The Gamma Scout detector they use has a high threshold for gammas, and they used lead shielding. They did not show lack of gammas- only that the gammas did not penetrate the lead. Had the detector been placed on the other side of the shielding, presumably it could have detected gammas.
That is my reading, but admittedly it begs the question of why not try to document gamma radiation. I do not know why they did not do this, except they have an agenda. All that they really 'disproved' was that the nuclear reaction was not due to neutrons. That was the agenda, apparently. They showed substantial transmutation of nickel to copper, so without neutrons this leaves only the proton or 'virtual neutron' pathway, which apparently is what they want us to believe. Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Quote: "During experimental tests, continuous controls on the radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector [6] and three passive neutron bubble detectors BTbubble [7], one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process." ....yet in the body of the paper they discuss extensively a number of nuclear reactions which would produce copious gamma rays. They would appear to have experimentally disproved their own theory. Furthermore, a pure Mills reaction creating Hydrinos, with no nuclear reactions at all would easily account for the energy release, while also explaining the lack of ionizing radiation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
