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

[H LV]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data 
> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over 
> time? My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy for 
> the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for the last 
> 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evidentBased on this reading, is it possible 
> to explain the amount of energy stored and released using just chemistry?
>
> Harry,
>
> MFPF is most definitely providing a valuable role in this research, but as 
> you imply - they appear to have "jumped the gun" on this announcement. The 
> end result is that the lack of convincing evidence feeds into the agenda of 
> the Mary Yugo's of the world - just the opposite of what was intended.
>
> And the skeptics are right this time - there is nothing at all to get excited 
> about here... yet. The heat is in the noise level and the radiation has been 
> known for over a decade. Anyone can make a much better case for LENR by using 
> Rothwell's Library.
>
> We respect Greenyer's efforts. We hope that he is correct that there will be 
> more to come shortly. I think that there will be better evidence coming to 
> light shortly. It's just too bad that he raised expectations high 
> prematurely... and then had to scurry around to explain the fizzle. Mary 
> gloats.
>
> Jones


My impression is the *range* of the spectrum is new.
Harry

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

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> In some cases they have been anti-correlated. Cells have produced
> radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation, then radiation again.
>

By radiation I mean gamma rays (MeV). Lots of cells produce x-rays (keV) as
detected with dental film placed close to the cathode. Maybe they all do.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

On the contrary, the storage of energy is at the core of the LENR reaction.
>

No, it isn't. The only examples of endothermic storage before the reaction
turns on are caused by palladium loading. They are fully explained by
conventional chemistry. There is no other storage in the experimental
literature as far as I know. Please cite some examples of you know of any.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Otherwise that would mean that there is no connection between excess heat
> and radiation . . .
>
There is no correlation. In some cases they have been anti-correlated.
Cells have produced radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation,
then radiation again. If true, I suppose that means radiation somehow
resembles incomplete combustion that produces smoke rather than an open
flame.

Ed Storms thinks that radiation is a side effect of the cold fusion process
that happens sometimes but not other times. He thinks the neutrons may be
from fractofusion.

There may be a causative connection between radiation and heat. Perhaps one
causes the other, or there is a common cause. But there is no correlation
and definitely no fixed ratio.

That is unhelpful, but facts are facts, even when they frustrate the
theorist.

I do not think this is caused by inadequate instrumentation.

- Jed

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

[Axil Axil]

On the contrary, the storage of energy is at the core of the LENR reaction.
Photons are stored in the SPPs and on hydrogen Rydberg matter. X-rays
occurs when SPPs release their energy. When the SPP are coherent in a BEC,
heat photons are released.

If the BEC of SPP is destroyed, all the energy stored in the BEC would be
released in a burst. I predict that when excess heat is produced in a LENR
experiment, if a very large magnetic field is applied to that BEC, all the
stored energy will be released as XUV and x-rays in a burst as the BEC is
destroyed by the externally applied magnetic field.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>>
>
> I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage
> in this system. I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because
> the calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.
>
>
>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>>
>
> What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

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

[Jones Beene]

The interpretation (or in this case the mis-interpretation) of the metric can 
me more important than the metric itself.

For instance, as Rothwell says, “There are many reports of experiments that 
produced massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the 
limits of chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation.” What he 
should have said is “no measured radiation”.

Otherwise that would mean that there is no connection between excess heat and 
radiation – if the heat can happen w/o radiation, but the logical error in that 
conclusion is in “measurable”. Not always are radiation measurements done as 
well as here, and even then it is all in the interpretation.

Few experiments used the lead bricks that Alan had and not all of them have 
access to a sophisticated device with multiple channels to cover a wide 
spectrum. And an additional device is supposedly on the way. 

For instance, use of lead is one of the best ways to capture muons before they 
decay, and it so happened that when the present setup was moved further away, 
the fall-off was dramatic, as I recall - and consistent with muon decay, far 
more so than with inverse square. Yet if you do not believe in Holmlid’s muons, 
you would probably ignore this detail and try to find another explanation.

Jones


From: Bob Higgins 

As an experimentalist, I think you are wrong.  It is extremely frustrating to 
run an experiment and have the outcome produce 0 useful metric.  This is the 
usual case in early LENR development when the metric is heat COP because it is 
so hard to measure with precision and accuracy. 

