From: Eric Walker
Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
