Yes - that is another error on the part of Cook. I would call it major instead of minor.
Rather it is a major misrepresentation instead of minor error - since - although the Be8 decays with no gamma (that much is true) the proton plus Li7 reaction, which he neglects to mention - definitely does produce substantial gamma radiation - which must show up. In short, the net reaction of going from lithium to helium via proton fusion will ALWAYS produce some gamma radiation, as well as bremsstrahlung. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook Jones-- Do you know of any papers that measure the decay energy of Be-8 decays with no gammas. (This no-gamma decay is nearly one of a kind.) It would be interesting to see how it is explained--the no gammas that is. If I find a good reference, I will let you know. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:41 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi Bob, There are other silly errors besides the confusion over nitrogen. Any paper, even a preprint, can be understandable and yet meaningless – when the major premise is ignored. You may be too willing to find spin - or angular momentum, in a place that it cannot exist. First and foremost, and UNFORGIVEABLE - the paper fails to address the lack of relevant evidence or data for its major premise: Quote: “Although the main source of energy appears to be the 7Li4 (p,α) α reaction”… Yet, they show no helium ash! They show no bremsstrahlung! They show no x-rays! In short there is NO physical evidence whatsoever for the existence of the major premise- which, if it were true, should supply an unbelievable 17 MeV in energy – so why even waste time with this geometric model that relates best to nickel to copper? BTW this excess energy simply cannot be “only” angular momentum. 17 MeV of angular momentum ! in a nucleus – think about it. The Norman Cook model could be relevant to nickel fusion, or not, but they show no good evidence of nickel fusion, so it is superfluous for lithium to helium. Yet that is why Cook is involved – to promote a theory which he has been promoting in Infinite Energy for years (maybe a decade) – and few have found it intuitive for LENR. Lastly, I’d be surprised if Rossi has ever met Cook - this looks like some kind of marriage of convenience to promote his fringe theory, and possibly to give Rossi some semblance of credibility – but only for those who do not look very deeply at what is missing here. This paper is a complete waste of time. From: Bob Cook Jones-- The paper was understandable for me. The lack of data on the Ni isotopic ratios is significant and in keeping with a respectful, unknowing, position. The only issue I had with the paper was editorial--the use of Ni instead of N to stand for nitrogen. I was impressed that there was no hand waving to suggest understanding, only straight forward statements about lack of understanding where appropriate. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene <mailto:[email protected]> Oops meant to say Li7 and not Li6… From: Jones Beene Well, according to Rossi – Ni7 and not Ni6 is active - but he is hedging his bets and perpetuating a myth – mentions the nickel-to-copper nonsense - and makes no real progress here. In short - this paper is cannot be taken seriously. A waste of time. Norman Cook is using Rossi to promote his own fringe theory, and that is why we have such a confused mélange of disparate ideas. Sadly, since the paper is electronic, it cannot even be used as fishwrap. From: Frank Znidarsic Interesting paper Jones ideas about lithium are reaffirmed. It mentions the liquid drop model. It does not mention that sound propagates in all liquids. It clearly shows the tetrahedral structure of the nucleus. It makes not mention of the 1.36 fm spacing within the tetrahedral. It makes no mention of an elastic constant and does not attempt to compute the velocity of sound within the nuclear structure. Frank Znidarsic -----Original Message----- From: Roarty, Francis X <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 6:38 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi I would be surprised if the paths outlined in their paper were not already suggested here on vortex since… according to Rossi we only sit back and make countless guesses without ever studying or investing in actual experiment … I think he is feeling the heat on his toes now and casting aspersions while he cherry picks ideas from vortex authors and tries to rewrap them in fresh terms so we won’t recognize them:_) but he also admits he doesn’t know the source of the energy either – his paper pushes the quantum features established by the lattice on the IPM and effects on spin coupling..sound familiar? I do like that he pushes the field down to the angstrom level but still believe this is accomplished via relativistic effect [Naudt’s 05 paper] and the angstrom level he is promoting is only a relative measure not really occurring from the perspective of the local tiny observer. [snipbut theory alone provides no clue on how sufficient energy could lead to these nuclear reactions. While this theoretical stalemate remains unresolved, however, we demonstrate below how specific isotopic structures in the lattice IPM could in principle lead to the strong depletion of 7Li4,[/snip] From: Peter Gluck [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> ] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 5:18 AM To: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; CMNS; Dagmar Kuhn; doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff aries; Lewan Mats; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Sunwon Park; vlad; VORTEX; Mark Tsirlin; Steve Katinski; David Daggett; Valerio Ciampoli; Peter Bjorkbom Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi Dear Friends, Again a midday edition of Ego Out- - bis dat qui cito dat- I know you all are curious to see it http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/04/rossi-is-co-author-of-mainstream.htm l Let's read and discuss the paper I already know what will it change. I hope the theorists will speak. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
