As Jones Beene often reminds us, Mills theory is not a nuclear theory, it is chemical only, Therefore, no involvement of the nucleus. That means no transmutation an no gamma rays.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > The way that it was explained to me (by my son who understands these > things much more than I do) was that in a nuclear reaction that nucleus > suddenly has lots of excess energy to get rid of, and normally the only > option that its available that allows energy and momentum to be balanced is > to emit a photon. > > If the reaction takes place in a 'controlled' way within a solid state > system then there may be other ways for the nucleus to loose the excess > energy without resorting to emitting a photon. There would still be > elemental transformation of course. Does the 'solid state' fuel pellets > provide such an environment? If BLP is nuclear at its heart then the > alternative energy path would have to be very effiient for so much energy > to be released as thermal energy (which is the implication of what we are > told) without there being any measureable radioactivity. > > Nigel > > On 24/01/2014 03:06, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower >> limit >> to radiation as a phenomenon. > > > According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron > "spirals down" to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of > photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this > scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that > claim incompatible with what you're saying here? > > Eric > > > [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf > > >
