Daughter radiation to beta, gamma and X-ray

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

"For scientists to refute your claim, it would be expected that you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, which is the standard method for getting scientific credit. Since you are a professor, I assume you have done this. Which journals, and when?"

I respect your views. First of all, when I presented my papers in International Symposia in USA in 1998, and particularly in 2001 the referees doubted that the light emission could be luminescence. I did send my papers to reputed journals but rejected on the plea that it is nothing but luminescence. Unfortunately, the referes reject the paper on face value without going through the contents of the paper fully.

It is a matter of trust. I could publish papers on variety of topics such as "photomultiplier as a beta sensor, Nucl.Inst.and Methods (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/resume.html) . But when my reserach paper claimed entirely original findings it became impossible for me to publish my paper since 1993.

Since 1996, I have come across favourable times twice: Only one of the referees accepted my paper fully without any correction. In 1996, One of the Referees accepted my paper sent to the journal, Radiation Measurements. The other referee doubted my claims and experimentally confirmed light emission from Rb XRF source (salt) and Mo XRF source (metal) notably at room temperature. Thus he verified my original findings ( discoveries 1 and 3 in http://www.geocities.com/raomap). He mistook luminesnce for fluorescent emission, so he presumed no new explanation is necessary. Because of one referee, the paper was rejected.

Second paper on "Bharat radiation emission from ...." was sent to Indian Journal of pure and applied physics, New Delhi, India, probably in 1999. The Editor doubted my claims. In addition to an Indian Referee, he has sent the paper to an American referee (probably from NIST). The American referee has accepted the paper without any correction or modification. The Indian referee, could not understand the readings with the 8K multichannel analyser from Canberra, so rejected the paper. Again, it is a matter of trust.

I need at least two senior scientists who would go through my experimental work mentioned in the above websites and agree with my claims. If any scientist come forward to go through my work, and recommend my work to a peer reviewed jounral my work on light might see the light of the day. Initially, I wish to publish only the experimental part. If any scientist can volunteer to do this help, I would send draft of the paper by e-mail and acknowldge his help. Otherwise, the done work carried on since 1992 may be reburried.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

"Let's suppose for the moment that what you have found does have solid experimental support. Have you discovered exactly why such happens?"

True. The typical 'UV dominant energy dependent optical spectrum' was experimentally verified several times by me before I claimed in seven Symposia (1997- 2002). I have realized that the optical emission is second generation of beta, gamma and X-rays. (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery5.html)


These radiations first generate an electromagnetic radiation with energy slightly higher than that of UV in excited atoms of radioisotopes and XRF sources.They excite valence electron and cause optical radiation. (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery4.html)

I could successfully explain these two generations by a new atomic phenomenon, a core electron Colomb interaction (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery6.html)

"Either way let me know if you have discovered exactly why such would occur. I read the math on you're site. Yes, the findings would suggest such. But, I also suspect that if the findings are correct there is something else going on here".

Since you read the math mentioned in the new atomic phenomenon, please take pains again and let me know where you agree or disagree with the explained phenomenon.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

. Prof.M.A.Padmanbha Rao

I AM commenting on the subject. The title of professor is evidence of considerable knowledge. You have used it in your post. It is a very real argument for taking your claims seriously.

I am having difficulty taking your claims seriously but I am sure that if you are a professor I am mistaken in doing so.

This is an evidence based website. If you make a claim without presenting the evidence it should be dismissed. Present the evidence of your qualification as a professor, or have it dismissed.

Also, present the evidence of your experiments or have them dismissed. Where are the raw figures, the equipment used, the photographs of the setup?

We are not total naive. You are by no means the first on this website to make claims based on supposed experiments.

"Also, present the evidence of your experiments or have them dismissed. Where are the raw figures, the equipment used, the photographs of the setup? "

The equipment used is gamma ray spectrometer with a difference. Probe for detection of UV is notably a bare photomutiplier tube 9635QB from THORN EMI. You would find answers to your enquiries in the following. The experimental technique is common for the following three.

Please go through the experimental details on UV dominant optical spectrum
(1) from XRF sources present as salts : http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery1.html

(2) from radiisotopes present as radiochemicals
http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery2.html

(3) from 57Co present as cobalt metal, other metallic radioisotopes and XRF sources
http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery3.html

The light emission from Rb XRF source and Mo XRF source was fortunately confirmed by a Referee when I have sent a paper to the US journal, Radiation Measurements in 1996.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Well, this website is seen by 10,000 people every day. That doesn't mean everything printed here is correct (oh, I wish...)...

