H+232Th = 212Pb + 21F + 50.332 MeV 1H+232Th = 213Pb + 20F + 45.939 MeV 1H+232Th = 214Pb + 19F + 44.406 MeV 1H+232Th = 215Pb + 18F + 37.392 MeV 1H+232Th = 199Tl + 34Ne + 17.699 MeV 1H+232Th = 200Tl + 33Ne + 23.769 MeV 1H+232Th = 201Tl + 32Ne + 32.659 MeV 1H+232Th = 202Tl + 31Ne + 37.888 MeV 1H+232Th = 203Tl + 30Ne + 45.397 MeV 1H+232Th = 204Tl + 29Ne + 49.012 MeV 1H+232Th = 205Tl + 28Ne + 55.315 MeV 1H+232Th = 206Tl + 27Ne + 57.920 MeV 1H+232Th = 207Tl + 26Ne + 63.343 MeV 1H+232Th = 208Tl + 25Ne + 61.592 MeV 1H+232Th = 209Tl + 24Ne + 62.327 MeV 1H+232Th = 210Tl + 23Ne + 57.137 MeV 1H+232Th = 211Tl + 22Ne + 56.835 MeV 1H+232Th = 212Tl + 21Ne + 50.146 MeV 1H+232Th = 196Hg + 37Na + 19.326 MeV 1H+232Th = 197Hg + 36Na + 25.306 MeV 1H+232Th = 198Hg + 35Na + 34.103 MeV 1H+232Th = 199Hg + 34Na + 39.496 MeV 1H+232Th = 200Hg + 33Na + 47.371 MeV 1H+232Th = 201Hg + 32Na + 51.305 MeV 1H+232Th = 202Hg + 31Na + 57.424 MeV 1H+232Th = 203Hg + 30Na + 59.642 MeV 1H+232Th = 204Hg + 29Na + 64.763 MeV 1H+232Th = 205Hg + 28Na + 66.014 MeV 1H+232Th = 206Hg + 27Na + 69.200 MeV 1H+232Th = 207Hg + 26Na + 65.817 MeV 1H+232Th = 208Hg + 25Na + 65.229 MeV 1H+232Th = 209Hg + 24Na + 59.502 MeV 1H+232Th = 210Hg + 23Na + 57.390 MeV 1H+232Th = 193Au + 40Mg + 25.924 MeV 1H+232Th = 194Au + 39Mg + 31.406 MeV 1H+232Th = 195Au + 38Mg + 40.283 MeV 1H+232Th = 196Au + 37Mg + 44.628 MeV 1H+232Th = 197Au + 36Mg + 52.454 MeV 1H+232Th = 198Au + 35Mg + 56.205 MeV 1H+232Th = 199Au + 34Mg + 63.020 MeV 1H+232Th = 200Au + 33Mg + 65.108 MeV 1H+232Th = 201Au + 32Mg + 70.093 MeV 1H+232Th = 202Au + 31Mg + 70.350 MeV 1H+232Th = 203Au + 30Mg + 74.791 MeV 1H+232Th = 204Au + 29Mg + 74.110 MeV 1H+232Th = 205Au + 28Mg + 76.479 MeV 1H+232Th = 191Pt + 42Al + 34.748 MeV 1H+232Th = 192Pt + 41Al + 43.354 MeV 1H+232Th = 193Pt + 40Al + 47.872 MeV 1H+232Th = 194Pt + 39Al + 56.076 MeV 1H+232Th = 195Pt + 38Al + 59.512 MeV 1H+232Th = 196Pt + 37Al + 65.418 MeV 1H+232Th = 197Pt + 36Al + 67.375 MeV 1H+232Th = 198Pt + 35Al + 72.775 MeV 1H+232Th = 199Pt + 34Al + 73.064 MeV 1H+232Th = 200Pt + 33Al + 77.872 MeV 1H+232Th = 201Pt + 32Al + 77.547 MeV 1H+232Th =
Re: [Vo]:fission question
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However if just want a list of potential reactions ;) (Most energetic are near the bottom of the list). That must be from the output of your program that I can't run because I have an old Mac. :) Which of any of the reactions would produce gammas? Eric
Re: [Vo]:fission question
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However if just want a list of potential reactions ;) (Most energetic are near the bottom of the list). That must be from the output of your program that I can't run because I have an old Mac. :) Which of any of the reactions would produce gammas? Also, isn't there an electrostatic dimension to the fission cross section? I.e., under certain circumstances a proton will do the trick where it would be harder for a neutron at the same energy, because of the existing balance of nucleons? Eric
Re: [Vo]:fission question
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:56:55 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However if just want a list of potential reactions ;) (Most energetic are near the bottom of the list). That must be from the output of your program that I can't run because I have an old Mac. :) Which of any of the reactions would produce gammas? Eric Since you are looking at fission reactions, you might expect the same level of gamma activity as you see with Uranium fission, i.e. some prompt gammas and lots from radioactive daughter products. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
