Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: I believe the MFMP attempt to detect gamma is the correct thing to do. >
I agree, for the reasons you listed plus one more: it would help convince some fence-sitting people who are leaning toward belief. > When you first begin generating LENR, you likely will not be optimized to > the point where very much heat is being generated, let alone enough heat to > prove a nuclear source over a chemical process. > That may be true. There is some evidence that neutrons are anti-correlated with heat, so they might be a precursor product from a partially loaded cathode. Takahashi thought that might be the case. Storms pointed out that cathodes are unevenly loaded, so you might expect both neutrons and heat. > Optimizing your setup to detect low energy, low level gamma does 2 > things. First it proves that you are realizing a nuclear process (chemical > reactions don’t produce gamma). Second, it gives you a sensitive metric to > begin your optimization (though it could lead in a false direction, > failing to deliver you to the high heat reaction channel). > Yes. If gamma rays are caused by a cathode that is not ready to produce heat -- say because it is not loaded enough -- then you don't want to optimize gamma production. It would lead you down the wrong path. You would be optimizing to prevent heat production. Fleischmann thought that McKubre was doing this with the calorimeter designed to stay at one temperature. Fleischmann thought that a heat pulse is a good way to trigger the reaction. >From a product perspective, don’t forget that CRT’s produce X-rays in this > energy range. The CRTs were later designed to have leaded glass to > minimize the emissions . . . > Good point. > A bigger concern for product would be if the primary reaction channel > produces tritium. > A small amount of tritium would be okay. There are products such as exit signs with tritium in them. It can be reliably contained. - Jed