Radiation measurement is capable of discerning whether nuclear events are being 
created.  It could also tell if high energy supra-chemical events are happening 
(<509keV).  Even in Pd-D electrolytic cells, CR39 studies show that these 
reactions are at least accompanied by high energy emissions - making such 
radiations a tag of the LENR.  This is far better than having no useful metric, 
which is what most experimenters have when they begin evaluating LENR recipes.  
Also, I ask you, "Why does Rossi incorporate so much lead in his reactors?" 
(reportedly 5cm).  It could be that all Ni-H LENR is accompanied by some form 
of radiation, perhaps high energy at startup, evolving to lower energy 
radiation that is easily thermalized in the reactor materials as the reaction 
is tuned to its sweet spot.  Defkalion also reported radiation.  Focardi and 
Piantelli have reported radiation.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
Bob Higgins  wrote:
 
OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.

I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced massive 
excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits of 
chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation. That is the opposite 
of "excellent."

What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks for 
his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. Just 
because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good metric, 
since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is occurring.

- Jed

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

[Bob Higgins]

As an experimentalist, I think you are wrong.  It is extremely frustrating
to run an experiment and have the outcome produce 0 useful metric.  This is
the usual case in early LENR development when the metric is heat COP
because it is so hard to measure with precision and accuracy.

Radiation measurement is capable of discerning whether nuclear events are
being created.  It could also tell if high energy supra-chemical events are
happening (<509keV).  Even in Pd-D electrolytic cells, CR39 studies show
that these reactions are at least accompanied by high energy emissions -
making such radiations a tag of the LENR.  This is far better than having
no useful metric, which is what most experimenters have when they begin
evaluating LENR recipes.

Also, I ask you, "Why does Rossi incorporate so much lead in his reactors?"
(reportedly 5cm).  It could be that all Ni-H LENR is accompanied by some
form of radiation, perhaps high energy at startup, evolving to lower energy
radiation that is easily thermalized in the reactor materials as the
reaction is tuned to its sweet spot.  Defkalion also reported radiation.
Focardi and Piantelli have reported radiation.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
>>
>
> I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced
> massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits
> of chemistry and yet which produced *no measurable radiation*. That is
> the opposite of "excellent."
>
> What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks
> for his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows.
> Just because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good
> metric, since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is
> occurring.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[H LV]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
>
> I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage in
> this system.

In principle the nucleus has a tremendous capacity for absorbing energy.

>I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because the
> calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.

>
>>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
>
> What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?

I just want to be sure that it is impossible.

Harry

Harry

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

[H LV]

Jack,
thanks for the links.
The calibration curves seem to indicate that the temperature
difference is significantly smaller then the temperature difference
which occurs during the experimental run so my interpretation is still
valid.

Harry

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> Harry,
> Here is an animated chart of the calibrations.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kZ295dXF0cTVLSW8/view
>
> It doesn't appear that it was calibrated empty, but rather had an alumina
> rod inserted.  It's not completely clear to me what they did, but they did
> do 4 calibrations it appears.
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2
>
> Jack
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>> Jack,
>>
>> Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
>> calibrated empty?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>> > Harry,
>> >
>> > I can see where you would think that based on the active side being
>> > lower
>> > than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
>> > differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
>> > during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
>> > experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last
>> > more
>> > than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
>> > experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
>> > temperatures where you expect them to occur.
>> >
>> > Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
>> > case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
>> > coil
>> > has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
>> > together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
>> > relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
>> > alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
>> > calorimetry.
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater
>> >>
>> >> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets
>> >> over
>> >> time?
>> >>
>> >> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> >> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> >> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>> >>
>> >> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> >> stored and released using just chemistry?
>> >>
>> >> Harry
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

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

[Ludwik Kowalski]

OTOH, presence of gamma rays (for example in an electrolytic cell), not due to 
natural background, is a convincing indicator of a nuclear effect, as often 
stated by others.

