parallel wrote:If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.
What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?
I watched the video. there was considerable optimism despite obvious unanswered questions..
Concerning the gamma radiation. At ~ 18:24 it is mentioned that a neutron bubble detector was full of bubbles. No other details, and it is not considered further. At ~22:30, it was mentioned that there was a short but intense gamma flux- peak that maxed out the geiger counter (the scale was not mentioned) He said he was outside the room at the time, and then Rossi came out and said the machine was working. After waiting in the hall for ~ 1/2 hr he said he entered the room and tested near the machine, and at that point the gamma levels were ~ 50% over background, and he said it was bouncing around. This is meaningless as he did not give the range of this variation Was it greater than the normal statistical variation in the radiation counts? There was no mention of the machine being turned off at this point.
At ~ 25:30 he mentioned trying to measure ~ 511 KeV back to back Beta+ decay gammas. That he did not was indicative that this nuclear pathway ( neutron (or would that be a proton?)+Ni to copper +positron) was not occuring. He did not mention whether he was using a gamma spectrometers or a pair of Geiger counters. He did say they cut holes in the lead shielding for this test. He could have measured lower energy gammas at this time, even if the lead shielding was adequate to block these gammas. He did not comment on this. The subsequent speculation that these lower energy gammas might come from alternative fusion pathways was not explored further.
Two questions on these speculative low energy gammas- what energy range are they speculating on- 1000 eV, 10,000 eV, 50,000 eV? With thousands of Watts of claimed nuclear power, the flux of these gammas would be tremendous. You would not need to shield out 99 % or even 99.99% of the gammas, you would need to be shielding out 99.9999% or more before they would fall below detectable levels with a simple Geiger counter .
As a comparison, consider the P-B11 reaction. There is a branch that produces a gamma ~ 1/10,000 reactions. At 100 MW this can be quickly lethal if not well shielded by several feet of concreate and steel/ heavier metals. ie: a gamma flux of several Seiverts / hr or more. At 10,000 watts the gamma numbers might be lower intensity, but just as many if the gammas were produced in the dominate branch of any reactions.
Assume that the counts would be ~ same. The damage (Seiverts) may be several orders of magnitude less and the penetration may be several orders of magnitude less, but the standoff distance (say 1meter instead of 10 M wold result in relative fluxes ~ 100 times greater. Within the room with the Rossi device. Even if the thin lead shielding stopped all but 1 ppm , the measurable flux would still be considerably above background
For that matter, in the case that neutrons are used and/ or produced by the reaction (remember the mention of the neutron bubble detector)- where do they come from? They certainly would not be stopped by a fraction of an inch of lead unless they started out very near thermal temperatures, in which case they would have difficulty penetrating the glass of the bubble detector so the bubbles mentioned would be an underestimate of neutron output.
The gamma ray radiation spike was while the meter and observer was outside the room, but Rossi was inside the room. This uncontrolled situation is another instance where Rossi could have manipulated the situation, taken a radioactive source out of a lead can, etc. It would have been interesting if the interviewee had of used his Geiger counter to prospect within the room to determine where the radiation peaked highest.
At least in this video the 'Swedes' apparently toured Rossi's lab, and saw a demo, like others. Then returned to Sweden and wrote their report. That does not sound like much of an independent analysis.
Restricted measurements, passively witnessing of what Rossi allows, is not really analyzing the validity of the claims, it is only confirming what Rossi wants you to see.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.