Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[mixent]

In reply to  Nigel Dyer's message of Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:02:01 +:
Hi,

Absorption would be energy dependent, but depends on the path taken. If the
source were highly localized, then the path between source and detector would be
the same for all photons. Would that yield one of the 1/f factors [1]?
For the second one, I assume that the energy emitted by the source itself would
also have to be frequency dependent (i.e. 1/f).

If [1] then we are looking for a source with a 1/f distribution, not a 1/f^2
distribution.


 
>It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but 
>neither of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line 
>over the red dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it 
>almost looks as if that is how it was generated.
>
>On 10/03/2018 15:46, JonesBeene wrote:
>>
>> Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.
>>
>> Where is the inverse peak?
>>
>> *From: *Nigel Dyer 
>>
>> I have been looking at the graph titled
>>
>> "After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is
>>
>> between 0 and 100KeV"
>>
>>  at
>>
>> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
>>
>> which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like
>>
>> experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen
>>
>> right at the start.
>>
>> It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse
>>
>> frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something
>>
>> about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find
>>
>> any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Nigel
>>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

Read this "A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H 
Cold-Fusion".
https://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html

So contrary to what Jones & Brian write, Ross's reactors worked from the early 
days.  They both did lots of experiments and Foracdi claims they reached a COP 
of 200.  Or do you think Focardi is lying too?

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Axil Axil]

Ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) may not be a primary source for muon production.
The Surface Plasmon Polariton may be the primary source of proton
annihilation. The UDH by be a helpful host that provides a secondary
support structure for the viability and maintenance of the SPPs. The SPP
can use other ways and means to produce muons such as micro and
nanoparticles, excited rough metal surfaces, collapsing cavitation bubbles,
dirty plasma, photonic crystals, and thin films.

Let me better explain the possible relationship between these SPPs and UDH.

To start out, Alan Smith is going to be demonstrating a live glow discharge
experiment at the New Energy World Symposium. That's Mats Lewan's event
happening next June 18-19th in Stockholm Sweden.


The experiment will pass a glow charge through a tube containing low
pressure gas, almost like a neon tube but without a phosphor. Probably
running at something like 5 or 10 thousands volts. In the middle there will
be a piece of metal foil. When the glow discharge begins then two things
should happen. One of them: the metal foil should glow very very brightly,
and sparkle in fact. You get sparkles on the surface. The other thing is,
it produces what might be described as "anomalous radiation", what's, I
think it was Edward Teller who coined the term, "Meshugganons".


One of the characteristics of this radiation is that it does not do much to
a Geiger counter. The Geiger… almost as if it weren't… was neutron
radiation. The Geiger is very sluggish, but as you begin to pile shielding
between the Geiger counter and the source - the glowing foil - so the
radiation count goes up, and up and up.


You can saturate a Geiger counter and set all the alarms off, but it does
not appear to be harmful.  It's sure sounds like muons are coming from the
foil.


This glow discharge experiment shows how a metal surface can form SPPs and
how those SPPs can catalyze muons. But when the power going through the
tube is cut, the muons stop. This shows that the SPP are not self
sustaining in themselves.


Muons don't interact with light elements well. For example, the interaction
cross section for lead is 1,000,000 times greater than that for hydrogen.
So piling heavy element shielding around the glowing foil produces muon
catalyzed fusion and fission because of the high interaction cross section
of muons with the heavy element shielding.


Next, here is another example of where the SPP shows itself as a primary
source of LENR activity.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-4484/26/23/234002


SPECIAL

Experimental observation of anomalous thermal radiation from a
three-dimensional metallic photonic crystal


Abstract

We report some striking results on thermal radiation properties of a
resonantly coupled cavity photonic crystal (PhC) at elevated temperatures
(T = 400–900 K). We experimentally found that at resonant wavelengths, λ =
1.1, 1.64, 2.85 μm, the PhC emission is spectrally selective,
quasi-coherent, directional, and shows significant deviation from Planck's
blackbody law at equilibrium. The presence of non-equilibrium effects,
driven by strong thermal excitation and cavity resonance, may be the major
cause for our experimental observation.


Sooner or later, science would stumble over some sort of LENR reaction.


