Steven - A milder "label" is not going to work when your commercial enemy is big oil. The best we can hope for is that the nuclear reaction is easily shielded and predictable. It would not hurt if it is a reaction often used in human Medicine, either. Ref: the Pet scan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography After all, radium is an intense emitter and was allowed routinely on watch faces for years in regulated amounts - with no lasting harm, except to the workers who applied it. If the Rossi reaction turns out to be "new physics" and previously unknown, then that would possibly help, if it is also relatively mild. If one could design an ideal new version of a known nuclear reaction, which is consistent with results seen (but otherwise pure speculation), it would be a version of the "Ra Reaction" which is the most prevalent reaction in the Universe - the conversion of hydrogen into deuterium. This is Bethe-fusion, such as occurs as the first step in our Sun - going to helium eventually. The first step: P + P --> D + positron + neutrino Obviously the neutrino in this reaction is not detectable, and it can carry away much of the energy - but if the reaction is the cause of the excess heat of the Rossi device, then positron annihilation should occur as well at some level. That is the only logical conclusion. That signature for annihilation is clear and unambiguous (511 keV) yet it did not happen at the Jan demo despite a specialty meter for detecting it. However, there are unconfirmed reports that the kind of meter used by Levi (seen in the demo) had observed the signature of positron annihilation in the December test-run, and that was the reason it was present in January. This is my hope for the recent "particle detection" - that the "particle" was a signature gamma photon (not a particle per se - if you want to nit-pik) BTW there is a rationalization in QM for how the energy of annihilation could be 'borrowed' in advance, so that it is both seldom detected but always relevant. The operative word being "seldom". This explanation has "Dirac" and his "sea of negative energy", written all over it. -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Jones sez: > OTOH - we keep getting back to the problem of NRC approval, > or even UL approval. With proved particle detection and > real fusion, then we are back to being years away from > having the device approved in the USA. Adding more to the goose chase, let us not forget the fact that there are those who would like to denigrate the word "fusion", and replace it with what they believe is a more accurate term: "nuclear reaction." Perhaps if we all start calling the process a "nuclear reaction" the Underwriter's Laboratory will feel less threatened (because it's not really "fusion") ... and Wall Mart can start marketing the Rossi-Tea Pot sooner. Clear as mud? Making society richer and safer through the skills of political science! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson
