It is necessary to see radiation being emitted by the ECATs in a more controlled environment. Why assume that radiation is potentially a safety issue when it has not been detected except possibly in this one case? Are there other reports that can be correlated?
Had Celani been in the room and seen an event that corresponded with the release then perhaps so. Jed may have found the correct idea when he joked that maybe the cosmic ray triggered both the instruments and Rossi's reactor at the same time. I suspect that no one would doubt that there is sufficient energy within a cosmic ray to trigger most nuclear events. I for one do not want to tag these LENR devices as being radiation sources unless they in fact are shown to be in that category. The limitations that apply under such a designation will seriously restrict their deployment. Dave -----Original Message----- From: DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 1:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Perhaps Rossiwas adding some catalyst. Forexample, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say itwas prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes saythere was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might registerwhen 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 remindme this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. WhenI was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secretsauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could haveopened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In themeantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum shouldbe applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hiddeneasily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool toput air and H2 inside a closed vessel … Unfortunately, we don’thave the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptichere. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactorwhile 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 gammaemissions 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 abovebackground from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detectsomething. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes andwith 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 thedevice. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had twobattery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 sacquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, PerspectiveScientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count moderather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts persecond. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at thatelevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors weresaturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. Thefollowing seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had tobe 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 andsaid the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from anuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphereproducing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremelyunlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . .Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and thecosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of anelectromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celaniconsiders this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operatedradio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COMenvironmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radiofrequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealisticbecause the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on differentprinciples. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusionexperiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because someequipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort ofthing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geigercounter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged andreliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one ofthem. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Givenhis detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to questionthe safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodiumiodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would givehim more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously,saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all theyneed 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 ifyou 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 onethat I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot totouch. 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 theoutlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others havequestioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whetherthe machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All youneed to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rateand 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, fluctuatingbetween 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excessheat. Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reportedthe whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. I think there is noquestion the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massiveexcess heat. Celani complained that phase-change calorimetry is toocomplicated, but I think he exaggerates the difficulty. I agree that the actualcalorimetric method could be improved, especially with a 5-minute test of steamsparged 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 conclusiveSCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature ofthe outgoing water has to be <90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry canbe used (rather than phase-change calorimetry).
