Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Do you have a reference to this statement
> ;
> " created by minute flakes of cathode material "
>

Myself.  (It was just speculation.)


> The exotic particle that was assumed by this investigator was the
> poly-neutron
>

I know. My hunch is that polyneutrons are unphysical.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Axil Axil]

The material that escaped from the reactor was LENR active. A rubber O-ring
that absorbed this LENR active material shows LENR reactions when placed on
the CR-39.

Do you have a reference to this statement
;
" created by minute flakes of cathode material "

The exotic particle that was assumed by this investigator was the
poly-neutron

.http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fisher-CF-LANR-MIT.pdf

Figure 3 shows a common center of LENR activity from which alpha particle
are produced.



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
> Clearly they have been observed in Fisher/Orianni work and produced large
>> showers of radiation.
>
>
> An interpretation of the Oriani work that does not involve exotic
> particles is that the pits in the CR-39 chips were created by minute flakes
> of cathode material that had detached from the cathode, mixed with the
> electrolyte and escaped from the top of the cell, following the movement of
> air.  The particulate material floated above and fell upon the CR-39 chips,
> during which time temporarily induced alpha activity resulted in bursts of
> alpha particles that were integrated by the CR-39.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Clearly they have been observed in Fisher/Orianni work and produced large
> showers of radiation.


An interpretation of the Oriani work that does not involve exotic particles
is that the pits in the CR-39 chips were created by minute flakes of
cathode material that had detached from the cathode, mixed with the
electrolyte and escaped from the top of the cell, following the movement of
air.  The particulate material floated above and fell upon the CR-39 chips,
during which time temporarily induced alpha activity resulted in bursts of
alpha particles that were integrated by the CR-39.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

From: Mark Jurich 

*   If another scintillator is secured, it is quite possible to run it 
without immediate lead surrounding it, but it will be close to the Lead Cave, 
I’m afraid (within a couple feet away, tops).  

Mark - Being close with an unshielded unit will convey far more relevant 
information than a single unit, and I hope another is secured. Can they be 
positioned on opposite sides of the reactor?

Otherwise, with only one scintillator in a Lead Cave, it is going to be really 
hard to make valid scientific case for (the very low counts expected) as being 
anything more than an artifact.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Here’s a question of those whose imaginations include exotic particles.. what 
might be the characteristics of polyneutrons? Would they have the same 
half-life as a single neutron or ??? Clearly they have been observed in 
Fisher/Orianni work and produced large showers of radiation. They also travel 
ample distances to reach the detector. 

 

From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

The Lead Cave must be nearby (with the scintillator in it) to replicate.  If 
another scintillator is secured, it is quite possible to run it without 
immediate lead surrounding it, but it will be close to the Lead Cave, I’m 
afraid (within a couple feet away, tops).  Actually, we do not have enough Lead 
to house two scintillators anyway, at the moment, but I am digressing...

 

Although a run could be done with the lead and a run could be done without the 
lead, this would require another experiment and a huge delay in confirmation 
unless Alan were to duplicate parts ahead of time...

 

Also keep in mind that when it happens, we cannot be near it moving things 
until we assess it’s safe to do so.  We can automate a few things and we will.

 

It is our understanding that if this is NOT an artifact, that we only have one 
chance to see it during an experiment, unless we master controlling it.

 

Last time, we set a mouse trap and caught a mouse ... This time, we are hoping 
to watch as the mouse gets caught, with everything we can throw at it.

 

Right now it’s Mouse 4, MFMP 1 (this is GS 5 Series) ... It’s the Bottom of the 
Sixth Inning and we are about to take our bat.  We’re not out of this yet!

 

- Mark Jurich

 

From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>  

Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:19 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>  

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

From: Eric Walker 

*  To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have 
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in or 
near the experiment.  

Eric,

Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free neutrons 
have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone in 15. The usual beta 
electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look like a gamma. And there 
is no evidence of an accelerated decay in a well-investigate field.

However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This 
gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” but is soft. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung

If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and then 
with shielding, and compare the two - then many of these issues can be 
resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, then cosmic rays can 
be blamed. However, my prediction is that no shielding will show fewer, not 
more gammas. That is especially true if the reaction itself is making muons 
(the Holmlid effect). 

IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is to 
see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a 
variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave is moved back from the 
reactor. Lastly, the peaks can be matched with the temperature differential.

