In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves.
>From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > MORE... > > In this Focardi > <http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf> > experiment, > when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to > the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the > nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat. > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs >> involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma >> radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a >> Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma >> radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation. >> >> See >> >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-Eviden >> ceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be >>> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later >>> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which >>> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being >>> charged. >>> >>> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of >>> cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be >>> more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it >>> involves "one less miracle." >>> >>> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood >>> properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) >>> arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in >>> palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released >>> later. >>> >>> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come >>> from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after >>> months of "hypercharging" ;-) >>> >>> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on >>> our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known >>> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion. >>> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the >>> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent. >>> >>> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question, >>> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in >>> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is >>> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that >>> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ? >>> H LV wrote: >>> >>> >>> Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> >>>> Jones Beene wrote: >>>> >>>> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the >>>>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than >>>>> a >>>>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was >>>>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it >>>>> did not point the way to a useful device. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no >>>> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one >>>> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time >>>> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an >>>> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting >>>> in line to take off. >>>> >>>> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know >>>> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot >>>> store that much energy. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >>> "You cannot store that much energy" is working hypothesis. >>> That much energy could be stored in nuclei. >>> Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the >>> nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating >>> how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism? >>> Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally >>> driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind >>> the clock up. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
