[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, Figure 3 looks like it’s not properly normalized before background 
subtraction and only shows >= 500 keV, but if properly 
processed all the peaks should disappear ... Its also appears much stronger 
above 500 keV than the current result, suggesting even 
more radiation in the low energy region.

For those trying to follow Figure 3, the curves are mislabeled in the 
key/legend.  The lowest plot is the subtracted one.

- Mark Jurich

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

From: Axil Axil



http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf



Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems. This MFMP radiation 
observation is nothing new.







Figure 3 in this report is rather reminiscent of what we see today… Focardi 
must have been on PST as well.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

The surface plasmon polariton (SPP) is first born out of concentrated
infrared photons, but it gets to a stage where it can extract nuclear
binding energy out of the nucleus. That energy is stored and downshifted
through FANO resonance in a soliton until the SPP decays whereupon its EMF
 energy content now in the XUV and X-ray range is released to the far
field.

I have been saying for years now that a cold reactor will cause gamma
radiation. IMHO, this is due to the failure to form a Bose condensate among
many Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP)s. Lack of sufficient polariton
pumping allows the SPP to initiate the LENR reaction, but not enough
thermal pumping to create a bose condensate among the SPPs to spread the
radiation around to thermalize or downshift gamma level radiation through
super-absorption among many SPPs.

Low temperature means many SPP are working alone thereby creating x-rays
because no downshifting is possible.

High temperatures means many SPPs working together in a BEC to share energy
throughout the SPP ensemble through super-absorption.

SPP pumping is similar to laser pumping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pumping

Until the SPP pumping gets to an inversion condition, a SPP bose condensate
cannot be formed.

Weak pumping means no laser beam is produced.

Usually, the x-xay stage lasts only a few seconds during startup on
shutdown when the reactor is cold or is getting cold.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> You make some good points about MFMP.
>
> I’m not an immediate member of MFMP.  I’m volunteering my time/resources
> when/where I can. If MFMP had more resources, they could certainly do a
> better job.  Do they deserve the resources?  I think so.  I have nothing
> but mutual respect for them and what they’re doing.  I am sure Bob G has
> his reasons for making certain statements and I cannot answer for him.
>
> All I know is... We have a strange radiation signal and it needs to be
> investigated further.  First it needs to be reproduced, then it needs to be
> understood.  Once that happens, it may be possible to produce/increase
> excess heat. We either came across a mistake/error or have possibly
> unearthed a signal that others have found in the past.  This is what
> Research/Science is all about, isn’t it?
>
> Maybe someone out there will now try to replicate this, too.  I understand
> the disappointment of many about what was done with the announcements
> here.  All I can say is, “Hang in there.”  We are ... We’re not finished
> with this yet and there’s more to come.
>
> - Mark Jurich
>
> *From:* Eric Walker 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
>
> The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run
>> and also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... The detected
>> radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.
>
>
> I am a big fan of the MFMP.  But there are many questions that still need
> to be sorted out.  I would suggest that this was an interesting run that
> highlighted some things that can be focused on and whose measurements
> should be tightened up for future runs.
>
> Here are some statements I'm seeing in Mats Lewan's recent blog post [1]:
>
>
> "The character of the x-ray signal is, according to MFMP, the best way to
> detect that the replication is successful. The energy of the x-ray photons
> are between *0 and 300 keV* (medical radiography typically uses x-rays
> between 5 and 150 keV), and there’s a brief but massive burst of x-rays
> when the reaction starts." (Mats.)
>
> "We have said that *only two paths would satisfy us*: Statistically
> significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash ... Statistically
> significant emissions *commensurate, correlating, or anti correlating to
> excess heat* ... We are happy to tell you that *we believe we have
> satisfied our condition 2*" (Bob Greenyer's letter.)
>
> "To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive
> anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies *were during and only during
> excess heat.*" (Bob Greenyer.)
>
>
> I worry that MFMP were premature in making this announcement.  The people
> on LENR Forum are not going to be nice.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1]
> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

You make some good points about MFMP.

I’m not an immediate member of MFMP.  I’m volunteering my time/resources 
when/where I can. If MFMP had more resources, they could 
certainly do a better job.  Do they deserve the resources?  I think so.  I have 
nothing but mutual respect for them and what they’re 
doing.  I am sure Bob G has his reasons for making certain statements and I 
cannot answer for him.

All I know is... We have a strange radiation signal and it needs to be 
investigated further.  First it needs to be reproduced, then 
it needs to be understood.  Once that happens, it may be possible to 
produce/increase excess heat. We either came across a 
mistake/error or have possibly unearthed a signal that others have found in the 
past.  This is what Research/Science is all about, 
isn’t it?

Maybe someone out there will now try to replicate this, too.  I understand the 
disappointment of many about what was done with the 
announcements here.  All I can say is, “Hang in there.”  We are ... We’re not 
finished with this yet and there’s more to come.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:


  The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run and 
also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... 
The detected radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.


I am a big fan of the MFMP.  But there are many questions that still need to be 
sorted out.  I would suggest that this was an 
interesting run that highlighted some things that can be focused on and whose 
measurements should be tightened up for future runs.

Here are some statements I'm seeing in Mats Lewan's recent blog post [1]:

  "The character of the x-ray signal is, according to MFMP, the best way to 
detect that the replication is successful. The energy of 
the x-ray photons are between 0 and 300 keV (medical radiography typically uses 
x-rays between 5 and 150 keV), and there’s a brief 
but massive burst of x-rays when the reaction starts." (Mats.)

  "We have said that only two paths would satisfy us: Statistically significant 
Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash ... 
Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti 
correlating to excess heat ... We are happy to tell you that 
we believe we have satisfied our condition 2" (Bob Greenyer's letter.)

  "To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive 
anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during 
and only during excess heat." (Bob Greenyer.)

I worry that MFMP were premature in making this announcement.  The people on 
LENR Forum are not going to be nice.

Eric


[1] 
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

It’s difficult for me to answer all your Qs at this point in time (due to time 
constraints), but let me try to add a few things (and 
Alan can certainly chime in here if he has the time)...

These cells were never really designed as accurate calorimeters to the level 
that I think you are suggesting. They were designed to 
see huge COPs as were suggested by the initial Rossi Cell and Lugano Report.  a 
COP of 1.2 is right on the edge but possibly doable 
if things like the post calibration could successfully be done as was planned.  
I believe Alan has some ideas on a better 
calorimeter design and Bob H is working on a full-blown calorimeter setup, as 
far as I know...

There is more than one thermocouple on this beast.  There are two near each 
other on the active side, one on the dummy side (on the 
heater covers) and previously there was one inserted into the middle of the 
active cell until the sealing requirement stopped that. 
There are also thermometers measuring ambient temperature and sometimes one is 
placed near the pressure transducer to check it, but 
I am digressing here...

Alan has placed the experimental uncertainty somewhere around 10 or 20% 
depending on what happens during a given experiment.  There 
is a chance at times to perform local, differential calorimetry if one is 
clever.  The calorimetry can be made relative to where the 
calorimeter “sits” at any given time.  Actually if you’re interested, you may 
want to take a look at the data and perform some 
differential analysis on it ... I was trying to do this during the pulsing part 
of the experiment...

Yes, the uncertainty is increased in this run relative to previous runs.

I know I’m probably not answering/commenting that well on you points, but hey, 
I tried.  Good questions, though ... Hanging out in 
the chat during the run is always enlightening, to say the least.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:


  Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this 
(having been assisting Alan rather closely for the 
last several months).

By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry, isoperibolic 
calorimetry, etc.  Using a single thermocouple for a 
cell is something different.  That does not to suggest that it cannot be made 
to work.  But I assume your experimental uncertainty 
is going to be a lot higher.  (Was the experimental uncertainty calculated?)


  We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving target), but we had no 
dummy post calibration to check it against.

Yes -- I remember seeing comments about the behavior of the thermocouples 
changing over time.  I would imagine that knowing this and 
not being able to do a post-calibration check on the dummy would disqualify the 
temperature results.  (I recall reading that Alan 
has specifically not claimed excess heat in this case.)

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf

 

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems. This MFMP radiation 
observation is nothing new.

 

 

 

Figure 3 in this report is rather reminiscent of what we see today… Focardi 
must have been on PST as well.

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run
> and also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... The detected
> radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.


I am a big fan of the MFMP.  But there are many questions that still need
to be sorted out.  I would suggest that this was an interesting run that
highlighted some things that can be focused on and whose measurements
should be tightened up for future runs.