Ludwik

===



On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>  
> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
> 
> I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced 
> massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits 
> of chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation. That is the 
> opposite of "excellent."
> 
> What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks for 
> his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. Just 
> because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good metric, 
> since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is occurring.
> 
> - Jed
> 

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
>

I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced
massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits
of chemistry and yet which produced *no measurable radiation*. That is the
opposite of "excellent."

What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks
for his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows.
Just because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good
metric, since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is
occurring.

- Jed

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

[Jack Cole]

Harry,
Here is an animated chart of the calibrations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kZ295dXF0cTVLSW8/view

It doesn't appear that it was calibrated empty, but rather had an alumina
rod inserted.  It's not completely clear to me what they did, but they did
do 4 calibrations it appears.
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

Jack

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM H LV  wrote:

> Jack,
>
> Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
> calibrated empty?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> > Harry,
> >
> > I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
> > than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
> > differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
> > during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
> > experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
> > than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
> > experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
> > temperatures where you expect them to occur.
> >
> > Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
> > case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
> coil
> > has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
> > together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
> > relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
> > alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
> > calorimetry.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
> >>
> >> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater
> >>
> >> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets
> over
> >> time?
> >>
> >> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> >> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> >> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
> >>
> >> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> >> stored and released using just chemistry?
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >
>
>

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

[H LV]

Jack,

Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
calibrated empty?

Harry

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> Harry,
>
> I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
> than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
> differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
> during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
> experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
> than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
> experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
> temperatures where you expect them to occur.
>
> Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
> case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating coil
> has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
> together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
> relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
> alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
> calorimetry.
>
> Jack
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>>
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater
>>
>> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
>> time?
>>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

You on touching on one of the fundamental issues with experimental LENR -
what do you use for a metric?  If you want to progress from no results or
poor results in your experiment, you need to have a way to measure whether
you are getting better or worse as you introduce changes - you need a
metric, a measure of performance.  In the early stages of LENR development,
using excess heat as your metric is a terrible choice.  The reason is that
measuring the output heat, and sometimes the input energy are very hard to
do with sufficient accuracy to provide a confident measure of performance.
What you end up getting from your COP metric is basically noise, tending to
steer you in a random direction.

OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.  X-rays, gamma rays,
and neutron flux do not come from chemical action.  When using starting
materials that do not contain radioisotopes, observing radiation is a sure
sign of LENR.  Test setups can be made that are able to detect radiation
(and hence LENR) at very low levels.  It is a reasonable plan to use the
radiation metric to adjust your experiment until you are confidently
creating LENR with every experiment; and once you are, then optimize for
excess heat or maximum COP.

In the GS5.2 case, LENR occurred.  The measured radiation showed that LENR
occurred, and the nature of the measured radiation provides another clue to
the mechanism of the reaction at the same time.  The COP GS5.2 produced was
probably in the thermal measurement noise.  The question now is, can GS5.2
be repeated?  Then, can it be made better?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, H LV  wrote:

> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater
>
> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
> time?
>
> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
> Harry
>
>

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

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data What 
story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time? My 
reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy for the first 
19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for the last 9hrs.  'Excess 
Heat' is not evidentBased on this reading, is it possible to explain the 
amount of energy stored and released using just chemistry?

Harry,

MFPF is most definitely providing a valuable role in this research, but as you 
imply - they appear to have "jumped the gun" on this announcement. The end 
result is that the lack of convincing evidence feeds into the agenda of the 
Mary Yugo's of the world - just the opposite of what was intended.

And the skeptics are right this time - there is nothing at all to get excited 
about here... yet. The heat is in the noise level and the radiation has been 
known for over a decade. Anyone can make a much better case for LENR by using 
Rothwell's Library. 

We respect Greenyer's efforts. We hope that he is correct that there will be 
more to come shortly. I think that there will be better evidence coming to 
light shortly. It's just too bad that he raised expectations high 
prematurely... and then had to scurry around to explain the fizzle. Mary gloats.

Jones

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

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>

I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage in
this system. I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because the
calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.



> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>

What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?

- Jed

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

[Jack Cole]

Harry,

I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
temperatures where you expect them to occur.

Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
coil has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
calorimetry.

Jack

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:

> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater
>
> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
> time?
>
> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
> Harry
>
>

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

[H LV]

MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater

What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time?

My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.

Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
stored and released using just chemistry?

Harry

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:48:16 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>As I said in the article, the deepest DDL level (see JofCMNS vol-18 Paillet
>and Meulenberg) is about 509keV.  That is energy TAKEN from the atom to
>shrink it into that deepest state.  Suppose that all of that energy
>catalyzed out by evanescent means was suddenly released applied to a photon
>or a single electron - you would still get only 509keV.  To get above these
>energies above 1.4 MeV, you need nuclear mass deficit.  You would get this
>mass deficit energy if the shrunken DDL atom did have a fusion with
>something else.

That's what "capture" means. 

I don't call the shrinkage process capture, because the electron is already
bound to the atom.

>
>However, you cannot get 1.4MeV applied to a single photon or object using a
>process like Mills - by simply taking the energy from the atom.
>
>On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually,
>> there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.
>>
>> During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
>> shrunken electron.
>>
>> Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

[Jones Beene]

One theory and set of experiments which provides the fastest electron via f/H 
is Holmlid’s. He labels the dense hydrogen as UDH or UDD.

 

But there is nothing low energy about Holmlid, if you look closely enough. He 
documents lots of muons, and when muons decay you get two neutrinos and an 
electron which can be very fast. 

 

As for the high energy photon from a neutrino see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

As I said in the article, the deepest DDL level (see JofCMNS vol-18 Paillet and 
Meulenberg) is about 509keV.  That is energy TAKEN from the atom to shrink it 
into that deepest state.  Suppose that all of that energy catalyzed out by 
evanescent means was suddenly released applied to a photon or a single electron 
- you would still get only 509keV.  To get above these energies above 1.4 MeV, 
you need nuclear mass deficit.  You would get this mass deficit energy if the 
shrunken DDL atom did have a fusion with something else.  

However, you cannot get 1.4MeV applied to a single photon or object using a 
process like Mills - by simply taking the energy from the atom.

 

Robin wrote: In reply to  Bob Higgins's message [snip]


>What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, there 
>appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.

During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the 
shrunken electron.

Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

 

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

[Axil Axil]

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of both low
energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's from
the nucleus);

Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being
feed by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
absorption.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> This is conceptually what we are thinking the distribution probably looks
> like, but I will have to see it in log scale.  I will check.  The peak
> would have to be below the 30keV cutoff seen in the GS5.2 spectrum.  In the
> region of the GS5.2 spectrum just above 30keV, the slope just above 30keV
> has a slope of 1/x^2.13 .
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot.
>> It is the release of energy by particles based on a random release process.
>> This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as
>> the particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.
>>
>> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
>> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
>> release will be seen.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:22 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>> >What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually,
>>> there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.
>>>
>>> During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by
>>> the
>>> shrunken electron.
>>>
>>> Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5
>>> MeV.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

This is conceptually what we are thinking the distribution probably looks
like, but I will have to see it in log scale.  I will check.  The peak
would have to be below the 30keV cutoff seen in the GS5.2 spectrum.  In the
region of the GS5.2 spectrum just above 30keV, the slope just above 30keV
has a slope of 1/x^2.13 .

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It
> is the release of energy by particles based on a random release process.
> This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as
> the particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.
>
> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
> release will be seen.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:22 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually,
>> there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.
>>
>> During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
>> shrunken electron.
>>
>> Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

As I said in the article, the deepest DDL level (see JofCMNS vol-18 Paillet
and Meulenberg) is about 509keV.  That is energy TAKEN from the atom to
shrink it into that deepest state.  Suppose that all of that energy
catalyzed out by evanescent means was suddenly released applied to a photon
or a single electron - you would still get only 509keV.  To get above these
energies above 1.4 MeV, you need nuclear mass deficit.  You would get this
mass deficit energy if the shrunken DDL atom did have a fusion with
something else.

However, you cannot get 1.4MeV applied to a single photon or object using a
process like Mills - by simply taking the energy from the atom.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually,
> there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.
>
> During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
> shrunken electron.
>
> Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>

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

[Axil Axil]

[image: Inline image 1]

A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It
is the release of energy by particles based on a random release process.
This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as
the particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.

If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or based
on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy release
will be seen.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:22 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually,
> there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung.
>
> During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
> shrunken electron.
>
> Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, there 
>appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung. 

During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
shrunken electron.

Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

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

[H LV]

The long view

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater

Harry

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> The detection count was not as low as you seem to believe.  In spectrum 07
>> there were almost 300,000 counts in a signal that we believe probably lasted
>> only a minute or two. Suppose it was 2 minutes or 120 seconds.  That would
>> come out to 2500 counts/second.  Compare that to ~55,000 counts of
>> background in 14,160 seconds which is <4 counts per second.  That is a huge
>> difference.
>
>
> I think we are in agreement.  I had in mind that the absolute counts were
> low in comparison to the excess heat that was being reported at one point
> (COP 1.2), rather than that the counts were insignificant or at the
> threshold of noise.
>
>> Also, the solid angle of the detector which was sufficiently removed so as
>> to not suffer bad heating means that the overall total flux integrated over
>> 4pi was sizeable.
>
>
> This gets to the challenge of needing to show that the photons were sourced
> from the live cell.  This would be made easier with time resolution of the
> counts (which you mention) and a correlation with another dependent or
> independent variable.  If not excess power, then perhaps something else.
> (Input power?)
>
> Eric
>

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

[Axil Axil]

more...

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6851.pdf

How to extract metalized hydrogen from a 5 year old battery.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> To get the heat level up, we must progress from LENR which is low level
> activity to LENR+ which is high Level activity. LENR is the production of
> Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP). They generated heat up to COP1.2. To get
> the Heat higher, Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (RHM) must be generated, which is
> an amplifier of SPP activity.
>
> To produce HRM, we need to add cavitation and RF stimulation.
>
> You might try using the contents of a 5 year old Nickel battery.
>
> See
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2760-Successful-replication-of-Alexander-Parkhomov/?pageNo=1
>
> It seems that time and many recharge cycles produce nickel that can
> generate HRM.
>
> Forget about tungsten and warm up to very old and worn out nickel
> batteries.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Nyet.  That is the decay spectrum of a silver sample that has been
>> exposed to a neutron activation flux from the FF.  It is not the prompt
>> emission from fusion of the FF.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.fusor.net/board/download/file.php?id=3829&sid=a1b499f80621282e42d797de7b48729a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several related threads on Fusor.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never seen a properly taken gamma spectrum from the FF, have you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Axil Axil]

To get the heat level up, we must progress from LENR which is low level
activity to LENR+ which is high Level activity. LENR is the production of
Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP). They generated heat up to COP1.2. To get
the Heat higher, Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (RHM) must be generated, which is
an amplifier of SPP activity.

To produce HRM, we need to add cavitation and RF stimulation.

You might try using the contents of a 5 year old Nickel battery.

See

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2760-Successful-replication-of-Alexander-Parkhomov/?pageNo=1

It seems that time and many recharge cycles produce nickel that can
generate HRM.

Forget about tungsten and warm up to very old and worn out nickel batteries.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Nyet.  That is the decay spectrum of a silver sample that has been exposed
> to a neutron activation flux from the FF.  It is not the prompt emission
> from fusion of the FF.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.fusor.net/board/download/file.php?id=3829&sid=a1b499f80621282e42d797de7b48729a
>>
>>
>>
>> There are several related threads on Fusor.net
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> I have never seen a properly taken gamma spectrum from the FF, have you?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

Nyet.  That is the decay spectrum of a silver sample that has been exposed
to a neutron activation flux from the FF.  It is not the prompt emission
from fusion of the FF.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor
>
>
>
>
> http://www.fusor.net/board/download/file.php?id=3829&sid=a1b499f80621282e42d797de7b48729a
>
>
>
> There are several related threads on Fusor.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> I have never seen a properly taken gamma spectrum from the FF, have you?
>
>
>

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

[Jones Beene]

Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor

 

http://www.fusor.net/board/download/file.php?id=3829 

 &sid=a1b499f80621282e42d797de7b48729a

 

There are several related threads on Fusor.net

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I have never seen a properly taken gamma spectrum from the FF, have you?

