FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

No way on your previous posting questioning my motivations.  I made a legitimate posting questioning the validity of Rossi's claims about a factory producing a million units per year and your reply to my posting was in the gutter.  You are a very very black pot.

Here is your quote from earlier in the thread where you state that gamma rays are particles.:

Gamma rays, on the other hand, ONLY refer to the particles that comprise the atom's nucleus, being the protons and the neutrons.  And these are somewhat hazardous - in whatever form - highly penetrative - and typically with a frightening and long lasting toxicity.  And also, typically these are proposed to be 'contained' by the strong concrete shielding around our nuclear reactors.  Sadly, there is no known and effective means to dispose of this waste.

You then went on to argue the point that gamma rays were particles, and then you did an about-face and contradicted yourself.

Another quote from you:

Perhaps you should spend more than 10 minutes on that link.  It EXPLAINS that gamma ray emissions relate to the changes in the atomic NUCLEUS.  And the only known particles in the atomic nucleus are protons and neutrons.

It's mind-boggling.

It would appear to me that you can't fathom that a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons could emit a gamma ray since the only building blocks in the nucleus that are available are particles - hence gamma rays must consist of particles.

A quote from me followed by response a quote from you:

Me: 

therefore gamma rays must be particles

You: 

INDEED.  Well done.  That's EXACTLY WHAT I'M PROPOSING.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Gwandau:

you seem to miss the point,  this is not a complicated high tech product, it is actually an utterly simple combination of perfectly calibrated
parameters never earlier combined this way.  And the inventor himself has admitted that he really do not know what happens on the atomic level. 

I can see that I am not going to get through to you so we will leave it at that.  The thing is a NUCLEAR REACTOR.  Think about that some more and perhaps do some reading.

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

No way on your previous posting questioning my motivations.  I made a legitimate posting questioning the validity of Rossi's claims about a factory producing a million units per year and your reply to my posting was in the gutter.  You are a very very black pot.

that's funny being your last response in this very thread to my legitimate posting refuting the validity of your 'ad hominem' claim was:

Wilby:

Go find another hotspot you have been connected for too long already.  Perhaps next to the smelly dumpster behind the Denny's across town?

MileHigh

hypocrite much? you're still trying to figure out that whole 'integrity' thing i see. and still failing.  LOLLING all over the floor...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - let me just cut to the chase.  Gamma Rays, any rays - any emissions - comprise particles.  At their basic levels everything that can be measured relates to a particulate foundational base.  These emissions can be photons, or electrons, or neutrons or - in some cases I believe even ions.  They use neutron bombardment for some cancer therapies.  And I believe protons.  That bombardment is in the form of a 'ray' of particles. Always they comprise particles.  Why would you assume otherwise?  Heisenberg's wave particle duality relies on this.  And experimental evidence has also and always confirmed this.  Of COURSE gamma rays are particles.  But Gamma ray emissions are specific to the changes in an atomic nucleus and are known to be highly penetrative and highly toxic.

So again.  When you say this...

It would appear to me that you can't fathom that a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons could emit a gamma ray since the only building blocks in the nucleus that are available are particles - hence gamma rays must consist of particles.

you're also 'spot on'.  That's indeed my understanding.  I know that a neutron has a 20 minute life span.  I know that a proton has an infinite life span.  I know that both particles can decay into a variety of smaller particles.  I also know that an electron is considered to be a fundamental particle and is not known to decay.  As is a photon.  And they're both considered to have infinite life spans.  But I also know that ALL emissions comprise particles.  There can be no emissions if what is being emitted is not fundamentally and profoundly a particle - of some sort.  What do you propose is emitted in these emissions be they alpha, beta or gamma?   If not particles?  I cannot understand your objection.

Kindest regards MileHigh
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

So it's a big contentious argument about nothing.  It would appear that you are not aware of what the usual standard baseline of understanding is so that people can communicate about this stuff with some measure of implicit understanding.  Otherwise we would go nuts.

The baseline of understanding is to separate the decay products into real tangible products and electromagnetic radiation.  Everybody knows about wave-particle duality, but that is not normally considered for this type of discussion.  It's always been understood that when discussing these matters, that the concept of tangible physical decay particles and EM radiation is the basic frame of reference for the discussion.

This concept is so universally accepted that I didn't think that you would be arguing that photons are particles.  More hot air for nothing.

MileHigh