Daughter radiation to beta, gamma and X-ray

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Discovery of new electromagnetic radiation like gamma, X-ray or UV:

Beta, gamma and X-ray radiations produce their first generation, an electromagnetic radiation with energies higher than that of UV radiation in eV level in excited atoms of radioisotopes and XRF sources, according to my subatomic research in excited atoms.

http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery4.html

 

The experimental set up is very simple and inexpensive and the experiments can be conducted at ease.

 

Prof.M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[email protected]

[BlameTheEx]

That post doesn't make sense. Nor does the article it links to. Exactly where did you get your qualifications professor?

[maddog]

If I maybe so bold; at what wavelengths are these supposed Bharat radiation supposed

to be ? What do suspect is their cause. Excuse for being so skeptical, it just seems you

have statements of fact before even formulating a conjecture. I don't know I wish to be

taken in by another Cold Fusion, thawng... :hihi:

 

Maddog

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

Regarding wavelengths you have enquired, the predicted Bharat radiation would have slightly lower than that of UV in eV level in the case of radioisotopes and XRF sources.

 

The situation differs in the case of sources that emit X-rays above 14 MeV that would cause mainly visible and NIR radiations. In such a case, the exciting Bharat radiation would have energies higher than visible radiation. You please go through the website mentioned below, and comment once again if possible. http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery4.html

 

Bharat radiation acts as exciting radiation to valence electron in causing optical radiation detected experimentally. http://www.geocities.com/raomap/discovery6.html

 

Tritium emits Bharat radiation but not optical radition as explained in the above website. This would explain why certain blackhole nova emit X-rays alone and not followed by optical radiation.

 

This work was presented twice in USA, once in Bulgaria, and four times in India. The websites were seen by over 3000 people. So far, no scientist has refuted my claims.

 

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[email protected]

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

That post doesn't make sense. Nor does the article it links to. Exactly where did you get your qualifications professor?

I have verified the link (website) mentioned in my post and opens up without any problem. Please go through the contents and comment only on the actual subject, if desired.

 

M.A.Padmanabha Rao

[email protected]

[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.

[Tormod]

This work was presented twice in USA, once in Bulgaria, and four times in India. The websites were seen by over 3000 people. So far, no scientist has refuted my claims.

 

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?

[paultrr]

He does seem to get around: see: http://www.students.tut.fi/~viigipuu/link/elmagef/xraysourceemits.html as one example.

 

Professor of Medical Physics,

 

Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant (2001)

 

Head, Radiation Safety Group& Deputy Director,

 

Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur (1983-‘97)

 

Lecturer in Medical Physics,

 

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (1964-1983)

 

 

 

As Assembly Member from India attended the meetings of World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology on invitation from Tokyo in 1974 and led Indian team of scientists and doctors. Received this Memento for this special event.

 

Found this also: Ph.D (A.I.I.M.S)

Lecturer in Medical physics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.- nearly 19 years (May 1,1964- March 1983) :

 

 

 

2. Deputy Director (Sc E) & Head, Radiation Safety Group

 

March 1983- September 1997 (for nearly 14 years) at the Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Joined as Scientist D, then promoted as Scientist E (Deputy Director).

RETIRED on 30 Sept’ 1997.

 

 

3. Professor of Medical Physics, 3 months during August 2001 to Dec 4 2001 in Department of Radiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. Teaching: Final year M.B.B.S students on X-ray physics, management of clinical cases affected by radioactive contamination in Nuclear accidents or nuclear bombing etc.

RESPONSIBILITIES at A.I.I.M.S, New Delhi (1964-1983)

Teaching to M.D. Students at AIIMS, New Delhi

 

Medical Physics of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Safety to M.D. students of Radiodiagnosis, Medicine, Biophysics etc.

 

 

 

Teaching at Jolly Grant, Dehradun:

 

Final year M.B.B.S students on use of radioisotopes in medicine (Nuclear Medicine),Clinical and surgical management of cases affected by nuclear accident at Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttaranchal, India.

 

Radiation Safety Officer (AIIMS Hospital) where patients were admitted for treatment of thyroid cancer. I have administered even 100 mCi of 131I orally to such patients. Developed various radiation shields with novel ideas.

 

Research guidance as Coguide to M.Ch Students of surgical specialties

 

 

 

Co - guide to M.Ch students of Neurosurgery, Paediatric surgery, Urology for their dissertations on topics of clinical Nuclear Medicine, while their Professors were full guides.

 

 

 

Did research and published several papers (Refer the list of publications)

 

 

 

A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR COPYING OF NEUROANGIOGRAPHY IMAGES:

 

M.A. Padmanabha Rao.: A techniques for copying X-ray images by Xerographic process, Ind. J. Radiol, No 34, No 4, Nov 1980.

 

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

 

 

 

M.Sc Physics (with specialiation in Electronics), Vikram University,Ujjain, M.P. in 1962

 

 

 

Radiological Physics training course in for one year (1963-1964) from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, India.

 

 

 

Ph.D. from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 11018

 

He does seem to have the qualifications. But I also question why not seek direct publication. With especially having such presented at known meetings getting the results published would be easy. The whole idea does seem to lend itself also to DSR as a theory and as a side note I might mention to him that some of the ideas behind PV as originally presented by say Hal Puthoff would relate here also. Perhaps if anything he might contact him as a start. Reason I mention that Sir is that I belong to a group which has played a bit with PV and we've suspected for a bit that certain high energy particles could produce a measurable altering of the vacuum state to allow FTL conditions. Also, Fernando Loup, a researcher overseas has some recent articles which suggest that high energy particles could be utilized to to cross into hyperspace or alter the dimensional boundary. For those I would suggest looking up his articles on Cern and a couple he did in actual publication. Bear in mind that Fernando has his degree in math and not physics. But, his ideas do seem to relate. Another person I might suggest contacting is

Todd [email protected] . He's been working on PV based ideas.

[paultrr]

Let's suppose for the moment that what you have found does have solid experimental support. Have you discovered exactly why such happens? On that I might suggest looking at trying to measure the actual vacuum state itself directly. One possible means would be setting up a Casimir effect within that same region. See if the external vacuum pressure remains normal. Another way to check such is pass a photon beam through such a region to see if its velocity remains normal. If it does not then you might have discovered an experiment that shows the vacuum can be engineered along lines suggested by Puthoff and others. 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.

[M.A.Padmanabha Rao]

"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]

"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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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