Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a particular direction, so where do you place your detector? It probably depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its physical structure. If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors and place them on the x, y, and z axes. Or just one detector, but do multiple tests moving the detector to a different location.
Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be evidence supporting novel nuclear processes. -Mark From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with temperature spikes of the reactants. This wuold be a good way of verifying the LENR effects. Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all classified as "background". If I get a clear reading way above background readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear" process, wouldn't it? And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind. The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process manifesting during a mechanical procedure? It is not a purely mechanical or chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical and chemical conditions. I believe this is similar to Deflakion's "chemically assisted" nuclear reaction. The process itself is not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons, but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the chemical reaction." But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples and explanations. Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen that produces radiation, am I not correct? Please feel free to correct me. 0----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch tape. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25 Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging. Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations, it is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative counts above background over time - for decent statistical analysis. From: Joseph Hao As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases radiation,