 

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

[Axil Axil]

As I understand the way Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) work is that the
photon becomes entangled with the electron that is vibrating as a dipole
with a hole in the nickel lattice. The photons are accumulated in of
soliton physically displaced from the electrons which are still in the
nickel lattice. The SPPs only last between 10 to 100 picoseconds. The
solitons become disrupted and the entangled connection with the electron is
broken. The photon is now free to broadcast to the far field. The electron
never moves physically.

What this means is that the experimenter will only see photons in the x-ray
range. Electrons are not released from the lattice. There will be no
interaction between tungsten and electrons. Electrons do not gain energy
from the nucleus. The photon carries the nuclear binding energy provided by
nuclear disruption.

At low pumping levels, only x-ray carry energy and not infrared photons
since there is no downshifting of the EMF from x-rays down to infrared.

The entire LENR reaction is electromagnetic and the alpha's seen are a
result of nuclear disruption.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> On LENR-Forum, Joshua Cude made a good suggestion - place a tungsten "tag"
> on the outside of the active reactor or inside.  When this is hit by the
> high energy electrons or even the high energy gamma, it will excite
> tungsten's characteristic x-ray at about 60keV that will be visible as a
> line in the gamma spectrum. That would nicely localize the source of the
> high energy.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Also, the solid angle of the detector which was sufficiently removed so
>>> as to not suffer bad heating means that the overall total flux integrated
>>> over 4pi was sizeable.
>>>
>>
>> This gets to the challenge of needing to show that the photons were
>> sourced from the live cell.  This would be made easier with time resolution
>> of the counts (which you mention) and a correlation with another dependent
>> or independent variable.  If not excess power, then perhaps something else.
>>  (Input power?)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

That's an interesting question.  The problem is that the FF is a known
producer of neutrons, so you would need to measure the gamma spectrum on
the far side of a neutron absorber.  I have never seen a properly taken
gamma spectrum from the FF, have you?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> What might be the comparison of this recent radiation flux signature with
> that of something like a Farnsworth Fusor?
>

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

[H LV]

Ok. Presumably they would have caught their error had they succeeded
in attaching a thermocouple to the surface
of the reactor right over the reaction chamber.

Harry

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> 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 ?

[Russ George]

What might be the comparison of this recent radiation flux signature with that 
of something like a Farnsworth Fusor?

 

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 mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > 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 ?

[H LV]

Also if Bob higgins and MFMP could determine how the curve continues
to rise at lower energies then they could use it to calculate the
"excess heat".
This method would be far more sensitive than bulk calorimetry.

Harry

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:16 AM, H LV  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
>  wrote:
>> Why can't the peak be at 100eV or 10eV and many order of magnitude more
>> intense.
>
> Yes.
>
>>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.
>
> I think the entire spectrum is produced by nuclei.
> Harry

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

[H LV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
 wrote:
> Why can't the peak be at 100eV or 10eV and many order of magnitude more
> intense.

Yes.

>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.

I think the entire spectrum is produced by nuclei.
Harry

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

[Bob Higgins]

On LENR-Forum, Joshua Cude made a good suggestion - place a tungsten "tag"
on the outside of the active reactor or inside.  When this is hit by the
high energy electrons or even the high energy gamma, it will excite
tungsten's characteristic x-ray at about 60keV that will be visible as a
line in the gamma spectrum. That would nicely localize the source of the
high energy.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Also, the solid angle of the detector which was sufficiently removed so as
>> to not suffer bad heating means that the overall total flux integrated over
>> 4pi was sizeable.
>>
>
> This gets to the challenge of needing to show that the photons were
> sourced from the live cell.  This would be made easier with time resolution
> of the counts (which you mention) and a correlation with another dependent
> or independent variable.  If not excess power, then perhaps something else.
>  (Input power?)
>
> Eric
>
>

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

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

The detection count was not as low as you seem to believe.  In spectrum 07
> there were almost 300,000 counts in a signal that we believe probably
> lasted only a minute or two. Suppose it was 2 minutes or 120 seconds.  That
> would come out to 2500 counts/second.  Compare that to ~55,000 counts of
> background in 14,160 seconds which is <4 counts per second.  That is a huge
> difference.
>

I think we are in agreement.  I had in mind that the absolute counts were
low in comparison to the excess heat that was being reported at one point
(COP 1.2), rather than that the counts were insignificant or at the
threshold of noise.

