This idea that "radiation can be stopped" in an unshielded robust device is generally incorrect. The claim indicates the proponent is unfamiliar with Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distributions.
There are few physical phenomena which are simpler and more certain to measure in tiny amounts than nuclear radiation, even the kinds that are "easily shielded". I can measure the radiation signal from bananas for goodness sake. That is pico-watt level, or less. There is absolutely no way to hide detectable relics of radiation in a device like Celani's, which is responsible for thermal energy in the tens of watts, without thick lead shielding weighing hundreds of pounds. Even then, measurable bremsstrahlung makes it through (but it may not be statistically relevant). However, photon radiation in the UV and EUV range or lower can be 100% absorbed - but this does NOT have nuclear, as its prime origin. True - the weakest beta emitters like tritium are not easily picked up by the old-style CD Geiger counters but can be detected with scintillators - even when most of the beta radiation (99.99+%) is seemingly shielded by a piece of glass. Frascati has these detectors, of course. This is where Boltzmann comes in. The problem with the "easily stopped" suggestion is in the failure to appreciate the extremes of the statistical distribution - the so-called "Boltzmann's tail", and the sensitivity of good meters. It is that tiny percentage on the far end that always gets detected. Whether it is relevant or not is another issue. We can be almost certain that any known nuclear reactions, supplying heat at the 10-20 watt level would be easily detectable in an unshielded device such as Celani's. The fact that a wisp of radiation is seen on startup indicates that QM reactions are involved. The Ni-H phenomenon is not an alternative version of Pd-D - it is based on a different reaction (but that reaction could be a predecessor of fusion when adequate deuterium is present). It is counter-productive to try to frame it this a different version of Pd-D, in my opinion. The natural ratio of deuterium at ~250 parts per million is way too low to account for the energy seen, especially over long runs. Bottom Line: Left open is a completely "new to science" type of nuclear reaction, never before documented, and having lots of energy with no radiation signature - but ask yourself this: "is that new kind of nuclear reaction more likely, or less likely, to be found than alternative proved reactions? One such alternative, newly discovered, is gain from the DCE (dynamical Casimir effect) which after all - is "known to science" (but at lower energy levels). I'm choosing to go with what is basically known to happen scientifically, but suggesting that it can be engineered to be more robust. That does not require another miracle, just good engineering. The DCE was first documented a little over a year ago, and this is an excellent time to propose that a version of it at nano-dimensions, is the driving force in Ni-H. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamic al-casimir-effect/ Can anyone really claim that the Celani's treatment of the wire to give nano geometry, or Ahern's powder treatment to give nano geometry - are merely coincidental to the success in this field? Nobody knows what Rossi has done, but his patent claims "nanometric" and the likelihood in all of this is that the geometry itself is the sine qua non of thermal gain in Ni-H. From: alain.coetmeur@gmail. No a good conclusion. it can be nuclear without externally visible radiation. Raduation can be stopped (alpha , beta), and phonons could dissipate energy too. neutrons could be slow and undetectable, charged particles could be easily stopped... let's dont fall in the initial error to apply old vision to new facts , like in 89
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
