Daughter radiation to beta, gamma and X-ray

[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