Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature
reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process.
It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit
might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good
start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations.
Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Axil,
It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion
reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not
us.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look
deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so
does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold
systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi
says that his early systems produced gammas.
The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always
exclude the production of gammas.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
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
