So, NaI detectors aren't affected by other forms of energetic particles...
I'm afraid I can't contribute much in the way of detailed knowledge in atomic physics, and I'm an INTP personality so I tend to see the forrest more than a tree… and look at qualitative things and potential cause/effect relationships. The best I can do is perhaps provide food for thought. That being said… let me serve up the next course! If its new physics (which I'm leaning towards at this point), then branching ratios and all the associated decay chains and such can be thrown out!!!??? Seems to me that all attempts that use current laws/theories are simply trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole. About the only guidelines one can rely on are the Conservation laws. And if one considers ZPE interactions then one might have to ignore the COE since we have no way of measuring ZPE! Testing COE requires that ALL energy inputs and outputs, of ANY kind, must be measurable. Given that, the question is: How do we convert the energy from the mass->energy reaction into (100%) HEAT?? Is the energy going directly into lattice vibrations (phonons), or are there intermediate steps and the energy eventually ends up as heat? How's that tickle your taste-buds? :-) -Mark >_____________________________________________ >From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 1:11 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? > >Mark, > >Good point. However, neutron detectors generally are designed to register only >neutrons, otherwise >the results would be ambiguous. > >At any rate, the “axial beam” suggestion is probably not valid anyway - so we >are essentially back >to the problem of either a “new physics” nuclear reaction, without any >radioactivity at all, or >Randell Mills’ CQM, or a ZPE/Casimir influenced reaction, when the only great >evidence to go on for >that is the Reifenschweiler effect. We need a real model to base this on, and >since Moddel was not >successful in practice, we cannot base this on only his hypothesis. > >Reifenschweiler has the advantage of already proving a way that chemistry >(cavity confinement) >alters low energy nuclear decay rates. But that effect is with tritium, which >is the only decay >candidate which would seldom reach the 200 keV level (even with the >Boltzmann’s tail of the >distribution). > >The leap of faith is to suggest that Reifenschweiler works to increase the >decay rate of a nucleus >not known to decay, or new kind of virtual particle - and in such a way that >there is never more >than 200 keV even with the Boltzmann’s tail of the distribution, or otherwise >it would have been >seen. “Virtual tritium” from spillover … nah… > >Not many good horses in this race - and it is looking like Mills’ stallion is >pulling way ahead at >the first turn. Too bad he did not patent the gas-phase approach, or did he? I >spent hours checking >and found nothing that would help Mills to prevail - even if Rossi is using >“his” reaction. You >cannot patent a theory. But he gave it a good effort, so who knows? > >Jones > >_____________________________________________ >From: Mark Iverson > >Jones: >Sorry of this is obvious, but… > >On page 8 of the consolidated report (2nd page of Bianchini's report) he shows >that the neutron >detector was positioned on the horizontal axis of the main tube… and it did >take data before, >during and after 'ignition'. I take it the neutron detector would not detect >the photons that you >were referring to? > >-Mark > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mattia Rizzi > >> Villa & Bianchini reports are available on-line. > >It can be found here: >http://ebookbrowse.com/levi-bianchini-and-villa-reports-pdf-d62074366 > >The person who will probably most enjoy reading this, based on a theory of >operation is Fran >Roarty, if he has not already read it - since the conclusions of Villa & >Bianchini are unambiguous. > >THIS CANNOT BE A NUCLEAR REACTION > >However, I would add that they did NOT test in the axial vector; but aside >from that: > >"Assuming that the observed energy excess production rate (≈ 11 kW) is coming >from nuclear >reaction, knowing that a typical energy release is of the order of 1 MeV, it >is possible to >estimate the total fusion rate to be of the order of 7 · 10^16 reaction/s >(fusions or decays)" > >"This rate is so huge that there is no possibility for it to escape detection >provided that the γ have an energy above the 200 keV threshold." >Conclusions > >The main findings of the present study are the following: > >• the present reactor was actually able to vaporize a cold liquid water for >about 40 minutes, >showing a sizeable output-input power >difference and an integrated power production of several kWh; > >• no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region >Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in >Coincidence… > >• regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shielding >and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem >not compatible with >the rates deduced or expected assuming >that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions…
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
