There are a number of constrains we must meet to get a positive result. One of these constrains is that the reaction takes place in a lattice comprising an even atomic numbered host metallic element.
Gold will not work with an atomic number of 79. Tungsten at 74, Platinum at 78, nickel at 28, palladium at 46 will work. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Abd, > > It is not obvious what you want to falsify. > > The paper by Pendry - > > "Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures" - JB Pendry > http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf > > - presents very simple calculation (based on wires array geometry) of > nanowire surface conduction electron effective mass, and hence effective > momentum. An important question is whether these "heavy electrons" > actually scatter gammas consistent with their theoretical momenta. > > Why not irradiate a quasi-ballistic conductor like Au nanowire to create > a small number of gamma-emitters (Au-isotopes). Shouldn't gamma energies > and directions change as current flow is modulated? If not, is the > calculated effective electron momentum incorrect, are the electron surface > density or scattering cross-sections too low, or is my interpretation > wrong? > > Lou Pagnucco > > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > > > The hypothesized electron patches must be 100% > > effective for a range of gamma energies, and > > specifically for those from expected neutron > > activation. Indeed, one of the ways to test this > > would be to use actual neutron activation! Perhaps with a beam of > > neutrons. > > > > But it may be possible to design a gamma source > > that would fit the bill, my guess. > > > > I am *not* recommending this research, except for > > those who become critically concerned -- or, > > alternatively, who are inspired by W-L theory and > > wish to pursue the necessary falsification effort. > > >
