Yes, I meant not significant ... that was what I took away from Bob Higgins' comment:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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, but they first shipped with the emissions. Even > many of the older high voltage rectifier tubes produced X-rays. So, there > is nothing about having a primary reaction channel yielding low energy > gamma that would prevent a shipping product. > > Another thing ... if low energy gamma is being blocked by the reactor wall after some prolonged period of operation wouldn't the inside of the wall show an elevated level of radiation? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would say that the detected radiation is NOT extraordinary. Dr. Storms >> published a paper on his measurements of radiation from LENR experiments. . >> . . >> > > You mean it is not unexpected in a cold fusion reaction. That's right. > There are many reports of gamma rays in the literature, from Iwamura and > others. Gamma rays have been sporadic and unpredictable. I do not know of > any that appear on demand. I hope these come from the vasty deep when you > do call for them. > > (When you "invoke" them, as we say in the programming biz.) > > Mark Gibbs may have the impression that it is "not extraordinary" meaning > "not significant" or "not proof of a nuclear reaction." > > - Jed > >
