Mark, Good point. However, neutron detectors generally are designed to register only neutrons, otherwise the results would be ambiguous.
At any rate, the “axial beam” suggestion is probably not valid anyway - so we are essentially back to the problem of either a “new physics” nuclear reaction, without any radioactivity at all, or Randell Mills’ CQM, or a ZPE/Casimir influenced reaction, when the only great evidence to go on for that is the Reifenschweiler effect. We need a real model to base this on, and since Moddel was not successful in practice, we cannot base this on only his hypothesis. Reifenschweiler has the advantage of already proving a way that chemistry (cavity confinement) alters low energy nuclear decay rates. But that effect is with tritium, which is the only decay candidate which would seldom reach the 200 keV level (even with the Boltzmann’s tail of the distribution). The leap of faith is to suggest that Reifenschweiler works to increase the decay rate of a nucleus not known to decay, or new kind of virtual particle - and in such a way that there is never more than 200 keV even with the Boltzmann’s tail of the distribution, or otherwise it would have been seen. “Virtual tritium” from spillover … nah… Not many good horses in this race - and it is looking like Mills’ stallion is pulling way ahead at the first turn. Too bad he did not patent the gas-phase approach, or did he? I spent hours checking and found nothing that would help Mills to prevail - even if Rossi is using “his” reaction. You cannot patent a theory. But he gave it a good effort, so who knows? Jones _____________________________________________ From: Mark Iverson Jones: Sorry of this is obvious, but… On page 8 of the consolidated report (2nd page of Bianchini's report) he shows that the neutron detector was positioned on the horizontal axis of the main tube… and it did take data before, during and after 'ignition'. I take it the neutron detector would not detect the photons that you were referring to? -Mark -----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…
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
