Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am after. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the required measurements.
Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or "cold fusion" processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess heat in commercial devices. While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call "cold fusion" or "LENR" and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > One more point, > > I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the > primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the > transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the > lattice. > > This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play because the remote > reaction was offset by such a long distance. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how >> Photofission works. >> >> This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space >> between the gold nanoparticles. >> >> Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not >> produce the reaction. >> >> I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that >> catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts. >> >> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf >> >> >> Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au >> nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt. >> >> >> >> It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission >> and the transmutation that fission can produce. >> >> Abstract >> Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in >> aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally >> studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the >> wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor >> laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions >> before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and >> gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time >> gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear >> reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated >> nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different >> channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and >> nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear >> transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are >> discussed. >> >> Here is another paper: >> >> I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism >> can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also >> causes thorium to fission. >> See references: >> >> >> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ >> >> >> I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic >> underpinnings of LENR. >> >> >> >> Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in >> topology. >> >> These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments >> with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? >> >> "Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid >> targets in heavy water" >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 >> >> >> Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au >> nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions >> >> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf >> >> Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and >> why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds >>> like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design >>> required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if >>> I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear >>> products of a particular kind will result from your experiment. >>> >>> What is lacking is the experimental protocol. >>> >>> What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate "photofusion" so >>> that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> One more important point, the contents of the topological >>>> defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, >>>> the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological >>>> superconductivity. There is only one environment where this >>>> superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is >>>> photons/polaritons condensation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the >>>>> input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in >>>>> nature. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider >>>>>> how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might >>>>>> draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation >>>>>>> has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the >>>>>>> resulting >>>>>>> nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka >>>>>>> Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must >>>>>>> conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this >>>>>>> process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be >>>>>>> explained. >>>>>>> The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Storms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light >>>>>>> nuclear ash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add >>>>>>> enough energy in >>>>>>> the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. >>>>>>> Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only >>>>>>> one 62Ni >>>>>>> fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and >>>>>>> that is the >>>>>>> reaction:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more >>>>>>> possible >>>>>>> exothermic reactions, e.g. :- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV <==== this one produces >>>>>>> iron. >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The last 4 produce lighter elements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>> daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note the many light elements/isotopes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, >>>>>>> fission >>>>>>> becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one >>>>>>> can see this >>>>>>> by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent >>>>>>> addition of >>>>>>> *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely >>>>>>> shrunken Hydrino >>>>>>> molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a >>>>>>> neutron, so I >>>>>>> think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells >>>>>>> of other >>>>>>> atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't >>>>>>> necessarily mean >>>>>>> that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more >>>>>>> likely >>>>>>> fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 >>>>>>> protons may >>>>>>> also be possible, e.g. :- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Ca + 24Mg + 14.890 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Ca + 23Mg + 6.292 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ca + 22Mg + 4.275 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37K + 29Al + 5.425 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38K + 28Al + 8.061 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39K + 27Al + 13.413 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40K + 26Al + 8.155 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41K + 25Al + 6.885 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Ar + 32Si + 4.868 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Ar + 31Si + 8.406 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Ar + 30Si + 17.074 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Ar + 29Si + 15.252 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38Ar + 28Si + 18.617 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ar + 27Si + 8.036 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ar + 26Si + 4.594 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 32Cl + 34P + 0.297 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33Cl + 33P + 9.751 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Cl + 32P + 11.155 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Cl + 31P + 15.864 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Cl + 30P + 12.132 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Cl + 29P + 11.124 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33S + 33S + 15.582 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 32S + 18.357 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35S + 31S + 10.301 MeV >>>>>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36S + 30S + 7.137 MeV >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you can see, this may produce masses of light elements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, >>>>>>>> points to no transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the >>>>>>>> cold >>>>>>>> fusion reaction. This points to photofusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the >>>>>>>> nucleus before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to >>>>>>>> photofusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot >>>>>>>> happen because of negative energy coming out of the fission reaction >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> multiple separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter >>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>> are produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive >>>>>>>> fusion >>>>>>>> reaction of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a >>>>>>>> total >>>>>>>> removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine >>>>>>>> into two or more lighter resultant nuclei. Also the production of all >>>>>>>> those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> nuclear repulsion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery >>>>>>>> <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
