On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
First off – we probably need a better terminology base than “gamma > suppression” as it is used in medicine and other fields. > > Radiation shielding is well known, and if the further concept is that some > new kind of active shielding can replace dense metals, then we need to get > specific about whether this is > 1) Better non-active, shielding not requiring heavy elements > 2) Active geometry (Casimir ??) that provides efficient down-shifting > 3) Active counter-radiation, or electromagnetic intervention that has > a > cancelling effect (so-called n radiation) > 4) Some combination of the above > I like that. I think using "gamma suppression" as shorthand could be confusing if resurrected later on without sufficient context. I'm thinking of something along the lines of (3) and have no opinion on (2) or (4). For (3), how about "active gamma suppression"? My question didn't have to do with your complaint about the impossibility of active gamma suppression. It had to do with whether the reasoning in that particular email led only and inevitably to fractional hydrogen as opposed to active gamma suppression. I was suggesting in a roundabout way that it didn't. > In the end, complete gamma shielding/suppression is even more improbable > than LENR, from the standpoint of mainstream physics. The details of why > this is true are both statistical and logical. > I have no issue with this general characterization -- I think active gamma suppression would be a very amazing thing. Perhaps even more amazing than the possibility of nuclear fission or fusion was to people in the early part of the last century. First – the logic. There is massive economic incentive for finding gamma > elimination without a large mass (weight) disadvantage. The commercial > incentive has been with us for sixty years, and every national Lab has had > a > look at this problem. The military salivates over this. > > If there was a way to do it, it would be worth hundreds of billions in both > civilian and military applications. Every airliner could have a convention > fission reactor onboard, for instance, for unlimited travel … and of course > every military plane, tank, and other vehicle would have them as well. > Fission reactors can be made small and light, except for the shielding. The > can be made of carbon fiber, for instance - except that it is transparent > to > gammas. At one time, automobiles were seen as a market for nuclear fission. > The reactor itself can be that small – if and when some kind of advanced > gamma radiation technique is available. > Your logic would seem to assume that active gamma suppression is something that would be possible outside of the context of LENR -- if it even exists, perhaps it is independent, perhaps it isn't. This reasoning would also seem to lead to airliners and the military having had the incentive to develop LENR as well, which they haven't. It would also seem to rely on there being few to no promising scientific leads that large, bureaucratic organizations might overlook from time to time. However, in a statistical sense – the problem is that gamma radiation is > extremely penetrating… so much so that a milligram of radium hidden and > shielded in a cargo container can be not only detected but its signature > noted. Some gamma radiation always gets through. Even 1000 feet of earth is > no enough to shield for Cosmic gammas. That is its nature. So “gamma > suppression” itself really requires two miracles … especially since it is > completely hypothetical to begin with. > Noted. I think I will take the liberty of bundling any amazing consequences of active gamma suppression under the broader heading. Unless you would like fractional hydrogen and virtual acidity to be counted as two separate miracles, in which case I might reconsider. :) > That is a daunting challenge, and the worst part is that if it happened - > it > would actually eliminate the need for LENR at all. > Again, we cannot assume that active gamma suppression is something that can be disentangled from LENR, although perhaps it can. As a side note -- very interesting observation about the Mn-Cr peaks in Piantelli's slides and the lack of isotopic analysis. I don't think there's any need to assume that there's been any irregularities in the reporting of results. But it would be nice to have more data. Eric
