I am actually surprised that they found a high neutron rate. I thought they'd find nothing. Those are conventional nuclear physicists, as you can see in their publication list.
2012/10/2 Jones Beene <[email protected]> > …merely 200x fewer neutrons … but that does present a “very strong > objection,” no?**** > > ** ** > > Even the guillotine did not provide instant death.**** > > ** ** > > http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Daniel Rocha **** > > ** ** > > It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which > are merely 200x smaller.**** > > ** ** > > Gigi DiMarco wrote”**** > > ** ** > > The following paper: > > Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride > Surfaces **** > > S. Ciuchi <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1>, L. > Maiani <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1>, A. > D. Polosa <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, V. > Riquer <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1>, G. > Ruocco <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1>, M. > Vignati <http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1> **** > > > has just been uploaded to ArXiv > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 > > The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava > in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory > that can be summarized as: > > > **** > > ** ** > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