Here are some statements I'm seeing in Mats Lewan's recent blog post [1]:

"The character of the x-ray signal is, according to MFMP, the best way to
detect that the replication is successful. The energy of the x-ray photons
are between *0 and 300 keV* (medical radiography typically uses x-rays
between 5 and 150 keV), and there’s a brief but massive burst of x-rays
when the reaction starts." (Mats.)

"We have said that *only two paths would satisfy us*: Statistically
significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash ... Statistically
significant emissions *commensurate, correlating, or anti correlating to
excess heat* ... We are happy to tell you that *we believe we have
satisfied our condition 2*" (Bob Greenyer's letter.)

"To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive
anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies *were during and only during
excess heat.*" (Bob Greenyer.)


I worry that MFMP were premature in making this announcement.  The people
on LENR Forum are not going to be nice.

Eric


[1]
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

The generation of black light was seen by R Mills many years ago. Will MFMP
reinvent the hydrino to explain their new found results?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>
> Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
>
> This MFMP radiation observation is nothing new.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Where is the big surprise?
>>
>> I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of
>> a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of modest gain
>> at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few hundred per
>> second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if the radiation
>> does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. Yawn. Let’s hope
>> there is much more forthcoming than this.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run and 
also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... 
There were very few Gammas above 200 keV for this particular event (see the 
linear graph, for example... A more sensitive (to low 
energy X-ray/Gammas) donut Geiger tube will be employed.  Yes, one can 
correlate a scintillator with a GMC by making the necessary 
adjustments, which will be done.  We are also working on acquiring an 
additional scintillation crystal head/electronics for 
Coincidence/Veto and perhaps pointing it at the dummy side of the cell.

The detected radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.  The 
Lead Cave opening for the scintillator was positioned 
on the active cell as opposed to the dummy side of the cell, but radiation from 
the dummy side could have made it into the 
scintillator, albeit at a reduced level, due to the lead bricks only partially 
obstructing it.  External Radiation could also have 
entered the Scintillator opening, beyond the cell...

Trace 7 spanned about a 4 hour period where the cell temperature was increased, 
dropped, then increased higher again and held there. 
Unfortunately, we don’t have much evidence where the semi-bursting occurred but 
we suspect it happened during the last leveling off 
at high temp, because we see remnants of it in the subsequent Trace #8.  Since 
we had never raised the cell to such a high temp 
before this, we suspect there is a temperature correlation in regards to this 
radiation onset. Each time the temperature was 
increased to a new, higher level we suspect that radiation may have been 
emitted, but this is conjecture.  There seems to be some 
threshold temperature, that’s about all we can say at this time ... We have 
plans for nailing this down in the next run, which most 
likely will be a pure replication attempt, but a better mouse trap to catch 
this mouse.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:


  Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, 
Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to 
confirm.  It’s only one instrument, we need another to confirm.  Temporary High 
Voltage Short??? ... Radon Gas Burst??? ... Cosmic 
Ray Anomaly??? ... ???

Since the photons in the NaI detector had energies up to 1500 keV, and the GM 
detector has a lower threshold of ~ 100 keV, it seems 
like it should be possible to obtain a strong correlation between the signals 
from the two detectors.

One thing that I did not understand was how the detected photons in the NaI 
detector were shown to be sourced at the live tube. 
There was no evident correlation between the temperature of the active side and 
the photon signal.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Axil Axil]

One reason why Rossi might do fuel prep as a preliminary first step is that
the fuel prep stage produces radiation since it is done at low
temperatures.. After he gets the fuel prepared, he loads it in the
operational reactor. Maybe Rossi does not want to see any radiation coming
out of his reactor in its operational (thermal production) stage.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
>
> Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you
>> this (having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last several
>> months).
>
>
> By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry,
> isoperibolic calorimetry, etc.  Using a single thermocouple for a cell is
> something different.  That does not to suggest that it cannot be made to
> work.  But I assume your experimental uncertainty is going to be a lot
> higher.  (Was the experimental uncertainty calculated?)
>
> We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving target), but we had no
>> dummy post calibration to check it against.
>
>
> Yes -- I remember seeing comments about the behavior of the thermocouples
> changing over time.  I would imagine that knowing this and not being able
> to do a post-calibration check on the dummy would disqualify the
> temperature results.  (I recall reading that Alan has specifically *not*
> claimed excess heat in this case.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this
> (having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last several months).


By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry,
isoperibolic calorimetry, etc.  Using a single thermocouple for a cell is
something different.  That does not to suggest that it cannot be made to
work.  But I assume your experimental uncertainty is going to be a lot
higher.  (Was the experimental uncertainty calculated?)

We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving target), but we had no
> dummy post calibration to check it against.


Yes -- I remember seeing comments about the behavior of the thermocouples
changing over time.  I would imagine that knowing this and not being able
to do a post-calibration check on the dummy would disqualify the
temperature results.  (I recall reading that Alan has specifically *not*
claimed excess heat in this case.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems

This MFMP radiation observation is nothing new.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Where is the big surprise?
>
> I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of
> a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of modest gain at
> the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few hundred per
> second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if the radiation
> does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. Yawn. Let’s hope
> there is much more forthcoming than this.
>
> What am I missing?
>

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this 
(having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last 
several months).

Typically Alan would first characterize the GlowStick Cell by inserting a 
thermocouple dead center, on the active side with a dummy 
loaded fuel cartridge there, but in order to insert the thermocouple, the cell 
could not be sealed completely.  Then a formal 
calibration would also be done after the experiment as well as before, and note 
any change.

With this particular run (5.2), the cell had to be sealed to protect the 
fuel/charge and was done under Hydrogen Gas, so the 
previous calibration (with the center thermocouple data) had to be used as an 
estimation of the core temperature.  A formal 
calibration was done without charge (dummy loads on each side) to a fairly high 
temperature.  Then the dummy charge on the active 
side was removed and replaced with the fuel/charge for the actual run.

The hope was to be able to remove the active fuel capsule after the run, 
replace it with a dummy loaded (Alumina Powder) 
cartridge/capsule, and perform a post calibration, but the active cartridge 
refused to exit once again, even with some elaborate 
tools Alan made to do it.  We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving 
target), but we had no dummy post calibration to 
check it against.  Of course, a post calibration was done as best as possible 
with the active cartridge in there, with attempts made 
to kill any possible lingering reaction with Argon Gas...

Alan can elaborate on this more if there are any further questions.

- Mark Jurich


From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

I get the impression the Glowstick 5-2 test did not use full-blown calorimetry, 
and instead just used two thermocouples, one for the 
live tube and one for the blank.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Although I do not find Ed Storms's theory persuasive, I suspect I know how
> he would reply to this. He might say that what MFMP have observed in the
> NaI detector is a hot-fusion side channel, which he makes allowances for.
> Note that although MFMP believe that the signal is strong, the absolute
> counts appear to be pretty low.
>

By "hot-fusion," I really mean anything that he does not consider LENR
(e.g., ~ MeV bremsstrahlung, if that is what is being seen).  But I should
let Ed Storms defend his theory.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

There is presently no description in a hydroton theory for MeV+ electron
> emission.
>

Although I do not find Ed Storms's theory persuasive, I suspect I know how
he would reply to this. He might say that what MFMP have observed in the
NaI detector is a hot-fusion side channel, which he makes allowances for.
Note that although MFMP believe that the signal is strong, the absolute
counts appear to be pretty low.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity,
> Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to confirm.  It’s only
> one instrument, we need another to confirm.  Temporary High Voltage
> Short??? ... Radon Gas Burst??? ... Cosmic Ray Anomaly??? ... ???


Since the photons in the NaI detector had energies up to 1500 keV, and the
GM detector has a lower threshold of ~ 100 keV, it seems like it should be
possible to obtain a strong correlation between the signals from the two
detectors.

One thing that I did not understand was how the detected photons in the NaI
detector were shown to be sourced at the live tube.  There was no evident
correlation between the temperature of the active side and the photon
signal.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Eric Walker]

I get the impression the Glowstick 5-2 test did not use full-blown
calorimetry, and instead just used two thermocouples, one for the live tube
and one for the blank.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

In LENR we get either High energy radiation (x-rays) or Heat: not both.
This is based on the temperature of the Reactor. A cold reactor produces
X-Rays.

The SPP absorb nuclear binding energy and store it in a whispering gallery
wave(WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW until the WGW
goes to a bright mode. This conversion from dar mode to bright mode happens
is a random distribution.

When the temperature is raised over a limit, a BEC is formed where the
stored nuclear binding energy is released from the SPP BEC as hawking
radiation which is thermal.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There is the occasional report of gammas and even neutrons in LENR, going
> back a long way - but the numbers are always far removed from having a
> direct correlation to heat. Here is a reality check on the issue of how
> far removed gamma radiation will be - as being any kind of validation for
> suspected excess heat.
>
> Every watt of excess energy from a nuclear source will require about
> 10^13 nuclear disintegrations per second if the energy release is 1 MeV per
> reaction event. One MeV is on the low side for a fusion gamma.
>
> If the COP were to be on the low end at 1.2 and the input energy is 1000
> watts – such that 200 watts is the excess, and the gammas are 1 MeV, then
> we should be seeing about 2,000,000,000,000,000 gamma rays per second. Of
> course the detector sees only a portion of the emission sphere, depending
> on how far away it is placed, and most detectors are not particularly
> efficient - which will reduces the shortfall … to about a trillion to one
> when only a few are seen as in the present experiment.
>
> I mention this only because Andrea Rossi is now using this report from
> MFMP to boost his own credibility – that is, as a “replication” of his
> Lugano result, which also showed almost no real gain.
>
> It looks like Tom Clark has pegged the Lugano gain at less than Bob’s
> estimate - just barely over one, was it 1.02 or so? which is noise level.
>
> In that respect, I guess you could say that Alan’s experiment is a not
> only a replication of Lugano - in fact it is a significant improvement.
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

Note that the E correlation found by Bob Higgs, 1/E^2, may be obtained by
the inverse Stirling approximation n(lnn)-n=n(ln(1 +(n- 1))-1)~ n(n - 2)
~n^2, since n~E, we have the fit 1/E^2


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

There is the occasional report of gammas and even neutrons in LENR, going back 
a long way - but the numbers are always far removed from having a direct 
correlation to heat. Here is a reality check on the issue of how far removed 
gamma radiation will be - as being any kind of validation for suspected excess 
heat.
Every watt of excess energy from a nuclear source will require about 10^13 
nuclear disintegrations per second if the energy release is 1 MeV per reaction 
event. One MeV is on the low side for a fusion gamma.
If the COP were to be on the low end at 1.2 and the input energy is 1000 watts 
– such that 200 watts is the excess, and the gammas are 1 MeV, then we should 
be seeing about 2,000,000,000,000,000 gamma rays per second. Of course the 
detector sees only a portion of the emission sphere, depending on how far away 
it is placed, and most detectors are not particularly efficient - which will 
reduces the shortfall … to about a trillion to one when only a few are seen as 
in the present experiment. 
I mention this only because Andrea Rossi is now using this report from MFMP to 
boost his own credibility – that is, as a “replication” of his Lugano result, 
which also showed almost no real gain. 
It looks like Tom Clark has pegged the Lugano gain at less than Bob’s estimate 
- just barely over one, was it 1.02 or so? which is noise level. 
In that respect, I guess you could say that Alan’s experiment is a not only a 
replication of Lugano - in fact it is a significant improvement.
Jones

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

He is in the PST zone … Predictive Standard Time

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote: Here is the blog…

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

 

Thanks.

 

I see he made that comment tomorrow at 2 a.m. That's prescient. And hard 
working!

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Here is the blog…
>
>
>
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2
>

Thanks.

I see he made that comment tomorrow at 2 a.m. That's prescient. And hard
working!

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

Alan Goldwater – the experimenter - just posted he is NOT claiming excess heat. 
. . .

Where is that discussion? Where did he post it?

 

 

Here is the blog…

 

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think you're onto something here, because Focardi once said that Rossi's
contribution was to introduce a "catalyst" (probably Tungsten) that split
H2 gas into H1 gas before being loaded into the reactor.  This started a
pre-LENR reaction of the H1 gas recombining into H2 gas inside the Nickel
substrate in an ENDOTHERMIC reaction.  It also, IIRC, generates a small x
ray.  It basically helped get the LENR process going.



Rossi turned the backwater NiH LENR effort that almost no one could
replicate into a high COP, high replicability field.  But almost no one
believed it.


The way I look at it is that the H1 recombination to H2 endothermic
reaction introduced a very temporary RELATIVE Bose-Einstein Condensate in a
small group of atoms inside the Nickel and generated a fusion event.
Recall my V1DLLBEC theory.   Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid
Bose-Einstein-Condensate theory. The V1DLLBEC theory.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- 
href=”mailto:l...@eskimo.com”>l...@eskimo.com
/msg89708.html


  So in a very small condensed matter space, you've got endothermic
chemistry, BEC, fusion, breakdown of fusion products into the substrate and
reactor sides including possibly fission, and heat.  Very complicated, very
hard to control, and such a mixed-body heat soup would give off confusing
readings.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Bob Higgins,
>>
>
> It could really be a black body radiation. Consider many cooling bodies.
> They will have different black body distributions at different times. So
> what you see is the sum of many black bodies at different times of a
> cooling process. It will be steep at large temperatures, since it will be a
> brief time, due fast cooling.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Alan Goldwater – the experimenter - just posted he is NOT claiming excess
> heat. . . .
>

Where is that discussion? Where did he post it?

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

It is worth noting that we cannot label this experiment as evidence of thermal 
gain.

 

Alan Goldwater – the experimenter - just posted he is NOT claiming excess heat. 
This is despite the fact that others seem to be trying to put words in his 
mouth.

 

AG: “During the testing, just after the highest observed temperature 
differential (~30 C), I measured the power needed for that amount of increase, 
and found it to be 70 watts. Based on the input power of 1150 watts, that 
represents 6.1%, well within the error bands of calorimetry. So I am not 
claiming any excess heat for this test.”

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

Bob Higgins,

do not forget that all these energies come from nuclear potentials which
are in sort of equilibrium, a chaotic one, with coulomb potential. this
strong inhibition is expected given that, in my view, lenr seem to be set
around the threshold of fusion and scattering. and a larger energy is
closer to scatter (a high energy gamma would push out a nucleon).

Though, I can see a 3- 4 magnitude fall in intensity in counting from the
peak. That does not mean it is hot in the usual sense. The usual black body
assume coupled oscillators. Here we have many uncoupled nucleus while the
black  body comes from an ensemble of oscillators on small spheres. Note
that in the paper, the number of states of oscillators is small, around
15000. That gives a peak for d+d+d+d 2x (42MeV/15000) of around 4,6 kev.
Larger oscillations are more unlikely. 1 Mev requires a deviation of around
360 from the peak. A gross approximation (inverse) gives stirling 1/(nln -
n)
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-(357.14285714285714285714285714286ln357.14285714285714285714285714286+-+357.14285714285714285714285714286)
= 1/1742.1913792146352900471960115636 . Which is about right.








-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Russ George]

This is very helpful… seeing that most of the ordinary efforts have been well 
attended to and the obvious bugs eliminated makes the signal more mysterious… 
that’s a good thing. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

Alan has a full set of gamma check sources.  Initial calibration was done with 
137Cs.  The energy scale drifted over time with heating from the reactor.  The 
background always showed the 78keV x-ray and 1461 40K background peaks.  I 
re-calibrated the energy scale on every file, resampled each to 1keV/bin, and 
insured that the resampled file was adjusted to have the same photometric 
counts.  Once that was done I could subtract my calibrated background. 

We have since run another calibration with the equipment still in place.  We 
setup to simultaneously capture spectra files with the NaI scintillator - 
spectrometer, and also with the GMC-320+ GM counter he had alongside the 
reactor.  He placed the check sources 1 by 1 on top of the reactor tube and 
captured the response to each.  These sources were used:  54Mn, 133Ba, 57Co, 
109Cd, and 137Cs.

There is the capability to capture the time series of counts out the back of 
the spectrometer, but Alan did not have anything to capture it.  We will get 
that setup for next time.  He also didn't know that the software had provision 
for automated successive integrations and captures.  Now I have told him, and 
that won't be manual and irregular next time.

The background was quite constant - the radon was either a minor factor or was 
essentially constant over the course of the integrations.  Finlay McNab wrote 
me and asked about possible cosmic ray shower.  It would be good to have 
another detector placed away from the reaction, but I think that was covered 
and here is what I told him about why I don't think it was a cosmic ray shower:

"The NaI detector was in a cave of lead bricks 3" thick.  At 500keV, only 1ppm 
of incident cosmic ray energy will penetrate.  By 1MeV, 0.2% will penetrate.  
So when high energy cosmic rays hit the lead cave, some will penetrate and when 
they interact with the lead, and the 78keV characteristic x-ray will be 
generated.  However, this will not go very far in the lead.  The very high 
energy cosmic rays that penetrate almost all the way through the lead and 
excite the 78keV x-ray near the inside surface will be picked up in the NaI 
detector - and we see this.  What we see is that this 78keV peak and the rest 
of the background stayed photometrically stable.  When we subtract the 
reference background from other traces with no signal, we just get zero mean 
noise.  If the cosmic rays had peaked, it would have peaked the 78keV signal 
and this would no longer have subtracted out.  We see a clean subtraction in 
our Spectrum-07 with no evidence of the 78keV peak, so it is reasonable to 
conclude that the cosmic rays did not have a sudden shower."

