There are a couple of troubling things about this paper that stand out on a first read. I hate to sound critical, since in the extreme case (to be explained) this could be a very important paper.
Like Forsley before, Ed Storms finds radiation, but unlike Forsley there is
little acknowledgement of how extremely low the radiation rate is. Count
rate is in "arbitrary units" ?? How does this compare with background rates?
What is it in watts, when downshifted to thermal? My strong suspicion is
that this rate is extremely low and could be a relic of many other things.
GM meters are notoriously easy to fool with RF, and RF could come from
mundane sources such as a loose or chaffed feedthrough of an electrical
connection.
If the rate turns out to be significant in the real world, and not due to
fooling the meters - then the next most troubling thing (or most exciting if
true) is this statement: "Radiation, which had the characteristics of
photons, was detected using large area Geiger-Muller detectors." Does this
mean that the radiation being detected is a new kind of radiation that has
characteristics of photons but can only be detected in the way it interacts
with Mica in the detector window? That kind of open-ended statement leads to
all kinds of confusion.
Apparently there are indications of secondary decay which match the rate of
40K, however, potassium is not even always guaranteed to be Mica - so did
they test this window for potassium content? Some Mica used in these windows
has K content and some does not, and the makes try to use Mica that has none
for the obvious reason ! ... and in any event, K is small percentage of
Mica, the Mica is thin, and this rationale seems bizarre - but OTOH the
implication is that this new kind of radiation stimulates a particular
element's decay, and does so to a greater extent than can be detected on its
own.
A new kind of radiation would be a huge breakthrough! MONSTROUS But is that
really where this is going here ? If so - it is the wrong approach and the
paper is premature
Since - rather than come out and say it is a new kind of radiation, they
seem to be beating around the bush, so to speak. I would be extremely
surprised if this paper got past peer review in a journal for all of the
reasons above, but OTOH, it would be EXTREMELY important if there was real
evidence of a "new kind of radiation."
It's almost like they "want to say that" yet they realize - if they do say
it - the floodgates of skepticism will open forth, so they are trying to be
circumspect. You cannot have it both ways. My advice is to go back and try
to bolster the case for a new type of radiation.
I can think of several ways to do this - if there is really an interaction
of a new kind of radiation with potassium.
From: Jed Rothwell
Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:
I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available
for your information and comment - sort of a universal peer
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept.
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is
"Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms
and Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach
when they submit papers for publication.
This is an important paper because it uses radiation
measurements to identify when LENR occurs rather than energy production.
Because such radiation can only result from a nuclear reaction and its
measurement can detect a nuclear reaction at a much lower rate than is
possible by measuring energy production, radiation provides an excellent
tool for studying the LENR process. Of course, heat is being produced but a
much larger sample would be required for its detection.
The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the
theory that I published recently. This is the first example of using a
theory to produce a predicted result using a predicted method. We found
that when several materials are subjected to conditions expected and found
to produce voids, and then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that
is consistent with the radiation reported by previous workers. In addition,
this radiation has strange effects on other materials, which is a new
discovery.
We are making these results available at an early stage in
our studies to alert people to the possible benefit of observing radiation.
I expect many questions and objections will result. Nevertheless, people
need to be encouraged to duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or
not.
I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment
required to make the effect occur every time. Although I produced 4 samples
that work, many did not. I now know the reason. This method is ok as a way
to study the effect but it is not useful to scale up to produce a commercial
source of energy. However, it gives support to my theory and provides a good
method to demonstrate LENR. The nature of the radiation also provides useful
insight into the mechanism.
Your comments would be welcome.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