If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in the 
last test – then it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is correct.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiationThe Lead Cave must be nearby (with the 
scintillator in it) to replicate.  If another scintillator 
is secured, it is quite possible to run it without immediate lead surrounding 
it, but it will be close to the Lead Cave, I’m afraid 
(within a couple feet away, tops).  Actually, we do not have enough Lead to 
house two scintillators anyway, at the moment, but I am 
digressing...

Although a run could be done with the lead and a run could be done without the 
lead, this would require another experiment and a 
huge delay in confirmation unless Alan were to duplicate parts ahead of time...

Also keep in mind that when it happens, we cannot be near it moving things 
until we assess it’s safe to do so.  We can automate a 
few things and we will.

It is our understanding that if this is NOT an artifact, that we only have one 
chance to see it during an experiment, unless we 
master controlling it.

Last time, we set a mouse trap and caught a mouse ... This time, we are hoping 
to watch as the mouse gets caught, with everything we 
can throw at it.

Right now it’s Mouse 4, MFMP 1 (this is GS 5 Series) ... It’s the Bottom of the 
Sixth Inning and we are about to take our bat.  We’re 
not out of this yet!

- Mark Jurich

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

From: Eric Walker


Ø  To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have 
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they 
activated something in or near the experiment.

Eric,


Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free neutrons 
have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone 
in 15. The usual beta electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look 
like a gamma. And there is no evidence of an 
accelerated decay in a well-investigate field.

However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This 
gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” 
but is soft. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung


If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and then 
with shielding, and compare the two - then many of 
these issues can be resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, 
then cosmic rays can be blamed. However, my 
prediction is that no shielding will show fewer, not more gammas. That is 
especially true if the reaction itself is making muons 
(the Holmlid effect).


IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is to 
see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no 
shielding - and to see a variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave 
is moved back from the reactor. Lastly, the peaks can 
be matched with the temperature differential.

If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in the 
last test – then it would be a significant indication 
that Holmlid is correct.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Axil Axil]

You can get a idea about that by considering how much power is required to
sinter a pile of 5 micron nickel particles that were welded together by a
rare earth doped tungsten rod and a sintered 100 micron nickel particle was
produced. Some of that rod vaporized and coated the surface of the 100
micron particle

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:47 PM, H LV  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
> >> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
> >> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
> >> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
> >> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
> >> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
> >> dosimeters register any radiation?
> >>
> >> harry
> >
> >
> > Because the fuel had been pre-processed and the gamma was produced during
> > that pre-processing step.
> >
>
> If that is true then wonder how much energy was used to pre-process the
> fuel.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
>> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
>> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
>> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
>> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
>> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
>> dosimeters register any radiation?
>>
>> harry
>
>
> Because the fuel had been pre-processed and the gamma was produced during
> that pre-processing step.
>

If that is true then wonder how much energy was used to pre-process the fuel.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Axil Axil]

>
>
>
> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
> dosimeters register any radiation?
>
> harry
>

Because the fuel had been pre-processed and the gamma was produced during
that pre-processing step.

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

Here's a top view of the NaI Scintillator Head and the reactor/cell, with 
rulers (courtesy of Alan):

http://tempid.altervista.org/GS5-2_test_setup2.jpg

The [Detector/Lead Cave] are on a separate, heavy duty cart which may be rolled 
back if things get too hot or for repositioning.

- Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Russ George

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

A much better test might be to add a more efficient 'crazy muon' receptor occluding perhaps half of the detector. Say a foil of 
silver or gadolinium. With such material the count rate might go up.  How many cm away was the NaI from the source?  Of course this 
presumes the signal can be reproduced at will. 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Harry:

 The radiation level detected in the MFMP Reactor is very low.  The Geiger Counter on the setup apparently did not detect it.  The 
current calc/estimate shows the dosage was comparable (in some ways) to way less than a panoramic dental X-ray, anywhere over a 
total dosage period of from 3.9 hours to perhaps 4 seconds... The signal was about an order of magnitude above the Natural 
Background Radiation Level in a Lead Cave, which dropped the open Natural Background Radiation Level by almost an order of magnitude 
in the low energy X-ray Region where the signal was mainly observed...


... There is speculation that this EM Radiation is what is typically seen at the start of the anomalous heat process in early Rossi 
Designs.  It may be related to cracking or reorganization or some initial Nuclear Reaction and is believed to be a one-time "deal" 
during a run.  But this is all speculation ... There is also speculation that Rossi had found ways to get rid of it or preprocess it 
away, so that it would never show up during the actual run.  The evidence for all this is kind of shaky but is based on the some 
strange isotope ratios and elements in the assays.


- Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: H LV

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
dosimeters register any radiation?

harry