 

I don't think trying to measure the radon daughters is worthwhile.  They would 
have to be checked with a beta detector anyway, not with the NaI because there 
is little or no gamma from radon decay as I understand it.

Bob

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources performed 
with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a Coleman lantern 
mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful of Salt Substitute 
KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are easily within reach of 
the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make sure the instrument was 
performing as expected? 

 

How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned in 
many files and not a single lumped file. 

 

Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful. 

 

If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter collection 
will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the instrument. Quick and 
dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a vacuum cleaner hose, run 
the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up the dust in the room by 
sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter with the instrument. A 
longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is easily accomplished with a 
computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the paper coffee filter, run for a 
few days, examine filter for flea signature. 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

Alan has a full set of gamma check sources.  Initial calibration was done
with 137Cs.  The energy scale drifted over time with heating from the
reactor.  The background always showed the 78keV x-ray and 1461 40K
background peaks.  I re-calibrated the energy scale on every file,
resampled each to 1keV/bin, and insured that the resampled file was
adjusted to have the same photometric counts.  Once that was done I could
subtract my calibrated background.

We have since run another calibration with the equipment still in place.
We setup to simultaneously capture spectra files with the NaI scintillator
- spectrometer, and also with the GMC-320+ GM counter he had alongside the
reactor.  He placed the check sources 1 by 1 on top of the reactor tube and
captured the response to each.  These sources were used:  54Mn, 133Ba,
57Co, 109Cd, and 137Cs.

There is the capability to capture the time series of counts out the back
of the spectrometer, but Alan did not have anything to capture it.  We will
get that setup for next time.  He also didn't know that the software had
provision for automated successive integrations and captures.  Now I have
told him, and that won't be manual and irregular next time.

The background was quite constant - the radon was either a minor factor or
was essentially constant over the course of the integrations.  Finlay McNab
wrote me and asked about possible cosmic ray shower.  It would be good to
have another detector placed away from the reaction, but I think that was
covered and here is what I told him about why I don't think it was a cosmic
ray shower:

"The NaI detector was in a cave of lead bricks 3" thick.  At 500keV, only
1ppm of incident cosmic ray energy will penetrate.  By 1MeV, 0.2% will
penetrate.  So when high energy cosmic rays hit the lead cave, some will
penetrate and when they interact with the lead, and the 78keV
characteristic x-ray will be generated.  However, this will not go very far
in the lead.  The very high energy cosmic rays that penetrate almost all
the way through the lead and excite the 78keV x-ray near the inside surface
will be picked up in the NaI detector - and we see this.  What we see is
that this 78keV peak and the rest of the background stayed photometrically
stable.  When we subtract the reference background from other traces with
no signal, we just get zero mean noise.  If the cosmic rays had peaked, it
would have peaked the 78keV signal and this would no longer have subtracted
out.  We see a clean subtraction in our Spectrum-07 with no evidence of the
78keV peak, so it is reasonable to conclude that the cosmic rays did not
have a sudden shower."

I don't think trying to measure the radon daughters is worthwhile.  They
would have to be checked with a beta detector anyway, not with the NaI
because there is little or no gamma from radon decay as I understand it.

Bob

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources
> performed with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a
> Coleman lantern mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful
> of Salt Substitute KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are
> easily within reach of the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make
> sure the instrument was performing as expected?
>
>
>
> How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned
> in many files and not a single lumped file.
>
>
>
> Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful.
>
>
>
> If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter
> collection will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the
> instrument. Quick and dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a
> vacuum cleaner hose, run the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up
> the dust in the room by sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter
> with the instrument. A longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is
> easily accomplished with a computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the
> paper coffee filter, run for a few days, examine filter for flea signature.
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, exactly.  1.2 would be very close to the limits of the GlowStick, and Alan 
can fill you in on the exact values if you join the 
chat at:

http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video/

The description is here:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

- Mark Jurich


From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

Mark Jurich  wrote:


  We (Team MFMP) did not see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this 
crude calorimeter . . .

I am sorry to hear this is a crude calorimeter. Where is it described?

If it is quite crude, perhaps the heat of 1.2 times input is a mistake.

- Jed

[Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Jurich  wrote:

We (Team MFMP) did not see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this
> crude calorimeter . . .
>

I am sorry to hear this is a crude calorimeter. Where is it described?

If it is quite crude, perhaps the heat of 1.2 times input is a mistake.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Russ George]

Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources performed 
with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a Coleman lantern 
mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful of Salt Substitute 
KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are easily within reach of 
the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make sure the instrument was 
performing as expected? 

 

How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned in 
many files and not a single lumped file. 

 

Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful. 

 

If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter collection 
will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the instrument. Quick and 
dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a vacuum cleaner hose, run 
the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up the dust in the room by 
sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter with the instrument. A 
longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is easily accomplished with a 
computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the paper coffee filter, run for a 
few days, examine filter for flea signature. 

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

Yeah ... I don't thinks so.  Think about it.  At 100,000,000K, you get some 
small output at 100keV.  But, by the time you get to 1MeV, the blackbody 
radiation intensity is down by 40 orders of magnitude - I.E. by a factor of 
1E-40 . So what are you saying, that some parts of the reaction are at 1 
billion K and other parts are at 100 million K?  The temperatures are just 
absurd.  Can you check my calculations?

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Rocha  > wrote:

 

Bob Higgins,

 

It could really be a black body radiation. Consider many cooling bodies. They 
will have different black body distributions at different times. So what you 
see is the sum of many black bodies at different times of a cooling process. It 
will be steep at large temperatures, since it will be a brief time, due fast 
cooling.


-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com  

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

Yeah ... I don't thinks so.  Think about it.  At 100,000,000K, you get some
small output at 100keV.  But, by the time you get to 1MeV, the blackbody
radiation intensity is down by 40 orders of magnitude - I.E. by a factor of
1E-40 . So what are you saying, that some parts of the reaction are at 1
billion K and other parts are at 100 million K?  The temperatures are just
absurd.  Can you check my calculations?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

>
> Bob Higgins,
>>
>
> It could really be a black body radiation. Consider many cooling bodies.
> They will have different black body distributions at different times. So
> what you see is the sum of many black bodies at different times of a
> cooling process. It will be steep at large temperatures, since it will be a
> brief time, due fast cooling.
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

>
> Bob Higgins,
>

It could really be a black body radiation. Consider many cooling bodies.
They will have different black body distributions at different times. So
what you see is the sum of many black bodies at different times of a
cooling process. It will be steep at large temperatures, since it will be a
brief time, due fast cooling.



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

AFAIK, the Lugano team never publicly commented on the errors found in
their analyses.  Tom Clarke makes a good case for some portions of the
surface envelope to be at 780C.  If this were the whole story, the reactor
would have been seen as a barely detectable red glow.  MFMP found in its
replica that the roots of the ridges were 50C hotter than the tips of the
ridges.  But, even this doesn't explain the appearance.  Alumina is well
known to transmit a lot of light in the visible, and we see that in the
visible light pictures.  I think this is a case like the incandescent light
bulb, where you cannot use the 1 surface temperature to characterize
anything but the convection which was a small part of the overall output
power.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, H LV  wrote:

> If I remember correctly, the Lugano team did not provide any internal
> temperatures. They only reported the surface temperatures which were
> high enough that the reactor should have glowed white hot if it
> behaved like an incandescent body. However, as Jed pointed out, the
> pictures they provided were more consistent with an incandescent body
> at a lower surface lower temperature. Most people decided this was a
> consequence of their camera's settings. Did the Lugano team say this
> was reason?
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
> > I don't think that is the reason for the Lugano appearance.  The Lugano
> > reactor was like an incandescent light bulb and it was not analyzed that
> > way.  If you analyzed an incandescent light bulb, the appearance and its
> > radiated power would not be represented by the temperature of the glass
> > envelope.  Yes, the glass envelope temperature will be what you want to
> use
> > for the envelope convection power and envelope contribution to the
> radiation
> > power.  However, you must use the temperature of the filament and the
> > transmission response of the glass envelope to determine the radiated
> power.
> > At the Lugano temperatures, radiated power dominated and the
> transparency of
> > the alumina was unknown and not factored into the equation.
> >
> > Back to the light bulb, the glass envelope temperature may only be 80C,
> but
> > you would hardly ascribe its heat + light energy output or visual
> appearance
> > to be that of a blackbody radiator at 80C.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, H LV  wrote:
> >>
> >> An energy distribution whose peak becomes higher at lower temperatures
> >> might help to explain
> >> why the Lugano reactor's surface temperature appeared to be too high
> >> for how it looked visually.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

If I remember correctly, the Lugano team did not provide any internal
temperatures. They only reported the surface temperatures which were
high enough that the reactor should have glowed white hot if it
behaved like an incandescent body. However, as Jed pointed out, the
pictures they provided were more consistent with an incandescent body
at a lower surface lower temperature. Most people decided this was a
consequence of their camera's settings. Did the Lugano team say this
was reason?

