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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well, I don't get it because for all of my life I understood gamma rays to be high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.
Also:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
I looked around for 10 minutes and I don't see any references to gamma radiation being anything else but electromagnetic radiation.  Are you sure of your information?  Are you sure you are not getting your information from a junk science web site? It's quite important to not redefine terms that have precise definitions.  I am no expert here, just stating what I believe to be true.

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.  NO ELECTRONS MileHigh.  Perhaps the reader of 'junk science' is not Gravock but you.

Rosie

[gravityblock]

In other-words, you're trying to wrongly apply the proper force to the correct particles which are responsible for these gamma rays. 

Gravock.

@milehigh:

The equations are the same, but the values are not.  Since we're dealing with a different force along with the heavier W & Z particles, we must take this into account when choosing values for our equation.  If not, then we will be applying the wrong force with the correct particle.

Gravock

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

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.

Often I think that you are a victim of your own wishful thinking.

Is this your thinking?:  changes in the atomic NUCLEUS and particles in the atomic nucleus are protons and neutrons therefore gamma rays must be particles.

It sure as hell looks like it is.  It's the old, "Joe is an Old Salt.  Salt dissolves in water.  Therefore Joe dissolves in water."

You need to expand your horizons Rosemary if you want to play in the science sandbox.

Radioactive decay (gamma decay) Gamma rays from radioactive gamma decay are produced alongside other forms of radiation such as alpha or beta, and are produced after the other types of decay occur. The mechanism is that when a nucleus emits an α or β particle, the daughter nucleus is usually left in an excited state. It can then move to a lower energy state by emitting a gamma ray, in much the same way that an atomic electron can jump to a lower energy state by emitting a photon. Emission of a gamma ray from an excited nuclear state typically requires only 10^âˆ'12 seconds, and is thus nearly instantaneous. Gamma decay from excited states may also follow nuclear reactions such as neutron capture, nuclear fission, or nuclear fusion.
In certain cases, the excited nuclear state following the emission of a beta particle may be more stable than average, and is termed a metastable excited state, if its decay is 100 to 1000 times longer than the average 10^âˆ'12 seconds. Such nuclei have half-lives that are easily measurable, and are termed nuclear isomers. Some nuclear isomers are able to stay in their excited state for minutes, hours, days, or occasionally far longer, before emitting a gamma ray. Isomeric transition is the name given to a gamma decay from such a state. The process of isomeric transition is therefore similar to any gamma emission, but differs in that it involves the intermediate metastable excited states of the nuclei.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Gavityblock:

All that I know is that from what I have always learned is that gamma rays are rays - they are electromagnetic radiation.  But I acknowledge that I am not an expert - but at the same time I had science education.

I will leave it at that.  Let's hope that Rossi saves the world, you never know.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh,  I got the distinct impression that you'd come across the subject of Rossi and the advent of the  E-cat - before today.  Which means that you probably knew of Rossi's and Defkalion's intentions to automate.  You even made reference to this when you explained that Rossi's  use of the term  'roboticise' instead 'automate' - set up a loud ringing in your head.  Both terms are perfectly acceptable - and roboticise is probably more appropriate in as much as it's intended to explain how it is that he'll do away with that 'army' of people you keep telling us he'll need.  So I wonder if I could perhaps impose on YOU to apply some common sense.  It's no good arguing the need for an army of people when - self evidently - he's thereby done away with this need.

Rosie Pose.