On 2/3/14, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let us discuss this reference:...
No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and >> experimental testing. >> >> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows >> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by >> economic those experiments may be quite practical. >> >> What is your experimental test? >> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff >>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great >>> joy. >>> >>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by >>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. >>> >>> In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the >>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the >>> references I list. >>> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf >>> >>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies >>> can >>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called >>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as >>> simple >>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even >>>> more >>>> so than ChemE. >>>> >>>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical >>>> demonstration of that knowledge? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed >>>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do >>>>> not >>>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or >>>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker >>>>> <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell >>>>>> <jedrothw...@gmail.com>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. What is more >>>>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled >>>>>> out by >>>>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our >>>>>> attention. >>>>>> If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in >>>>>> the >>>>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is >>>>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it >>>>>> will >>>>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it >>>>>> takes >>>>>> place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is >>>>>> allowed, >>>>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of >>>>>> the >>>>>> recent thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever >>>>>> in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. 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. Although this >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has >>>>>> been a >>>>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever >>>>>> it is >>>>>> that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that >>>>>> is >>>>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion. Rossi's terminology >>>>>> confuses >>>>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as >>>>>> gammas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