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> I don't think that is the reason for the Lugano appearance.  The Lugano
> reactor was like an incandescent light bulb and it was not analyzed that
> way.  If you analyzed an incandescent light bulb, the appearance and its
> radiated power would not be represented by the temperature of the glass
> envelope.  Yes, the glass envelope temperature will be what you want to use
> for the envelope convection power and envelope contribution to the radiation
> power.  However, you must use the temperature of the filament and the
> transmission response of the glass envelope to determine the radiated power.
> At the Lugano temperatures, radiated power dominated and the transparency of
> the alumina was unknown and not factored into the equation.
>
> Back to the light bulb, the glass envelope temperature may only be 80C, but
> you would hardly ascribe its heat + light energy output or visual appearance
> to be that of a blackbody radiator at 80C.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> An energy distribution whose peak becomes higher at lower temperatures
>> might help to explain
>> why the Lugano reactor's surface temperature appeared to be too high
>> for how it looked visually.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:20 PM, H LV  wrote:
>> > How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
>> > http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm
>> >
>> > Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
>> > blackbody distribution.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> > wrote:
>> >> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
>> >> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and
>> >> can
>> >> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
>> >> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100
>> >> million
>> >> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got
>> >> to
>> >> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of
>> >> magnitude.
>> >> That is not what is seen here.
>> >>
>> >> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
>> >> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with
>> >> maximum
>> >> energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not
>> >> been a
>> >> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1)
>> >> Bremsstrahlung
>> >> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons]
>> >> with
>> >> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a
>> >> flux
>> >> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the
>> >> Na,
>> >> I, and Th in the detector crystal.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
>> >>>
>> >>> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
>> >>> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2
>> >>> nuclei.
>> >>> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is
>> >>> formed
>> >>> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something
>> >>> less than
>> >>> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will
>> >>> shine at a
>> >>> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
>> >>>
>> >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Why can't the peak be at 100eV or 10eV and many order of magnitude more
intense. There is not much in the shown signal
that indicates a peak in teh extreme spectra near the seen peak in the
background. I think it looks like a 1/X^n curve that continues
way below the cutof of the instrument. The seen peak in the extreme spectra
is way to strange to be a normal peak, clearly an artefact of the
filtering of the instrument. So, if this is not an artefact, what we are
seeing can very well be something that is rare and the bulk of the
show is perhaps a result of much lower energetic electrons if we assume
that the brehmstrahlung is from a distribution of electrons with different
speeds. This does however indicate unexplained high energy releases and is
a clear signal of nuclear origin as stated.

So, we don't have an indication of a radon peak that's just the cut off
effect.
The energy can be many orders of magnitude higher and can very well reach
significant levels, we don't now.
There is indication of nuclear origin
- Assuming no artefact and that this can be reproduced.

I'm not an expert in radon anomalies and anomalies in the spectra in
general, just that I would have expected the radon peak to be there much
more clearly
in order to buy that explanation.

Regards
Stefan












On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, H LV  wrote:

> How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
> http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm
>
> Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
> blackbody distribution.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
> > One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
> > spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
> > tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
> > radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
> > degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
> > 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of
> magnitude.
> > That is not what is seen here.
> >
> > It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
> > probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with
> maximum
> > energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not
> been a
> > chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
> > from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons]
> with
> > a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a
> flux
> > of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the
> Na,
> > I, and Th in the detector crystal.
> >
> > Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
> >>
> >> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
> >> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
> >> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is
> formed
> >> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less
> than
> >> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will shine
> at a
> >> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays.
> >>
> >> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
> >>
> >> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

I don't think that is the reason for the Lugano appearance.  The Lugano
reactor was like an incandescent light bulb and it was not analyzed that
way.  If you analyzed an incandescent light bulb, the appearance and its
radiated power would not be represented by the temperature of the glass
envelope.  Yes, the glass envelope temperature will be what you want to use
for the envelope convection power and envelope contribution to the
radiation power.  However, you must use the temperature of the filament and
the transmission response of the glass envelope to determine the radiated
power.  At the Lugano temperatures, radiated power dominated and the
transparency of the alumina was unknown and not factored into the equation.

Back to the light bulb, the glass envelope temperature may only be 80C, but
you would hardly ascribe its heat + light energy output or visual
appearance to be that of a blackbody radiator at 80C.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, H LV  wrote:

> An energy distribution whose peak becomes higher at lower temperatures
> might help to explain
> why the Lugano reactor's surface temperature appeared to be too high
> for how it looked visually.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:20 PM, H LV  wrote:
> > How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
> > http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm
> >
> > Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
> > blackbody distribution.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
> >> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
> >> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
> >> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
> >> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
> >> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
> >> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of
> magnitude.
> >> That is not what is seen here.
> >>
> >> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
> >> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with
> maximum
> >> energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not
> been a
> >> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
> >> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons]
> with
> >> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a
> flux
> >> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the
> Na,
> >> I, and Th in the detector crystal.
> >>
> >> Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
> >>>
> >>> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
> >>> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
> >>> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is
> formed
> >>> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something
> less than
> >>> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will
> shine at a
> >>> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays.
> >>>
> >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
> >>>
> >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

An energy distribution whose peak becomes higher at lower temperatures
might help to explain
why the Lugano reactor's surface temperature appeared to be too high
for how it looked visually.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:20 PM, H LV  wrote:
> How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
> http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm
>
> Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
> blackbody distribution.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins  
> wrote:
>> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
>> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
>> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
>> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
>> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
>> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of magnitude.
>> That is not what is seen here.
>>
>> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
>> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum
>> energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a
>> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
>> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with
>> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux
>> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na,
>> I, and Th in the detector crystal.
>>
>> Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
>>>
>>> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
>>> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
>>> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed
>>> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less than
>>> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will shine at a
>>> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays.
>>>
>>> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
>>>
>>> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

This is akin to ascribing a temperature to an electron ensemble having a
certain distribution of kinetic energy.  It is valid to consider it that
way, but it is still the electron energy distribution that is determining
the "characteristic temperature".  May turn out to have some meaning if
looked at that way.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:20 PM, H LV  wrote:

> How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
> http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm
>
> Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
> blackbody distribution.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution?
http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm

Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a
blackbody distribution.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of magnitude.
> That is not what is seen here.
>
> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum
> energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a
> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with
> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux
> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na,
> I, and Th in the detector crystal.
>
> Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>>
>> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
>>
>> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
>> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
>> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed
>> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less than
>> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will shine at a
>> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays.
>>
>> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
>>
>> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

The one and only thing that has kept this from looking like a complete fiasco 
and amateur-hour is Greenyer’s cryptic message about the 5 hour self-sustaining 
event.

Now you are saying that there is no 5 hour event?

The so-called gamma signal is a joke. There is little there but noise.

This has been an incredibly disappointing non-event. My only hope is that 
Greenyer has something else to announce, because as of now this is a complete 
embarrassment to MFMP.

From: Bob Higgins 

I am not sure where the idea of "5-hour self-sustaining event" came from.  I 
never said it.  I only discussed the radiation outburst.  Did you read what I 
wrote?  That was just a web article.  There is still more analysis to come.
You have no case for the radiation event being small or due to radon variation.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
From: Bob Higgins 
 
* 
*  Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff of 
radon gas?  
 
Bob, Santa Cruz CA is a radon hot spot. We are not talking about a “puff” we 
are talking about natural emission of Radon from earth, which is variable 
throughout the day.
 
*  There were longer background measurements that were entirely constant in 
photometric reduction.  The indications of radon come primarily from the 
characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust being 
deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite predictable 
across the entire multiple-day data set. 
And also consistent with terrestrial radon emission. I live in this area, and I 
can tell you that many days you can measure a strong signal from the exhaust of 
a natural gas water heater and other days it will be gone. 78 keV is a classic 
radon signature.
 
*  Most of the radon transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not gamma, and I 
don't think there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can be explained this 
way.
 
