https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1
Ed: I suggest that you integrate these experimental results from Paintilli into your thinking. I see high energy particle tracks an many counts in the gamma ray energy range. The last two slides show gammas. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, 23.8 MeV of energy must be released for each He made. Each emitted > He4 from Be8 needs to carry 23.8 MeV of energy. Please explain how even a > small fraction of that energy can appear as spin. > > When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions > can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is > emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in > the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. > > Ed > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > Ed-- > > You said: > > >However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary > radiation to be missed.< > > If the alphas are in high spin states upon the decomposition of Be-8, then > small amounts of energy associated with transition from one state to the > next lower state would never be seen. If many electrons are involved in > the reaction it seems likely only small energy packets would be released. > The secondary radiation may be missed. > > Why do you imply the secondary radiation should necessarily be a high > energy photon(s)? > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was merely > pointing out that it is possible. Someone made a blanket statement that > this path was not possible and I wanted to clear the air. > > > Dave, none of us has the time to describe every aspect of the issue in > each e-mail. We all have to assume the reader has done some homework and > knows that the statement is not complete and that the writer also know > this. In any case, emission of a photon makes the process two body, not one > body as I was describing. > > The conservation of energy and momentum does not prevent this from > happening as was stated. Had the original proposition been that it was not > likely or observed I would have remained silent. > > > The fact is that during cold fusion NO energetic gamma is emitted, which > was known in 1989. Therefore, this issue is not relevant. People propose > the He4 is emitted as an alpha, which means the helium has translational > energy. This is not possible when one particle is involved, which is what I > said. Takahashi proposes Be8 forms and decomposes into two alpha, which > does conserve energy and momentum and is not inconsistent with the basic > requirements. However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for > the secondary radiation to be missed. Therefore, this proposed reaction > does not occur. Each theory suggested so far can be eliminated by > identifying these conflicts with observation. If the observations were not > so many and so strong, a person might conclude that LENR is impossible, > which of course is the skeptical conclusion. Nevertheless, the effect is > real and therefore it must have an explanation. Until people actually > search where the keys are located rather than under the lamppost, success > will be impossible. > > Ed Storms > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is > known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces > a 23 MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is > clearly not observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is > irrelevant. > > Ed Storms > On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an > alpha, and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that > manner. The bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the > large difference in masses. Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of > the energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy > generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two > particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature > where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy > is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus > is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of > time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is > found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed > support for the idea. > > Ed Storms > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > Ed-- > > You said: > > >>Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha > because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is > released. << > > I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would > not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum > requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may > be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > From: Edmund Storms > > Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not > produced by photons. > > Who said it was? > > > I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up > photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added > the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not > produced by gamma. > > You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation > of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. > > > I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to > read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using > Vortex and I can not send all the papers. > > > This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such > as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. > > What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not > begin as an alpha particles? > > > Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha > because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is > released. > > > Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the > mass-energy is dissipated as photons. > > There is no proof of this. > > > The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with > all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information > in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please > be patient. > > > The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a > mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and > consistent will all the other observations. > > It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account > for > the heat. > > > I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way > to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this > standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will > have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently > exists, including your own. > > Ed Storms > > > Where is the documentation? > > Jones > > > <winmail.dat> > > > > > > > > >
