On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote: >
> As discussed at length here in the past, the theory expressed in the paper > by Focardi and Rossi is invalidated by the fact that (1) positrons did not > show up in the E-cat test when looked for using coincidence counting, (2) > extremely radioactive products necessarily result, and these were not found > in the examined fuel, and (3) given the energies of the gammas expected, on > the order of MeV, the 2 cm of lead shielding used in all but the 1 MW test > was inadequate to shield the gamma flux necessarily expected from a kW heat > source involving the stated reactions. > > I only make note of this for the benefit of anyone who missed those > discussions. > Again, an area of improper testing by Rossi. Instead of sampling for radiation outside his device, he should allow a one time placement of a radiation measuring probe *inside* below shield or he should make a hole in the shield. If he gets heat, as he says, by "thermalizing gamma radiation" which I find dubious, he should be able to show the gamma! He has never done it. Maybe gamma radiation was seen once at an early demo. It's easy to "dope" a device with a gamma emitter to fake a result but the test should involve the gamma source turning on and off with the E-cat power. That can be spoofed too but it's more difficult to do.