The gamma counts are extraordinarily low. There are trillions of times lower 
than what one would see from a self-sustaining reaction.
 
Which brings up the main point WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FIVE HOUR 
SELF-SUSTAINING EVENT ?
 
Jones

[Vo]:Discussion with the CEO of LENR CITIES

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-24-2016-lenr-cities-european-leader.html

please try to discover Vanderberghe's Law for LENR energy density, similar
to Moore's Law in IT.. and man y other things...industry is preparing for
the LENR Era.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

The plot looks like the Landau distribution for ionizing particles

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I am not sure where the idea of "5-hour self-sustaining event" came from.
> I never said it.  I only discussed the radiation outburst.  Did you read
> what I wrote?  That was just a web article.  There is still more analysis
> to come.
>
> You have no case for the radiation event being small or due to radon
> variation.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø  Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff
>> of radon gas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob, Santa Cruz CA is a radon hot spot. We are not talking about a “puff”
>> we are talking about natural emission of Radon from earth, which is
>> variable throughout the day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  There were longer background measurements that were entirely constant
>> in photometric reduction.  The indications of radon come primarily from the
>> characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust being
>> deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite predictable
>> across the entire multiple-day data set.
>>
>> And also consistent with terrestrial radon emission. I live in this area,
>> and I can tell you that many days you can measure a strong signal from the
>> exhaust of a natural gas water heater and other days it will be gone. 78
>> keV is a classic radon signature.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  Most of the radon transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not
>> gamma, and I don't think there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can
>> be explained this way.
>>
>>
>>
>> The gamma counts are extraordinarily low. There are trillions of times
>> lower than what one would see from a self-sustaining reaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which brings up the main point WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FIVE HOUR
>> SELF-SUSTAINING EVENT ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Folks, it is true that Bob G might have overhyped this, but you have to realize 
the number of years he has devoted to this and the 
knowledge he has acquired over those years.  I do not blame him for doing it.

Yes, the Spectrum Result has to be verified/replicated.  We (Team MFMP) did not 
see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this 
crude calorimeter, but what we may have seen is an indication of how the 
process gets started.  It is now up to the Open Science 
Community to build upon this result (MFMP included) and verify/replicate, and 
ultimately obtain large amounts of excess heat.

This could be just some mistake.  As an experimenter, that’s what you 
understand.  And you try to prove it wrong.  Tirelessly.

Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, 
Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to 
confirm.  It’s only one instrument, we need another to confirm.  Temporary High 
Voltage Short??? ... Radon Gas Burst??? ... Cosmic 
Ray Anomaly??? ... ???

Is it something to get excited about? ... Sure ... Will we be hugely 
disappointed if it doesn’t pan out?  Not really.  Disappointed, 
yes.

We must get the word out and see who can reproduce it in short order (with any 
help they need)...

... Open Science is an Open Book.  We are just beginning to turn the pages.

- Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

[Frank Znidarsic]

I just raised the price to $15.   



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: rvargo1062 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 1:17 pm
Subject: Fwd: Interesting marketing game






-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 1:15 pm
Subject: Fwd: Interesting marketing game


I noticed this when I was trying to provide a link to my books and apps.


If you search amazon for "Znidarsic Science Books"  only the higher priced 
versions of the my book come up. Where is my $10 version.   Apparently the 
secondary vendors do a lot a business and pay for premium advertising.   Maybe 
I need to raise the price!






-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 12:24 pm
Subject: Fwd: Interesting marketing game


The secondary vendor does not even have to touch the product.  Just take the 
order for you @ $50, order the product at $10, and have it shipped to your 
address.  What it you did this for 10,000 products?
I learn something new each day.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 12:08 pm
Subject: Interesting marketing game



My Cold Fusion book sells for $10 at Amazon.   Why then is if for sale at $50.  
It appears that someone picks products up and resells them at a much higher 
cost.  Let the buyer beware.  I wonder how prevalent this is.






http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-2012-11-24/dp/B019NRR9HW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8=145690=8-8=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

I would have to investigate this further, but this distribution as an E^2
in the denominator and the measured spectrum is approx. 1/E^2 .

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> Bob Higgins, what about a
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Breit%E2%80%93Wigner_distribution
> ?
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

I am not sure where the idea of "5-hour self-sustaining event" came from.
I never said it.  I only discussed the radiation outburst.  Did you read
what I wrote?  That was just a web article.  There is still more analysis
to come.

You have no case for the radiation event being small or due to radon
variation.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff
> of radon gas?
>
>
>
> Bob, Santa Cruz CA is a radon hot spot. We are not talking about a “puff”
> we are talking about natural emission of Radon from earth, which is
> variable throughout the day.
>
>
>
> Ø  There were longer background measurements that were entirely constant
> in photometric reduction.  The indications of radon come primarily from the
> characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust being
> deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite predictable
> across the entire multiple-day data set.
>
> And also consistent with terrestrial radon emission. I live in this area,
> and I can tell you that many days you can measure a strong signal from the
> exhaust of a natural gas water heater and other days it will be gone. 78
> keV is a classic radon signature.
>
>
>
> Ø  Most of the radon transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not gamma,
> and I don't think there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can be
> explained this way.
>
>
>
> The gamma counts are extraordinarily low. There are trillions of times
> lower than what one would see from a self-sustaining reaction.
>
>
>
> Which brings up the main point WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FIVE HOUR
> SELF-SUSTAINING EVENT ?
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[a.ashfield]

Apart from the interesting physics that will give the theoreticians 
something to chew on, It seems important that the significance of what 
Rossi said earlier, that the heat comes from the lead absorbing the 
gamma rays, is now appreciated.

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

[Frank Znidarsic]

I noticed this when I was trying to provide a link to my books and apps.


If you search amazon for "Znidarsic Science Books"  only the higher priced 
versions of the my book come up. Where is my $10 version.   Apparently the 
secondary vendors do a lot a business and pay for premium advertising.   Maybe 
I need to raise the price!






-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 12:24 pm
Subject: Fwd: Interesting marketing game


The secondary vendor does not even have to touch the product.  Just take the 
order for you @ $50, order the product at $10, and have it shipped to your 
address.  What it you did this for 10,000 products?
I learn something new each day.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 12:08 pm
Subject: Interesting marketing game



My Cold Fusion book sells for $10 at Amazon.   Why then is if for sale at $50.  
It appears that someone picks products up and resells them at a much higher 
cost.  Let the buyer beware.  I wonder how prevalent this is.






http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-2012-11-24/dp/B019NRR9HW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8=145690=8-8=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

At the paper, we didn't have any experimental data to analyze and these
nuclei are very hard to analyze, even a single proton is hard. With
multiple bodies, the difficult is outstanding. So, the idea was to have
something spread and with a peak, such that it could explain why detecting
any radiation would be so difficult. We gave a qualitative explanations for
some of the phenomena observed.

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

Bob Higgins, what about a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Breit%E2%80%93Wigner_distribution
?

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

The high energies seen might require the production of D-mesons. A timeline
based decay chain map as holmlid has done would tell what subatomic
particles are being produced and how they decay to lower energies.

The nuclear process involved might be the decay of the proton and neutron
in the nucleus.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> I vote for option #2 being the source of this signal, the ‘neutral’
> particles being crazy neutrons, ‘mischugenons’ as described Edward Teller
> in earlier closely related cold fusion work. Some few of us have been able
> to produce these critters. It’s good news if this particular recipe works
> and is rapidly repeated. Some obvious steps will define the nature of the
> emission.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:45 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
>
>
>
> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of
> magnitude.  That is not what is seen here.
>
>
>
> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum
> energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a
> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with
> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux
> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na,
> I, and Th in the detector crystal.
>
>
>
> Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
>
> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed
> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less
> than 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will
> shine at a few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama
> rays.
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Ø 

Ø  Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff of 
radon gas?  

 

Bob, Santa Cruz CA is a radon hot spot. We are not talking about a “puff” we 
are talking about natural emission of Radon from earth, which is variable 
throughout the day.

 

Ø  There were longer background measurements that were entirely constant in 
photometric reduction.  The indications of radon come primarily from the 
characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust being 
deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite predictable 
across the entire multiple-day data set. 

And also consistent with terrestrial radon emission. I live in this area, and I 
can tell you that many days you can measure a strong signal from the exhaust of 
a natural gas water heater and other days it will be gone. 78 keV is a classic 
radon signature.

 

Ø  Most of the radon transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not gamma, and I 
don't think there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can be explained this 
way.

 

The gamma counts are extraordinarily low. There are trillions of times lower 
than what one would see from a self-sustaining reaction.

