Eric, Jones and Ed--Bob Cook here-- Note that Pam Mosier Boss and Larry (the radiation count specialist consultant for SPAWAR) talked about the CR-39 scheme for monitoring radiation from the Pd-D system they worked with. (This was 2009 at the U of Mo.) They saw evidence of tritium, neutrons, and high energy alphas and He-3. Gamma radiation was also apparent. However there was no apparent gamma radiation associated with the major reaction of 2 D's going to He-4, only the evidence of large melted areas in the Pd electrode and no apparent kinetic energy associated with those alphas. They alphas from the D-D fusion were produced in the Pd electrode, apparently standing, yet there was distribution of the excess energy to the electrode to cause the significant melting of the Pd. They did not see any indication of fission parts of the Pd. . At least if there was any they did not report it. If such fission products were energetic they would have been observed in their CR-39 detector. The reaction (D-D fusion) was real and with no irradiation measured.
My assessment is that it happened much like a small nuclear explosion except much faster--instantaneously--once the quantum system was properly stimulated. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. Eric, no one believes d+d fusion occurs in the Rossi reactor. The d we are discussing results from p-e-p fusion only. I agree with the other comments you make. Ed Storms In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
