chrismb wrote:Blimey! How much proof do we need? I mean, if a little hump of gammas were detected once in around the 15 minute time-frame around when Rossi says he got his device started, so there is simply no need to turn this thing off and start it up again, to see if it was just co-incidental with background cosmics, is there?
Once we have one data-point of hearsay, science is made!!
Quite the contrary, in my opinion at least. Don't know about parallel's. As Goldfinger said, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." If I had a pet E-Cat I would follow it around with a gamma detector everywhere it went.
to Mr. Rossi chrismb wrote:If *I* am an imbecile with my 'European Engineering Training' what status of intellect are you, dear sir?
Oh, dear, I do hope this doesn't all end in a "pistols at dawn" affair.
D Tibbets wrote:The neutron issues, and mention of high pulsed radiation levels at the beginning and end of the run makes no sense. It has been emphazized that the heat production is constant, not highly erratic of pulsed. If the start up radiation pulse is real and a nuclear process, then the radiation disappears, or almost disappears, that implies that there are at least two separate processes occurring- two unexplained new physics processes occurring, not one. And, why would it pulse again at the end?. If you claim that the neutrons produced in some way are near thermal, then claim that they are captured befor they can reach the neutron detector tube, then neutron production that lasts months may not be detectable. But this implies that that the claimed neutron burst at the begining must have more energy (eV) in order to reach the detector. The detector can collet the neutrons for hours, perhaps days. If the initial burst of neutrons have the same kinetic energy as the trickle of neutrons later, then if the bubble detector was filled with bubbles in only a few seconds or less, then even fluxes of millions of fewer neutrons would give a signal with exposure times 10,000 to 100,000 linger time frames. And if the initial neutron burst was even greater, with all of the energy being absorbed within the machine, then you would need to worry about the machine exploding is a steam explosion. The claimed neutrons would need to be of different energies (different nuclear reactions) or only neutrons were produced at startup- this would preclude any neutron reactions being involved with nuclear reactions that produces energy (or consumes it) during the weeks of claimed steady state heating. This would preclude chemosynthesis of copper from nickel and neutrons. That would only leave nickel plus protons, which normally require tremendous input kinetic energy. But, oOf course there is the secret catalyst
If you mean the the neutron counts spike at the beginning from a shock- from a pulse of neutron radiation, but not later, then again this would require two completely separate nuclear processes that are involved.
If you mean a shock, such a 'BOOM' , again I find this curious. Bubble neutron detectors work by local vaporization of a superheated liquid gel. It is extremely resistant to electronic noise or other effects. A shock wave may trigger artifacts, but I suggest this shock wave would be obvious to anyone in the room, or possibly even in the building, burst tubes, broken windows, breaking of the glass tube that contains the neutron detecting gel, etc.
Dan, just to be clear, the neutron burst reported by Prof. Levi, and the gamma ray burst reported by Prof. Celani were two completely separate events. Celani was only at the January 14 demonstration, as far as I know. Prof. Levi's neutron burst apparently occurred during a private test of the device. Here is a quotation from the
video:
Giuseppe Levi wrote:Once it exceeds a critical temperature value — it takes a while, because the system needs to load and the reaction has spread to the whole sample — after 20 or 30 minutes it is capable of working by itself; and if you don't suddenly cool it down, change the pressure or perform a switch off maneuver, it will not shut down. [unintelligible] [time?] ago, when I was working with Focardi, I made a couple of rough [calculations?] and said: "Listen, warn Rossi that this thing might explode". I was running a couple of calculations on the [micro]granules, and the amount of energy they were capable of absorbing and releasing in return...at a certain point it began to...I saw that it was capable of being self-sustaining. And blow up it did! This is a good sign — it means that it's working. There is no source of energy which will not run out of control, if it works. They say, that is Rossi said to me — by the way, I must be super-cautious about everything I get told, meaning that I must shelve the information and say: "Perhaps...that's very nice...maybe some day we will investigate it". — that on one occasion an experiment of his blew up and that his neutron detectors (these detectors have a special gel which fills up with bubbles if neutrons are emitted, you can find them on the Internet as well) were found full of bubbles. Experimental fact: explosion + bubbles. Bubbles can also be the result of mechanical shock, so you cannot be sure about the neutrons.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