For scientists to refute your claim, it would be expected that you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, which is the standard method for getting scientific credit. Since you are a professor, I assume you have done this. Which journals, and when?

"For scientists to refute your claim, it would be expected that you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, which is the standard method for getting scientific credit. Since you are a professor, I assume you have done this. Which journals, and when?"

I respect your views. First of all, when I presented my papers in International Symposia in USA in 1998, and particularly in 2001 the referees doubted that the light emission could be luminescence. I did send my papers to reputed journals but rejected on the plea that it is nothing but luminescence. Unfortunately, the referes reject the paper on face value without going through the contents of the paper fully.

It is a matter of trust. I could publish papers on variety of topics such as "photomultiplier as a beta sensor, Nucl.Inst.and Methods (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/resume.html) . But when my reserach paper claimed entirely original findings it became impossible for me to publish my paper since 1993.

Since 1996, I have come across favourable times twice: Only one of the referees accepted my paper fully without any correction. In 1996, One of the Referees accepted my paper sent to the journal, Radiation Measurements. The other referee doubted my claims and experimentally confirmed light emission from Rb XRF source (salt) and Mo XRF source (metal) notably at room temperature. Thus he verified my original findings ( discoveries 1 and 3 in http://www.geocities.com/raomap). He mistook luminesnce for fluorescent emission, so he presumed no new explanation is necessary. Because of one referee, the paper was rejected.

Second paper on "Bharat radiation emission from ...." was sent to Indian Journal of pure and applied physics, New Delhi, India, probably in 1999. The Editor doubted my claims. In addition to an Indian Referee, he has sent the paper to an American referee (probably from NIST). The American referee has accepted the paper without any correction or modification. The Indian referee, could not understand the readings with the 8K multichannel analyser from Canberra, so rejected the paper. Again, it is a matter of trust.

I need at least two senior scientists who would go through my experimental work mentioned in the above websites and agree with my claims. If any scientist come forward to go through my work, and recommend my work to a peer reviewed jounral my work on light might see the light of the day. Initially, I wish to publish only the experimental part. If any scientist can volunteer to do this help, I would send draft of the paper by e-mail and acknowldge his help. Otherwise, the done work carried on since 1992 may be reburried.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[maddog]

What I find most of concern is the brash that the "speed of light is dependent on frequency" (it is your
discovery 6, I think). I will leave alone why the need for a separate band to encompass Baharat radiation as
something different. I learned through other channels tha beside the notion VST (Variable Speed of Light)
theory proposed by some English physicist, there has been some recent speculation of variation in c wrt
frequncy of the light.

I find this hard to believe as credible. Call me skeptic. I am curious of what kind of phenomenae could be
going on though. An explanation to assist in the swallowing of this preposterous notion.

Maddog

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Originally Posted by maddog

What I find most of concern is the brash that the "speed of light is dependent on frequency" (it is your
discovery 6, I think). I will leave alone why the need for a separate band to encompass Baharat radiation as
something different. I learned through other channels tha beside the notion VST (Variable Speed of Light)
theory proposed by some English physicist, there has been some recent speculation of variation in c wrt
frequncy of the light.

I find this hard to believe as credible. Call me skeptic. I am curious of what kind of phenomenae could be
going on though. An explanation to assist in the swallowing of this preposterous notion.

Maddog

"What I find most of concern is the brash that the "speed of light is dependent on frequency" (it is your discovery 6, I think)". "I learned through other channels tha beside the notion VST (Variable Speed of Light) theory proposed by some English physicist, there has been some recent speculation of variation in c wrt frequncy of the light."

My claim is not only on light, but also on gamma, X-ray and beta that travel with velocity inversely proprtional to wavelength, exluding radio and microwaves. I have to wait and watch whether astrophysicists and radiological physicists would find convincing evidence one day?

"I will leave alone why the need for a separate band to encompass Baharat radiation as
something different."
I have predicted that beta , gamma and X-rays would produce new electromagnetic radiation with energies higher than UV so that inturn it would excite valence electron and cause the experimentally observed UV dominant optical radiation. Bharat radiation would fit in electromagnetic spectrum at a position higher than that of UV. Please go through: http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery4.html

And I have explained that beta, gamma or X-ray produce it in excited atoms of radioisotope and XRF sources by core-electron Coulomb field: http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery6.html

Please let me know which aspect you agree or disagree or whether you need any clarification.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Well, this website is seen by 10,000 people every day. That doesn't mean everything printed here is correct (oh, I wish...)...

