The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas at 511 keV. I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem anymore and I hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that would make home use of his device problematic.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now! Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. In a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main energy source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has mentioned in the past that lead is used. I think you should dream up another source for occasional gamma emissions to support your illusion other than radium. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From:Axil Your inexactitudein thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece of info as follows: When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and thepublic comments about them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesomecondition during startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation wasproduced… Ifyou remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo… The simplest explanationis that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for startup - and then put it back inits cask. No one was allowed towitness Rossi’s startup, and the employment of an easily identified radioactivestarter like radium - could explain why. At no other time AFAIK -in the later tests, was any radioactivity witnessed. Tests run in Swedenreported no radioactivity in the ash. I would say that it isyour gullibility that is hard to overcome. It is incredulous that sucha reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of nickel to copper - and yet not leaveradioactive ash.
