Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: February 3, 2014 9:28:49 AM MST
To: "torulf.gr...@bredband.net>" <torulf.gr...@bredband.net>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Good point Torulf. I believe the environment is important to make
the Hydroton, but once made it will complete its task regardless of
the environment. Nevertheless, many sources of energetic radiation
can be proposed without having to use the Hydroton. If materials
are subjected to sufficient local energy, normal nuclear reactions
will result. These emit the normal energetic radiation and are
outside of a discussion about LENR.
LeClair entered this energy level in his experiments. Also, evidence
exists for unusual kinds of radiation being emitted, with the EV
being one example. The nuclear world is still not understood, but I
choose to explore on only one part of this large unknown.
Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:15 AM, <torulf.gr...@bredband.net> <torulf.gr...@bredband.net
> wrote:
I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation.
The reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take "long" time for a
nuclear reaction.
The energy is released as a sequence of many photons.
And the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment.
There may be some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and
interrupt ongoing nuclear reactions.
If the hydrogen pair already have released some energy the reaction
may it not go back. Instead it will realise
the remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but
not so high energy as in a hot fusion reaction.
Torulf
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we
look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation
and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems
are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi
says that his early systems produced gammas.
The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always
exclude the production of gammas.
First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC mechanism
is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this
mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the
words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of
nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which
produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation,
transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and
fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little
of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold
fusion. That feature makes LENR unique.
Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is
simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not
needed to explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the
discussion and focus on published information from many competent
sources.
Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible
assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments,
which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers. I will
send them to your personal address.
Ed
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
From: Eric Walker
Jed Rothwell wrote:
These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons
have been around since the beginning of cold fusion.
It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing
about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this
sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the
first place.
That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/
Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial
gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release.
The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of
his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for
testing at that demo.
Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP)
show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to
copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni
-> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have
been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive
ash.
Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation
whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion
in mind.
Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton
reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was
chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all
of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course,
it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the
level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field
of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in
QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on
LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated
with Rossi. That will change very soon.
Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a
very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood
him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the
evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level
penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH
cold fusion and not due to a side channel.
The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not
exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to
say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called
“leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can
witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions.
Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like
a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out
like a sore thumb.
I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately
explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack
in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the
excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch
instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at
high thermal release, with his probes place under the original
lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level.
The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be
overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless.
It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and
suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no
gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at
startup can be easily explained as external.
Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for
now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi
reaction, in this thread.
Jones