For scientists to refute your claim, it would be expected that you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, which is the standard method for getting scientific credit. Since you are a professor, I assume you have done this. Which journals, and when?

I respect your views. First of all, when I presented my papers in International Symposia in USA in 1998, and particularly in 2001 the referees doubted that the light emission could be luminescence. I did send my papers to reputed journals but rejected on the plea that it is nothing but luminescence. Unfortunately, the referes reject the paper on face value without going through the contents of the paper fully.

It is a matter of trust. I could publish papers on variety of topics such as "photomultiplier as a beta sensor, Nucl.Inst.and Methods (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/resume.html) . But when my reserach paper claimed entirely original findings it became impossible for me to publish my paper since 1993.

Since 1996, I have come across favourable times twice: Only one of the referees accepted my paper fully without any correction. In 1996, One of the Referees accepted my paper sent to the journal, Radiation Measurements. The other referee doubted my claims and experimentally confirmed light emission from Rb XRF source (salt) and Mo XRF source (metal) notably at room temperature. Thus he verified my original findings ( discoveries 1 and 3 in http://www.geocities.com/raomap). He mistook luminesnce for fluorescent emission, so he presumed no new explanation is necessary. Because of one referee, the paper was rejected.

Second paper on "Bharat radiation emission from ...." was sent to Indian Journal of pure and applied physics, New Delhi, India, probably in 1999. The Editor doubted my claims. In addition to an Indian Referee, he has sent the paper to an American referee (probably from NIST). The American referee has accepted the paper without any correction or modification. The Indian referee, could not understand the readings with the 8K multichannel analyser from Canberra, so rejected the paper. Again, it is a matter of trust.

I need at least two senior scientists who would go through my experimental work mentioned in the above websites and agree with my claims. If any scientist come forward to go through my work, and recommend my work to a peer reviewed jounral my work on light might see the light of the day. Initially, I wish to publish only the experimental part. If any scientist can volunteer to do this help, I would send draft of the paper by e-mail and acknowldge his help. Otherwise, the done work carried on since 1992 may be reburried.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Originally Posted by Tormod
Well, this website is seen by 10,000 people every day. That doesn't mean everything printed here is correct (oh, I wish...)...

For scientists to refute your claim, it would be expected that you publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, which is the standard method for getting scientific credit. Since you are a professor, I assume you have done this. Which journals, and when?

My reply:
I respect your views. First of all, when I presented my papers in International Symposia in USA in 1998, and particularly in 2001 the referees doubted that the light emission could be luminescence. I did send my papers to reputed journals but rejected on the plea that it is nothing but luminescence. Unfortunately, the referes reject the paper on face value without going through the contents of the paper fully.

It is a matter of trust. I could publish papers on variety of topics such as "photomultiplier as a beta sensor, Nucl.Inst.and Methods (http://www.geocities.com/raomap/resume.html) . But when my reserach paper claimed entirely original findings it became impossible for me to publish my paper since 1993.

Since 1996, I have come across favourable times twice: Only one of the referees accepted my paper fully without any correction. In 1996, One of the Referees accepted my paper sent to the journal, Radiation Measurements. The other referee doubted my claims and experimentally confirmed light emission from Rb XRF source (salt) and Mo XRF source (metal) notably at room temperature. Thus he verified my original findings ( discoveries 1 and 3 in http://www.geocities.com/raomap). He mistook luminesnce for fluorescent emission, so he presumed no new explanation is necessary. Because of one referee, the paper was rejected.

Second paper on "Bharat radiation emission from ...." was sent to Indian Journal of pure and applied physics, New Delhi, India, probably in 1999. The Editor doubted my claims. In addition to an Indian Referee, he has sent the paper to an American referee (probably from NIST). The American referee has accepted the paper without any correction or modification. The Indian referee, could not understand the readings with the 8K multichannel analyser from Canberra, so rejected the paper. Again, it is a matter of trust.

I need at least two senior scientists who would go through my experimental work mentioned in the above websites and agree with my claims. If any scientist come forward to go through my work, and recommend my work to a peer reviewed jounral my work on light might see the light of the day. Initially, I wish to publish only the experimental part. If any scientist can volunteer to do this help, I would send draft of the paper by e-mail and acknowldge his help. Otherwise, the done work carried on since 1992 may be reburried.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao