This is a fusion reaction.

It is simply not producing as much or as intense gamma radiation.

Rossi has stated that the Gamma radiation produced inside of the device is what 
is used to heat the device and the water.





________________________________
From: Jones Beene <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 12:03:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mattia Rizzi 

> Villa & Bianchini reports are available on-line.

It can be found here:
http://ebookbrowse.com/levi-bianchini-and-villa-reports-pdf-d62074366

The person who will probably most enjoy reading this, based on a theory of
operation is Fran Roarty, if he has not already read it - since the
conclusions of Villa & Bianchini are unambiguous.

THIS CANNOT BE A NUCLEAR REACTION 

However, I would add that they did NOT test in the axial vector; but aside
from that:

"Assuming that the observed energy excess production rate (≈ 11 kW) is
coming from nuclear reaction, knowing that a typical energy release is of
the order of 1 MeV, it is possible to estimate the total fusion rate to be
of the order of 7 · 10^16 reaction/s (fusions or decays)" 

"This rate is so huge that there is no possibility for it to escape
detection
provided that the γ have an energy above the 200 keV threshold." 
Conclusions

The main findings of the present study are the following:

• the present reactor was actually able to vaporize a cold liquid water for
about 40 minutes, showing a sizeable output-input power
difference and an integrated power production of several kWh;

• no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region
Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in
Coincidence…

• regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shielding
and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters
seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming
that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions…

Reply via email to