 

Which brings up the main point WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FIVE HOUR 
SELF-SUSTAINING EVENT ?

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Russ George]

I vote for option #2 being the source of this signal, the ‘neutral’ particles 
being crazy neutrons, ‘mischugenons’ as described Edward Teller in earlier 
closely related cold fusion work. Some few of us have been able to produce 
these critters. It’s good news if this particular recipe works and is rapidly 
repeated. Some obvious steps will define the nature of the emission.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the spectrum 
looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can tell you that 
it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody radiation cuts off very 
sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million degrees, there would be some 
energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would 
have declined by 40 orders of magnitude.  That is not what is seen here.

 

It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it probably 
spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum energies 
over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a chance for 
widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung from really high 
energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with a distribution of 
energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux of neutral particles 
causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na, I, and Th in the 
detector crystal.

 

Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha  > wrote:

The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...

Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you have, 
unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei. There are not 
experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed by B8, which is 
stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less than 10^-23s in 
coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will shine at a few kev. 
There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays. 

http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the
spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can
tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody
radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million
degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to
1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of
magnitude.  That is not what is seen here.

It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it
probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum
energies over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a
chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung
from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with
a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux
of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na,
I, and Th in the detector crystal.

Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...
>
> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed
> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less
> than 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will
> shine at a few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama
> rays.
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Craig Haynie]

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 06:43 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:

> What am I missing?
> 

Gamma Rays!

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Robert Dorr]

If the burst was from Rn-222 then I would expect various Radon daughters 
to show up on the gamma spectrum. Rn-222 is an alpha emitter.


Bob
WA7ZQR


On 2/24/2016 9:03 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:* Daniel Rocha

In figure 7 (compare with figure 6),  it seems that the signal is 
above the background, in the region of 10-50kev by up to 100. So, that 
like >10 sigma. There is definitely something there.


There is of course “something” there. But not necessarily LENR.

The signal is entirely consistent with the increased Radon levels of 
this particular area. Read the fourth paragraph here about Santa Cruz 
– triple the national average:


http://patch.com/california/cupertino/santa-clara-countys-cancerous-radon-level-b948f150

Jones

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4537/11689 - Release Date: 02/24/16

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

Besides electrons, the production of kaons whose substantial energy content
would be available to produce gamma radiation in the MeV range is a
candidate for the radiation profile observed..

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> For many years, I have been saying that excess heat is a poor test for
> LENR - a poor and insensitive indicator of LENR.  What has been seen in
> this experiment (GS5.2), is a clear indication of LENR via a radiation
> signature.  This was a high signal-to-noise spectrum and getting such a
> spectrum from a LENR process is exceedingly rare and of unique value to
> LENR science.
>
> The spectrum has every indication of being Bremsstrahlung ("braking")
> radiation that occurs when a light particle is stopped very quicky by a
> heavy atom.  The lighter the light particle and the heavier the heavy atom,
> the greater the Bremsstrahlung amplitude.  The lightest particle would be
> the electron, and the heavy atoms could be Ni, Fe, Cr, Mo from the fuel and
> the SS capsule containing the fuel.  BUT, the Bremsstrahlung spectrum has a
> sharp cutoff at the initial energy of the electron.  The fact that this
> spectrum shows energy out to beyond 1MeV means that you must have MeV+
> electron energies inside!  This is a big deal.  What LENR theories
> presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, there appears to be
> energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.  MeV protons will not
> create this spectrum (too heavy and low speed).
>
> MeV+ energies for single entities (as are indicated here) are really only
> available from a nuclear process.  There is no stretch of Mills or DDL
> theories (supra-chemical) that can account for >509keV photons/particles.
> There is presently no description in a hydroton theory for MeV+ electron
> emission.  It could fit in with Piantelli's theory with modification.  It
> could fit in with Hagelstein's and Karabut's photon energy multiplication
> (but it would be extreme).
>
> There are some skeptics that still believe that Ni-H LENR may not exist -
> even if they believe in Pd-D LENR.  This is unmistakable proof that Ni-H
> LENR is happening.
>
> Is this the holy grail experiment, ready to put in your hot water heater?
> No.  But, with further corroboration and analysis, this will provide a
> sensitive means to indicate the onset of LENR in a class of Ni-H
> experiments and will become an important probe into the science behind the
> curtain.  It will lead to replication and then to engineering.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per
>> minute or per second.
>>
>> We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or
>> so. This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive).
>>
>> You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours
>> of SSM - being produced by nuclear fusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: H LV
>>
>> from
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
>> Bob Higgins writes:
>> "There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband
>> high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and
>> physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the present theories
>> for LENR!"
>>
>> He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on
>> the left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>> > Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe
>> > to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry
>> > labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can
>> > prove to their management this is real.
>> >
>> > Fran
>> >
>> > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
>> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> > Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Where is the big surprise?
>> >
>> > I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from
>> > MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of
>> > modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few
>> > hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if
>> > the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level.
>> > Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
>> >
>> > What am I missing?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

Adding to my post. So, it is like a sort of blackbody for something like a
"nano neutron star".

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

Where is your analysis that this spectrum could have come from a puff of
radon gas?  There were longer background measurements that were entirely
constant in photometric reduction.  The indications of radon come primarily
from the characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV (due to lead and bismuth dust
being deposited on the scintillator from radon decay) which was quite
predictable across the entire multiple-day data set.  Most of the radon
transitions are alpha and beta emissions, not gamma, and I don't think
there is a chance that the broadband spectrum can be explained this way.

Attributing this to radon seems an ill considered remark.  Show me the
spectrum that even a massive outburst of radon would have provided in the
scintillator spectrum.  There are papers about detecting radon with gamma
spectrometers, and you will find it is not an easy proposition.

There was high energy outburst detected, with nuclear range energy
photons.  It was detected in sufficient quantity so as to be implausible as
an environmental variation.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Daniel Rocha
>
>
>
> In figure 7 (compare with figure 6),  it seems that the signal is above
> the background, in the region of 10-50kev by up to 100. So, that like >10
> sigma. There is definitely something there.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is of course “something” there. But not necessarily LENR.
>
>
>
> The signal is entirely consistent with the increased Radon levels of this
> particular area. Read the fourth paragraph here about Santa Cruz – triple
> the national average:
>
>
>
>
> http://patch.com/california/cupertino/santa-clara-countys-cancerous-radon-level-b948f150
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...

Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you
have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei.
There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed
by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less
than 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will
shine at a few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama
rays.

http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

[Frank Znidarsic]

The secondary vendor does not even have to touch the product.  Just take the 
order for you @ $50, order the product at $10, and have it shipped to your 
address.  What it you did this for 10,000 products?
I learn something new each day.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 12:08 pm
Subject: Interesting marketing game



My Cold Fusion book sells for $10 at Amazon.   Why then is if for sale at $50.  
It appears that someone picks products up and resells then at a much higher 
cost.  Let the buyer beware.  I wonder how prevalent this is.






http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-2012-11-24/dp/B019NRR9HW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8=145690=8-8=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




Frank Z

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe 

*   But the main frequency is invisible we only see the tail here what the 
peak is in the invisible range of this instrument. We simply don't know the 
magnitude of the radiation energy. But I agree that it is way to early to call 
this a success. It is an interesting lead and it should be repeated.

The signal is consistent with the increased Radon levels of this particular 
area. Santa Cruz has triple the Radon as the national average. So why didn’t 
the Radon signal show up in the background?

Dunno – but Radon release from the earth is triggered by many factors including 
temperature. If you measured the background at night but the “event” happened 
in the afternoon – you could account for all of the anomaly by Radon. In fact, 
the first peak is exactly where you expect to see Radon.

[Vo]:Interesting marketing game

[Frank Znidarsic]

My Cold Fusion book sells for $10 at Amazon.   Why then is if for sale at $50.  
It appears that someone picks products up and resells then at a much higher 
cost.  Let the buyer beware.  I wonder how prevalent this is.






http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-2012-11-24/dp/B019NRR9HW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8=145690=8-8=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




Frank Z

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

From: Daniel Rocha 

 

In figure 7 (compare with figure 6),  it seems that the signal is above the 
background, in the region of 10-50kev by up to 100. So, that like >10 sigma. 
There is definitely something there. 

 

 

There is of course “something” there. But not necessarily LENR.

 

The signal is entirely consistent with the increased Radon levels of this 
particular area. Read the fourth paragraph here about Santa Cruz – triple the 
national average:

 

http://patch.com/california/cupertino/santa-clara-countys-cancerous-radon-level-b948f150

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

For many years, I have been saying that excess heat is a poor test for LENR
- a poor and insensitive indicator of LENR.  What has been seen in this
experiment (GS5.2), is a clear indication of LENR via a radiation
signature.  This was a high signal-to-noise spectrum and getting such a
spectrum from a LENR process is exceedingly rare and of unique value to
LENR science.

