Perhaps Rossi
was adding some catalyst.
For
example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it
was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say
there was some Ni 63m in it).
Then it might register
when the catalyst was accessed.
Dennis
From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011
Rossi Test
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200
Thank you Jed to remind
me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail.
When
I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret
sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have
opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In
the
meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma
(25~50
keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should
be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden
easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool to
put air and H2 inside a closed vessel …
Unfortunately, we don’t
have the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptic
here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactor
while they were waiting behind the door?
From:
Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma
emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
[Here is a message I posted in 2011]
Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above
background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect
something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and
with corrections from Celani.
Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first.
He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the
device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two
battery-powered detectors:
1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s
acquisition time.
2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective
Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time.
Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode
rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per
second.
Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that
elevation.
As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were
saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The
following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to
be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was
>7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again.
About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and
said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway.
Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a
nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere
producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely
unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . .
Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the
cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device.
Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an
electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani
considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated
radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM
environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio
frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic
because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different
principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion
experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some
equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of
thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger
counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and
reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of
them.
Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given
his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question
the safety of it.
When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium
iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give
him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously,
saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they
need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property.
Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if
you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note,
however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.)
Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian,
so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one
that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to
touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70 deg C. That, in turn,
proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and others have said the
outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have
questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether
the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you
need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate
and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be
~30°C. Celani points out that the input power was quite unstable, fluctuating
between 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excess
heat.
Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reported
the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. I think there is no
question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massive
excess heat. Celani complained that phase-change calorimetry is too
complicated, but I think he exaggerates the difficulty. I agree that the actual
calorimetric method could be improved, especially with a 5-minute test of steam
sparged into a container of cold water.
Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani:
a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV;
b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive
SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature of
the outgoing water has to be <90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry can
be used (rather than phase-change calorimetry).
