To clarify one point. Gammas are not always seen in Pd-D experiments - especially with simple Geiger type monitors. In the early days, gammas were even said to be absent.
Then with better instrumentation - gammas started to show up - even in watt-level experiments. Rothwell was among the most vocal proponents of using gamma spectroscopy as proof of LENR, so it is a bit surprising that he seems to be backtracking a bit. Well, not backtracking so much as denying that absence of gammas from very high output experiments is indicative of no fusion. Here is a report of an experiment 12 years ago, where - although the experiment produced about 6,000 times less energy than Rossi claims - gammas showed up clearly enough to do convincing spectroscopy. This report from ICCF8 by Rothwell turned up in my files and there are many similar that can be found once the archive server comes back online: "Mengoli also showed surprisingly strong evidence for transmutation of titanium into a radioactive scandium isotope, with what looked like unassailable evidence: gamma ray coincidence counting and determination that the half-life of the gamma decay was consistent with the radioactive isotope as identified by the energy of the gamma ray spectrum." END of quote. That was a 2 watt output experiment. Of course, the lack of gammas at massively more energy in Rossi's case does not prove that it cannot be due to hydrogen fusion, since we are trying to disprove a negative - BUT do we really want to cherry-pick past results to the degree that it puts convincing data into jeopardy? The most defensible position, relative to all of these past reports of gammas in the LENR library, is to accept that gamma radiation should show up to some degree when real fusion (or even beta decay) is happening and top rate instrumentation is used. Why compromise that position by offering the remote possibility that fusion can be occurring? At tens of thousands of watts output for many hours when with ZERO radiation over background - the most logical conclusion is NO FUSION. Makes no sense to argue otherwise. Bite the bullet. There is no evidence of hydrogen fusion in Rossi; and there are many hours of data showing that no radiation over background is occurring - and moreover it was done using a very capable monitoring device which was designed to detect positron emission specifically. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. Top notch instrumentation and technique. Why is the lack of radiation above background "no evidence" for the proposition that hydrogen fusion cannot be involved? Sorry for the double negative but it is pretty obvious that radiation was checked for, and that radiation is a relic of fusion, and none was observed above background. In Pd-D fusion, gammas have been observed above background even in experiments in the one watt range - and this is claimed to be contributory evidence for fusion (along with transmutation). Rossi claimed many kilowatts of excess energy in January yet no radiation was observed, even through a gap in the shielding where the monitor was placed. The Swedes did isotopic analysis and found natural isotope ratios and no radioactivity. This is strong evidence against any kind of nuclear reaction having taken place. It bears repeating: There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