Also, the solid angle of the detector which was sufficiently removed so as
> to not suffer bad heating means that the overall total flux integrated over
> 4pi was sizeable.
>

This gets to the challenge of needing to show that the photons were sourced
from the live cell.  This would be made easier with time resolution of the
counts (which you mention) and a correlation with another dependent or
independent variable.  If not excess power, then perhaps something else.
 (Input power?)

Eric

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

[Jones Beene]

 

Once again, although the Focardi gain was in the tens of watts, the gamma 
radiation was about a trillion times too low to account for the thermal gain, 
but here - they did see transmutation also. This was a high quality research 
team and report.

 

Another interesting thing is that the transmutation does NOT favor an 
explanation of N-H fusion by proton addition – which is the direction that 
Focardi later went to, when he teamed up with Rossi.

 

In fact, the appearance of iron, manganese and chromium – all elements which 
are lower atomic number than nickel strongly indicates a mechanism of alpha 
decay !… but … once again, at a level which is a trillion times too low to 
account for excess heat. Why do we have a side effect of alpha decay? Can it 
explain helium ash, in other experiments??

 

Curiously, all the active transition metals involved in the transmutation have 
strong magnetic susceptibility, and chemically – can be hexavalent. That may or 
may not be “apropos to anything” but hexavalency is strong suggestive of being 
catalytic for fractional hydrogen (UDD)… since it means that many Rydberg 
“holes” are possible in the various permutations.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I agree, this paper is a nice find.  It used high end equipment - 4" NaI 
sensors and HPGe detector.  It is presently beyond the scope of MFMP (at the 
moment).  The advantage of the HPGe detector over the NaI is that it has a 
narrow detection bandwidth.  The NaI detector has a 6.5% FWHM while the HPGe is 
an order of magnitude smaller.  This wide FWHM smears out the emission lines in 
the spectrum to the FWHM width (impulse spectral line convolved with the peak 
response of the detector), making it difficult to detect the true spectrum in 
the presence of multiple lines.  I wish we had one.  BTW, this is the type of 
wonderful equipment you see in Piantelli's (Nichenergy) first class lab.

Yes, the calorimetry in this experiment is crude.  But most of you don't 
appreciate what a huge undertaking it is to make a credible calorimeter and 
produce a good thermal model for it.  Just the calibration after the 
calorimeter is constructed is months of data taking and modeling.  Then if you 
find a source of inaccuracy and fix it, you have to take that data all over 
again.  As Mark said, detecting a COP > 1.2 is not too hard - even with crude 
equipment.  If it is less than 1.2, there is going to be quibbling no matter 
what.  

I have said for a long time that detecting LENR with excess heat as the metric 
is a really hard prospect.  Excess heat is not a sensitive metric and it is 
fraught with a lot of noise from measurement error and chemical activity.  How 
then, is one going to find an experimental path to an improved result if all of 
your experiments show a metric of 0 or noise?  You need something measurable to 
progress toward an improved result.  Radiation detection is a very useful 
metric in LENR.  It is very sensitive, it readily indicates something happening 
that is non-chemical, and it is quantifiable.

The boron (borax, boric acid) is used as a neutron absorber.  The natural 
abundance of 10B is about 20% and 10B has a huge neutron cross-section.  It is 
also cheap and readily available.  Why have a neutron absorber?  Because, it is 
well known that a neutron flux will cause false gamma readings in an NaI 
detector.  Neutron measurement could also be a useful metric. Neutron 
measurement is no harder than using a geiger counter, but the equipment is less 
readily available.  Also, most OTS neutron detectors will not detect slow 
neutrons because the equipment is designed to detect neutrons from fission 
(>100keV).  BubbleTech indicators and CR39 don't detect thermal neutrons. It is 
not hard to detect slow neutrons, but you must build your own equipment (not 
much more difficult than building a geiger counter).  However, neutron 
spectroscopy is hard.  MFMP will address neutrons going forward as well - at 
least to the point of having a neutron absorber.

 

Stephen Cooke wrote:

 

Great find Axil.

 

Did you already forward it to MFMP? 

 

It's interesting that they use Boron as a neutron shield too. That might be 
important for them to know too.

 

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

[Bob Higgins]

I made sure to apprise Ed on these experimental results.  I am sure he will
consider how they may be explained at some point.

The detection count was not as low as you seem to believe.  In spectrum 07
there were almost 300,000 counts in a signal that we believe probably
lasted only a minute or two. Suppose it was 2 minutes or 120 seconds.  That
would come out to 2500 counts/second.  Compare that to ~55,000 counts of
background in 14,160 seconds which is <4 counts per second.  That is a huge
difference.  Also, the solid angle of the detector which was sufficiently
removed so as to not suffer bad heating means that the overall total flux
integrated over 4pi was sizeable.

Also, the lead brick cave square channel limits the field of view to just
the active reactor more or less.  This also cuts down the sensitivity of
the detector, but localizes its response to predominantly in the direction
of the reactor.  It is like looking at something through a cardboard tube.

We may be able to extract some measure of the peak rate from the difference
between the real time and live time reported during this integration.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> 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]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

I agree, this paper is a nice find.  It used high end equipment - 4" NaI
sensors and HPGe detector.  It is presently beyond the scope of MFMP (at
the moment).  The advantage of the HPGe detector over the NaI is that it
has a narrow detection bandwidth.  The NaI detector has a 6.5% FWHM while
the HPGe is an order of magnitude smaller.  This wide FWHM smears out the
emission lines in the spectrum to the FWHM width (impulse spectral line
convolved with the peak response of the detector), making it difficult to
detect the true spectrum in the presence of multiple lines.  I wish we had
one.  BTW, this is the type of wonderful equipment you see in Piantelli's
(Nichenergy) first class lab.

Yes, the calorimetry in this experiment is crude.  But most of you don't
appreciate what a huge undertaking it is to make a credible calorimeter and
produce a good thermal model for it.  Just the calibration after the
calorimeter is constructed is months of data taking and modeling.  Then if
you find a source of inaccuracy and fix it, you have to take that data all
over again.  As Mark said, detecting a COP > 1.2 is not too hard - even
with crude equipment.  If it is less than 1.2, there is going to be
quibbling no matter what.

I have said for a long time that detecting LENR with excess heat as the
metric is a really hard prospect.  Excess heat is not a sensitive metric
and it is fraught with a lot of noise from measurement error and chemical
activity.  How then, is one going to find an experimental path to an
improved result if all of your experiments show a metric of 0 or noise?
You need something measurable to progress toward an improved result.
Radiation detection is a very useful metric in LENR.  It is very sensitive,
it readily indicates something happening that is non-chemical, and it is
quantifiable.

The boron (borax, boric acid) is used as a neutron absorber.  The natural
abundance of 10B is about 20% and 10B has a huge neutron cross-section.  It
is also cheap and readily available.  Why have a neutron absorber?
Because, it is well known that a neutron flux will cause false gamma
readings in an NaI detector.  Neutron measurement could also be a useful
metric. Neutron measurement is no harder than using a geiger counter, but
the equipment is less readily available.  Also, most OTS neutron detectors
will not detect slow neutrons because the equipment is designed to detect
neutrons from fission (>100keV).  BubbleTech indicators and CR39 don't
detect thermal neutrons. It is not hard to detect slow neutrons, but you
must build your own equipment (not much more difficult than building a
geiger counter).  However, neutron spectroscopy is hard.  MFMP will address
neutrons going forward as well - at least to the point of having a neutron
absorber.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Great find Axil.
>
> Did you already forward it to MFMP?
>
> It's interesting that they use Boron as a neutron shield too. That might
> be important for them to know too.
>

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

[Stephen Cooke]

Great find Axil.

Did you already forward it to MFMP? 

It's interesting that they use Boron as a neutron shield too. That might be 
important for them to know too.


> On 25 Feb 2016, at 05:25, 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?
>> 
> 

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]: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?
>>
>
>

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?
>

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]: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 mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > 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]: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 mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com> > 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 <mailto: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

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
>>
>
>

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.

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 mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com> > 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&pli=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

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.

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&pli=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 ?

[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&pli=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&pli=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&pli=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&pli=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&pli=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&qid=1456326034&sr=8-1&keywords=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?