Correction: I sent the preceding out too quickly since on review I see the EDAX of the mica, which somehow shows it is over half carbon when in nature, mica has none. Possibly mica laminated to a film of polycarbonate. It does show 5% potassium.
Anyway - this statement says it all - the good that bad and ugly: "The
radiation being emitted by the sample is proposed to result from a fusion
reaction that produces coherent photons. These photons are proposed to react
with K40 nuclei in the mica window of the GM to stimulate its decay by beta
and gamma emission that is easily detected by the GM."
However, to put this in perspective of all the literature - there is NO
evidence here of a fusion reaction, but plenty of evidence for accelerated
decay. Instead of fusion, there is an enormous amount of literature, in
excess of 100 publication going back to 1990 - from Mills and other, of
potassium and nickel and hydrogen together giving excess heat.
It this "new kind of radiation" which is seen - itself giving the excess
heat seen in those papers via accelerated decay? That is the importance of
this finding.
In no way does this finding validate "fusion" and in fact there is less
evidence of fusion here than any other possible M.O. If it were real fusion
there would be unequivocal levels of gammas.
Jones
_____________________________________________
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>>
