On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 10:08, schrieb Horace Heffner:
It is not possible to put enough lead in the device to suppress
the 1.33 MeV gammas from cobalt to even a non-lethal level -
provided there is enough cobalt to sustain a 15 kW reaction at one
gamma per LENR reaction.
Yes this is correct. But this is not what I wanted to say.
OK. My comments were based on assumptions I made from what you
wrote. Just to raise the level of understanding, here is the basis
of my comments, with some paraphrasing. You said you felt the energy
levels of gammas from cobalt decay to nickel may be significant to
catalyzing a nickel LENR reaction. This to me implies a 1-1 relation
of the stimulating gammas to the stimulated nickel. It implies each
stimulating gamma is absorbed by the Ni nucleus it stimulates. I
suggested that an upper limit to Ni-H LENR energies is about 10 MeV
per LENR reaction. This means a 1.33 MeV photon interacts with a Ni
nucleus, or Ni plus hydrogen ensemble, and catalyses a reaction that
produces 10 MeV. The gammas to which I referred were 1.33 MeV
catalytic gammas, not LENR produced gammas. I did not suggest the
reaction produced gammas, or that they would be involved in Celani's
pre-test background level measurements. I do, however, think there
is reason to expect Ni-H LENR reactions to produce gammas, even as
measured momentarily by Celani after the experiment started. BTW,
it is notable that there could have been a shielded gamma source
located, and momentarily unshielded, in the room Rossi was in.
Celani's report says Rossi walked in right after Cealani's gamma
measurement was pegged. The source Celani measured would not have
had to have been in the device itself. Celani did say there were
unexplained anomalies in the readings as he moved around the room he
was in.
I think there could be a very small gamma source inside, possibly
cobalt 60, with a power of milliwatts or microwatts.
This gamma radiation could excite the nickel atom and bring it into
resonance in a novel, yet unknown way and could trigger the LENR
reaction.
Well, that is the assumption I made in my calculations - that one
gamma stimulates one nickel nucleus. The gamm in the process
disappears though. It can not go forth and cause more such
reactions. Therefore there is a 1-1 relation. There would be a
requirement for a kW of catalytic gammas to create around 10 kW of
LENR energy output under that assumption.
May be its only used to start the reaction and then shielded, this
could explain the gamma burst at startup.
Here I have some admitted personal biases. I have posted some
suggested reasons why gamma bursts might exists during start-up and
shut-down, but that is way outside this discussion.
I dont think the reactor itself produces gamma rays in the kilowatt
range.
Well, if the reactor is producing kW levels of free energy heat then
that energy has to come from somewhere. If is coming from LENR then
the source is likely nuclear. If the energy produced is photonic,
and comes from the nucleus, then it is by definition called "gamma"
radiation, even if in the low energy range for x-rays.
Widom Larsen theory says, that not gamma rays are produced, because
the gamma photons -if there are any- are downshifted to infrared.
It is notable that their patent provided no test data to show there
is actually any screening effect:
http://tinyurl.com/47al74f
If such a screening effect existed it should be comparatively easy
(as CF experiments go) to demonstrate it.
Here's what I think of WL theory:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html
So ... you can see I bring my own bias to the conversation.
Piantelli and Focardi in their papers reported either gamma
radiation or energy production mutually exclusive, never both at
the same time. And so far I understand, they had no shielding, and
so they had no high power gamma radiation.
This is indeed characteristic of LENR - no or nominal levels of high
energy gammas. Low energy gammas and EUV are another thing entirely,
but that is outside the scope of our conversation.
No LENR researcher has yet reported hard gamma radiation or has
died from gamma radiation so far I know, but many have reported
huge amounts of energy. So, why should the Rossi device produce
gamma radiation?
It was measure by Celani. Rossi clearly has something that differs
much from prior work - if it is as reported.
My theory was, there might be gamma rays, that act as a catalyzer
to start and possibly to sustain the LENR reaction,but I cannot
believe, the gamma rays are the reason for the thermal energy.
Yes, high energy gammas can not be the reason for the excess (ou)
thermal energy - if it actually exists, which is still very much in
doubt.
This cannot be, as you have correctly explained and this was never
before observed in other LENR experiments.
Best,
Peter
The basic problem is the 1-1 gamma-absorbing-nucleus relationship.
The alternative to the 1-1 catalyst-nucleus relationship is a chain
reaction. It does not appear that in normal operation there is a
chain reaction occurring. One of the best indicators of this is the
lack of radiation, except at start-up. Also, the lack of positron
production, which produces very detectable x-rays due to
annihilation. There does not appear to be any instabilities to heat
production in the demonstrations. There is no apparent means to
control critical mass formation, or moderate the reaction - i.e to
prevent a fast reaction. These are of course only indictors, not
proof of no chain reactions involved. Thermal breakdown of the
lattice could control runaway reactions, but then the Ni should be
damaged.
One effect of interest is Compton scattering, wherein a small amount
of energy is transferred to an electron, and the wavelength of the
gamma reduced. This has the potential to create energetic electrons
in the lattice, which have been shown to be capable of producing
deuterium LENR in highly loaded lattices (loaded by beam injection of
D). The problem with this is the amount of Compton scattering for
1.33 MeV gammas would be very small within the fuel itself. If
lattice electrons are desired then here are way better catalysts than
Co60.
In any case, I think there is no reasonable possibility of a Co60
source of any possible significance being hidden behind the 2 cm lead
shielding. However, there are various other radioactive materials
that very well might be hidden behind a few cm of lead, and which
might indeed be catalytic - especially beta producers.
That's my two cents worth for the day.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
