Just as a clarification of semantics being used in this thread: It is useful to use the term gamma to describe EM radiation that originates from a change in the energy state of a nuclear entity or reaction between two or more nuclear entities. Thus, an excited nuclear entity may decay from an elevated kinetic energy state—an isomeric state—to a lower energy state giving a gamma of relatively low energy. It is called a gamma because it resulted from a nuclear transition. All other EM radiation is not properly called gamma radiation IMHO. Various types of non-gamma radiation may be very high energy photons exceeding most gamma radiation.
Bob Cook From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 5:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR The Fredericks work is with photographic emulsion, which is a light-sensitive chemical reaction used in photography. That kind of film is much easier to expose and consequently it has limited usefulness for LENR. Even body heat from the experimenter's handling can produce fogging. X-ray film is much more difficult to expose and consequently, when fogging occurs, it means that something more energetic (enough to produce x-rays) is taking place. However, in both cases silver is a main ingredient of the film. Thus if one wishes to get away from film altogether, and try to verify that a novel type of radiation is being produced, then it may help to retain silver, and this is what Alan is doing. Silver may have special properties, such as for converting dense hydrogen back to normal hydrogen. Alan's first test run is underway and details can be seen in the Google Live Doc at https://goo.gl/rTDz87 Imagine (as an arguable mechanism) that nickel contact converts a tiny amount of hydrogen into a dense form (UDH)... and then silver contact converts it back to full density. If this process is not symmetrical in terms of energy, then soft x-rays could be the end result. As to where that x-ray energy comes from - that can be determined later but if it were to be actual fusion, we would expect gammas. The Arata work and Ahern's replication is similar - and in all cases, the lack of electrolysis current only means that the radiation effect does not depend on electrochemistry - only on mechanical contact. As for Nigel's point about actual fusion as the underlying mechanism - yes, nothing including fusion should be ruled out at this stage - but finding an alternative mechanism makes this more palatable for the mainstream and we do not need another "miracle" to explain the lack of gammas. Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis? > > Didn't Arrata load up his cells with pycnodeuterium and no power input? > > Che wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at http://restframe.com/ > > > Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does understand how the metalized hydride behaves. > > Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a tachyon. > How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?
