Michel Jullian wrote:
They also ruled
it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same
pattern of radiation on both.
Mmm, I doubt this, since the radiation doesn't
cross the film as they say quite explicitly in
the paper (in the two-sided film they find that
only the top
Michel Jullian wrote:
So the phenomenon did traverse the film in this older paper you
quote. Strangely, as I said they clearly said it didn't, under any
condition . . .
I noticed this discrepancy. I believe the materials and strength of
the reaction were different. The strongly exposed
they found an experimental error in the earlier experiments? It would be
interesting to see their most recent papers on the subject.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
if their barrier
tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample
and the barrier.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 6
Michel Jullian wrote:
I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement,
they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or
with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier.
Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always --
I am
On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement,
they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact
or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier.
Other papers from BARC
Horace Heffner wrote:
That pretty much leaves production
of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd.
Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron
displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin.
Radioactive species degassing should fog film equally well, or
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
That pretty much leaves production
of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd.
Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron
displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin.
Radioactive
Horace,
It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species
using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is
not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The
radioactive species gets immediately evacuated.
Do you have a reference
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing
species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure
gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way
too long. The radioactive species
A thought follows about the nature of the compartment, i.e. volume,
close to the film, and its importance to experimental controls.
The following is a simple diffusion model of the compartment close to
the film.
Pd---T_in-compartment--- T_out + gas_out
^
Horace,
This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one
implied by me.
Well - playing devil's advocate once again, if tritium were coming off
in the vacuum exhaust in well-equipped labs, it would set off a warning
- but maybe they did not have any such precaution...
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Michel Jullian wrote:
I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement,
they don't say if their barrier tests
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one
implied by me.
Well - playing devil's advocate once again,
I think my interest here is fast ending. I have a lot of mundane
things I have to do before winter,
, 2007 8:30 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf
These results are baffling because the reaction only occurs in the
presence of air. It does not work with a vacuum, helium or nitrogen gas (p.
2).
- Jed
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Hi Jed,
Very interesting paper. They observed the radiations not just in
air, but also in oxygen to a lesser extent, and also in hydrogen to
an even lesser extent, cf their table 1:
Table 1. Density of autoradiographs under various
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Might be tritium in a
LESS THAN NORMAL STATE OF NUCLEAR EXCITATION, only 300 eV.
What would keep T decay from showing up in a vacuum?
It would show up, with enough time. It is just that its
concentration
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:24:20 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Electrons of a few hundred volts, which is the best explanation offered
by the author, has the problem you mention: absence of the radiation
signature in a vacuum. Unless, that is, the electrons are not primary
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:21:58 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
Oops.
I would offer the following suggestion. Hydrino molecules fuse with either O18
from Oxygen/air, or with D2 in Hydrogen gas to create either energetic alphas
in
the case of O18, or (T p)/(He3 n) in
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf
These results are baffling because the reaction only occurs in the
presence of air. It does not work with a vacuum, helium or nitrogen gas (p. 2).
- Jed
Electrons of a few hundred volts, which is the best explanation offered
by the author, has the problem you mention: absence of the radiation
signature in a vacuum. Unless, that is, the electrons are not primary
(from the sample) but instead are coming from the oxygen (air) itself.
How could
21 matches
Mail list logo
