Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.
If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid. In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light. I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, *no gamma is ever seen* in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C). Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction. Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field. All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Jones Beene writes. "this paper is cannot be taken seriously. A waste > of time." > > I wish you wouldn't just damn the paper out of hand but give some reasons > of just why it is wrong. I don't have the knowledge of nuclear reactions > that some others do here, but most of the theories seem far from solid to > me and this one is no worse. It should at least be considered. >
