As an experimentalist, I think you are wrong. It is extremely frustrating to run an experiment and have the outcome produce 0 useful metric. This is the usual case in early LENR development when the metric is heat COP because it is so hard to measure with precision and accuracy.
Radiation measurement is capable of discerning whether nuclear events are being created. It could also tell if high energy supra-chemical events are happening (<509keV). Even in Pd-D electrolytic cells, CR39 studies show that these reactions are at least accompanied by high energy emissions - making such radiations a tag of the LENR. This is far better than having no useful metric, which is what most experimenters have when they begin evaluating LENR recipes. Also, I ask you, "Why does Rossi incorporate so much lead in his reactors?" (reportedly 5cm). It could be that all Ni-H LENR is accompanied by some form of radiation, perhaps high energy at startup, evolving to lower energy radiation that is easily thermalized in the reactor materials as the reaction is tuned to its sweet spot. Defkalion also reported radiation. Focardi and Piantelli have reported radiation. On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric. >> > > I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced > massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits > of chemistry and yet which produced *no measurable radiation*. That is > the opposite of "excellent." > > What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks > for his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. > Just because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good > metric, since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is > occurring. > > - Jed > >
