Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.
See http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be > operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later > release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which > showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being > charged. > > As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of cold > fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be more > physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it > involves "one less miracle." > > For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood properties > - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) arguably > could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in palladium > electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released later. > > In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come from > fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after months > of "hypercharging" ;-) > > This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on our > lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known > about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion. > There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the > reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent. > > BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question, > "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in > terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is > really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that > LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ? > H LV wrote: > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Jones Beene wrote: >> >> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the >>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a >>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was >>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it >>> did not point the way to a useful device. >> >> >> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no >> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one >> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time >> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an >> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting >> in line to take off. >> >> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know >> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot >> store that much energy. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > "You cannot store that much energy" is working hypothesis. > That much energy could be stored in nuclei. > Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the > nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating > how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism? > Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally > driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind > the clock up. > > Harry > > > > >
