Thanks Mark. My reactor would be totally enclosed inside the cylindrical wall, which is the Ion chamber Anode. The reactor itself will be the Ion chamber Cathode. This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is perfectly parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit the ends of the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas in the chamber. This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit in a random direction and hence would be detected.
However, I am unsure how a Ion Chamber with the reactor walls itself as the Cathode would work. In my estimation, the hydrogen inside the reactor would Ionize and would be attracted to negatively charged reactor walls. I suspect this would create some kind of bias current and charge buildup that would be interpreted as a positive hit by the electronics. I could reversed the polarity but that does not remove the charge buildup problem. Not sure if this would work. More experiment is required. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:04 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a particular direction, so where do you place your detector? It probably depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its physical structure. If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors and place them on the x, y, and z axes. Or just one detector, but do multiple tests moving the detector to a different location. Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be evidence supporting novel nuclear processes. -Mark From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with temperature spikes of the reactants. This wuold be a good way of verifying the LENR effects. Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all classified as "background". If I get a clear reading way above background readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear" process, wouldn't it? And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind. The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process manifesting during a mechanical procedure? It is not a purely mechanical or chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical and chemical conditions. I believe this is similar to Deflakion's "chemically assisted" nuclear reaction. The process itself is not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons, but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the chemical reaction." But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples and explanations. Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen that produces radiation, am I not correct? Please feel free to correct me. 0----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch tape. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25 Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging. Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations, it is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative counts above background over time - for decent statistical analysis. From: Joseph Hao As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases radiation,
