Thank you, an outstanding summary. [m]
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]>wrote: > To answer Mark's question, I believe that if you had a gamma sensor inside > the reactor, you would see gamma every time you see LENR (Bob's opinion). > What would change is the spectrum of the gamma. When the LENR starts or > runs un-optimized, the photon energy is higher - perhaps in the 50 keV to > 200 keV range. At this energy, the photons will statistically penetrate > most reactor housings and would be detectable. Then when the reaction > becomes optimized for heat output, the gamma spectrum shifts to much lower > energy photons - in the 5 keV to 25 keV range. Photons in this range would > be absorbed in the nickel powder and the stainless reactor vessel and would > be turned into heat; and, some, probably only a few, would make it out > statistically for detection as a low rate gamma in a sensitive detector. > If you had the reactor vessel and the gamma scintillator detector (NaI) > surrounded by lead to block the environmental radiation, you might be able > to see some of this low energy gamma leak if you have a thin wall reactor > vessel. This is what I am setting up now. Then I will be able to > correlate the radiation peaks to events such as gas loading and thermal > outbursts. > > The magnetic field has only been reported AFAIK by Defkalion. Their > reactor is stimulated differently than anyone else's and it could be the HV > plasma pulses they setup that provide a magnetic field alignment and result > in a big field. It is a fascinating phenomenon, that if it pans out, could > provide a means for direct LENR to electrical conversion. I look forward > to hearing more about this. I have some experiments regarding this planned > as well. I can't say if the MFMP people are monitoring for magnetic > fields, but I am sure some them are seeing your question. > > I would like to make sure that you are clear on the terms gamma and X-ray. > Gamma rays are defined as photons being generated from a nucleus. Gamma > ray photons usually have a really high energy, but not always. X-rays are > also photons, usually generated by inner shell electrons of an atom. X-ray > photons normally have an energy range from a few keV (just above EUV) to > about 100keV. Gamma photons can be as high as 10's of MeV, and are > infrequently seen below 25keV. But just to be clear, gamma and X-ray > photons at the same energy level are the same thing - photons. Gamma just > refers to the provenance of having come from a nucleus. > > Thank you, Jed, for trying to clear up what I was trying to say. I meant > to say that gamma may occur with LENR every time, but few detect it, in > most cases for failure to detect with adequate sensitivity, and/or working > with a too thick of reactor vessel which attenuates the gamma rate to below > the environmental radiation level. Focardi published a paper with > Piantelli in 2004, "Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H > Systems", where he describes gamma photons (the electromagnetic radiation) > spectrum. They detected 661keV gamma and reported it in that paper. So, > this is far from new. But, everyone became focused on heat, in part > because Rossi seemed to be getting heat while claiming no radiation. In > his case, I think he was referring to no radiation leakage outside of his > reactor vessel. I believe his reaction is well optimized and produces > prodigious gamma photons whose energy is below 20keV and almost all of it > is thermalized in his reactor shell. > > Bob > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK, so it seems that gamma rays may be an output from LENR systems but is >> it the case that experimenters have just simply failed to look for them or >> that they don't always occur. Likewise with the incredible magnetic field >> that has been claimed, has that been seen more than once? Do the MFMP >> people monitor for magnetic fields? >> >> [m] >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> Not to put words in Bob's mouth . . . I think he meant that many devices >>> produce gamma rays, so this would not preclude the commercial use of a cold >>> fusion reactor that produces gammas. The reactor would not be dangerous, as >>> long as it is properly shielded. >>> >>> However, this does not imply that the gamma rays are not "significant" >>> from physics point of view. They are significant, meaning "important" or >>> "compelling, convincing." Coming from a cold fusion reactor, these gamma >>> rays definitely prove that a nuclear reaction is occurring. They could not >>> be produced by a mechanism similar to the one in a CRT or an x-ray machine. >>> >>> They are "significant" in the mathematical sense as well. Meaning well >>> above the noise. >>> >>> They are not surprising. Not to me, anyway. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