The spectrum has every indication of being Bremsstrahlung ("braking")
radiation that occurs when a light particle is stopped very quicky by a
heavy atom.  The lighter the light particle and the heavier the heavy atom,
the greater the Bremsstrahlung amplitude.  The lightest particle would be
the electron, and the heavy atoms could be Ni, Fe, Cr, Mo from the fuel and
the SS capsule containing the fuel.  BUT, the Bremsstrahlung spectrum has a
sharp cutoff at the initial energy of the electron.  The fact that this
spectrum shows energy out to beyond 1MeV means that you must have MeV+
electron energies inside!  This is a big deal.  What LENR theories
presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, there appears to be
energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.  MeV protons will not
create this spectrum (too heavy and low speed).

MeV+ energies for single entities (as are indicated here) are really only
available from a nuclear process.  There is no stretch of Mills or DDL
theories (supra-chemical) that can account for >509keV photons/particles.
There is presently no description in a hydroton theory for MeV+ electron
emission.  It could fit in with Piantelli's theory with modification.  It
could fit in with Hagelstein's and Karabut's photon energy multiplication
(but it would be extreme).

There are some skeptics that still believe that Ni-H LENR may not exist -
even if they believe in Pd-D LENR.  This is unmistakable proof that Ni-H
LENR is happening.

Is this the holy grail experiment, ready to put in your hot water heater?
No.  But, with further corroboration and analysis, this will provide a
sensitive means to indicate the onset of LENR in a class of Ni-H
experiments and will become an important probe into the science behind the
curtain.  It will lead to replication and then to engineering.

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per
> minute or per second.
>
> We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or
> so. This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive).
>
> You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours
> of SSM - being produced by nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> from
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
> Bob Higgins writes:
> "There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband
> high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and
> physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the present theories
> for LENR!"
>
> He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on
> the left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
> > Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe
> > to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry
> > labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can
> > prove to their management this is real.
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is the big surprise?
> >
> > I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from
> > MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of
> > modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few
> > hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if
> > the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level.
> > Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
>

[Vo]:MFMP"S BIG DAY, RECIPE FOR EXCESS HEAT

[Peter Gluck]

It is a good start- good news will breed GREAT news
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-24-2016-lenr-mfmps-demonstrable.html
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Robert Dorr]

I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that they have repeated 
this several times and there is more information to be released today.


Bob
WA7ZQR

On 2/24/2016 6:43 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


Where is the big surprise?

I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from 
MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of 
modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few 
hundred per second -- when we need to seeing a million times more - if 
the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. 
Yawn. Let's hope there is much more forthcoming than this.


What am I missing?

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4537/11688 - Release Date: 02/24/16

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

But the main frequency is invisible we only see the tail here what the peak
is in the invisible range of this instrument.
We simply don't know the magnitude of the radiation energy. But I agree
that it is way to early to call this a success.
It is an interesting lead and it should be repeated.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per
> minute or per second.
>
> We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or
> so. This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive).
>
> You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours
> of SSM - being produced by nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> from
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
> Bob Higgins writes:
> "There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband
> high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and
> physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the present theories
> for LENR!"
>
> He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on
> the left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
> > Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe
> > to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry
> > labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can
> > prove to their management this is real.
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is the big surprise?
> >
> > I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from
> > MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of
> > modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few
> > hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if
> > the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level.
> > Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Instead, we get graphs of modest gain at the noise level and radiation
> counts peaking in the few hundred per second – when we need to seeing a
> million times more . . .
>
Cold fusion never does that. If it were a million times more, it would be
plasma fusion.

You cannot expect results that this phenomenon does not produce, even
though those results would be an "easy sell" to the mainstream physics
community. That is like hoping for a weight reduction pill that cuts your
weight by 100 lbs in an hour. It would be an "easy sell" to obese patients
but nature does not work that way.

Granted, Celani once measured a burst of radiation from one of Rossi's
cells, but it only lasted a fraction of a second.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

In figure 7 (compare with figure 6),  it seems that the signal is above the
background, in the region of 10-50kev by up to 100. So, that like >10
sigma. There is definitely something there.

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, if weren't slightly above background, it wouldn't be cold fusion,
right?

2016-02-24 12:47 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene :

> Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per
> minute or per second.
>
> We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or
> so. This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive).
>
> You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours
> of SSM - being produced by nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> from
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
> Bob Higgins writes:
> "There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband
> high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and
> physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the present theories
> for LENR!"
>
> He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on
> the left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
> > Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe
> > to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry
> > labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can
> > prove to their management this is real.
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is the big surprise?
> >
> > I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from
> > MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of
> > modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few
> > hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if
> > the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level.
> > Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

>From a nuclear science perspective the spectrum is something to get
excited about.
If a famous laboratory produced this spectrum I think it would be in the news.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per minute 
> or per second.
>
> We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or so. 
> This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive).
>
> You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours of 
> SSM - being produced by nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> from
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
> Bob Higgins writes:
> "There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband 
> high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and 
> physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the present theories for 
> LENR!"
>
> He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on the 
> left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
>  wrote:
>> Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe
>> to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry
>> labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can
>> prove to their management this is real.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is the big surprise?
>>
>> I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from
>> MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of
>> modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few
>> hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if
>> the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level.
>> Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

Well - OK... there is a tiny signal - but let's look at the counts per minute 
or per second. 

We are talking about 20 per second or so instead of a background of 4 or so. 
This is really "banana level" (bananas are slightly radioactive). 

You would need to see trillions of times this level if there was 5 hours of SSM 
- being produced by nuclear fusion.



-Original Message-
From: H LV 

from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
Bob Higgins writes:
"There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose broadband high 
energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known chemistry and physics, but 
may also not be explainable by many of the present theories for LENR!"

He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise on the 
left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity limit.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X  
wrote:
> Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe 
> to repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry 
> labs and their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can 
> prove to their management this is real.
>
> Fran
>
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
>
>
>
> Where is the big surprise?
>
> I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from 
> MFMP of a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of 
> modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few 
> hundred per second – when we need to seeing a million times more - if 
> the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. 
> Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more forthcoming than this.
>
> What am I missing?

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAcb975m_AXMFz25zcl07kllERqVjSbZsWv_P1A3xQc/edit?pref=2=1
Bob Higgins writes:
"There was a significant gamma outburst measured in GS5.2 whose
broadband high energy spectrum is not only unexplainable by known
chemistry and physics, but may also not be explainable by many of the
present theories for LENR!"

He also says the the spectrum on figure 6 probably continues to rise
on the left side but it drops off due to the detector's sensitivity
limit.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Roarty, Francis X
 wrote:
> Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe to
> repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry labs and
> their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can prove to their
> management this is real.
>
> Fran
>
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?
>
>
>
> Where is the big surprise?
>
> I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of
> a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of modest gain at
> the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few hundred per second –
> when we need to seeing a million times more - if the radiation does indeed
> relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more
> forthcoming than this.
>
> What am I missing?

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Frank Znidarsic]

I hope so.  Cold Fusion have proven to be inaccessible to the experimenter.  
That's why I stopped writing books, doing experiments,  and started programming 
apps.


I have a nice video on my latest app.


http://www.amazon.com/Znidarsic-Science-Books-Monitoring-Full/dp/B01BPKMIMQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=1456326034=8-1=znidarsic+science+books




I am working with Ronald Anderson of Black Sheep Technology in Denver Co.  on 
the development of a circuit board for my next app.  It is fun to really get 
something done.


Frank Znidarsic


PS My Cold Fusion Book just sits there selling only 6 a month.  

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Yes a little underwhelming but if they truly have a hands down recipe to 
repeatable anomalous heat it will probably get a number of industry labs and 
their funding off the fence wrt LENR. Now researchers can prove to their 
management this is real.
Fran
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?


Where is the big surprise?

I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of a 5 
hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of modest gain at the 
noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few hundred per second - when 
we need to seeing a million times more - if the radiation does indeed relate to 
excess heat at kilowatt level. Yawn. Let's hope there is much more forthcoming 
than this.

What am I missing?

[Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

Where is the big surprise?

I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of
a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get graphs of modest gain at
the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the few hundred per second -
when we need to seeing a million times more - if the radiation does indeed
relate to excess heat at kilowatt level. Yawn. Let's hope there is much more
forthcoming than this.

What am I missing?