Thermal radiation coming off this photonic crystal (PhC) is up to 50 times
stronger than blackbody radiation at certain frequencies. That radiation is
coherent, directional, and focused.


This finding has the researchers puzzled.


I speculated that SPPs formed inside the coupled cavities in this crystal
form a polariton Bose condensate that emits hawking radiation at specific
thermal frequencies. There also may be some overunity here: more energy out
than in...


Now finally, when it comes to UDH, the SPP may ride on the outside electron
spin wave that covers the outside of UDH. The SPP may use the UDH as a
host, the way a rider uses a horse. The UDH is superconductive, almost
lossless, self sustaining and meta-stable. It produces its own power and
can store it. The UDH is the ideal host for the SPP. The SPP may be a
beneficial parasite that can feed energy into the UDH, and the SPP keeps
the UDH going.




On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> It is worth repeating that in Holmlid’s article cited by Axil, we find
> several problems with his claim of copious muon production (aside from the
> massive transfer of energy which becomes undetectable).
>
>
>
> Holmlid: “The muons formed do not decay appreciably within the flight
> distances used here. Most of the laser-ejected particle flux with MeV
> energy is not deflected by the magnetic fields and is thus neutral, either
> being neutral kaons or the ultra-dense hydrogen precursor clusters. Photons
> give only a minor part of the detected signals.”
>
>
>
> This “neutral flux” is troubling to many observers (including Bob Higgins)
> because muons are charged and the 

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

It is worth repeating that in Holmlid’s article cited by Axil, we find several 
problems with his claim of copious muon production (aside from the massive 
transfer of energy which becomes undetectable).

Holmlid: “The muons formed do not decay appreciably within the flight distances 
used here. Most of the laser-ejected particle flux with MeV energy is not 
deflected by the magnetic fields and is thus neutral, either being neutral 
kaons or the ultra-dense hydrogen precursor clusters. Photons give only a minor 
part of the detected signals.”

This “neutral flux” is troubling to many observers (including Bob Higgins) 
because muons are charged and the processor states (pions, kaons) will be 
effectively charged as well. However, this could explain a characteristic pink 
noise which is much attenuated over the main event (the massive level of white 
noise which is not detected).

Not only that, since muons are presumably produced from protons in the laser 
pulse, there should be a preponderance of antimuons in order to preserve 
conservation of charge. Typically, the kludge used to preserve charge and lost 
mass is the neutrino which occurs in the final decay. In fact most of the 
massively excess energy of the Holmlid effect  –  almost all of it – eventually 
converts into neutrinos which are lost to the system  (insofar as being useful 
for energy conversion).

This is a curious situation since a massively energetic pulse of energy has 
occurred due to proton annihilation (not proton decay) and this comes from the 
laser irradiation, but it is lost to the system due to the fact that 99.5% has 
been converted into neutrinos in nanoseconds – and at a great distance away - 
which cannot be easily used. Bummer.

The only silver lining of the incredible Holmlid finding is  (or could be)  in 
the “cannot be easily used” part. Maybe the proper material is out there but we 
haven’t been looking in the right place for it. Dense metals respond to 
neutrinos better than light metals for instance but little work has been done 
on “ultradense” materials. 

In fact there is the possibility that new discoveries in the future will in 
fact turn up a metamaterial which absorbs neutrinos !

What would such a material look like? First, it will be extremely dense – far 
denser than uranium. That is a big clue. 

Could UDH be both the target for laser pulses and an absorber of neutrino 
bursts? Perhaps as a U-hydride with UDH embedded?

We live in interesting times, as they say...

 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I think there is every possibility that what is measured is a secondary, 
Bremstallung like effect.


One other factor is that whatever is being measured is outside the 
alumina and steel container of the active ingredients of the glow 
stick.  If the gamma was generated from the 'active ingredients' some 
would be absorbed by the alumina and steel, and absorbance normally 
increases at low energies, so having the largest gamma emmision at the 
low energies is counter intuitive. Interestingly this puts the results 
in a similar place to Vladimir Vysotskii's measurements of gamma rays 
from water cutting systems, where the peaks is at 1 to 5 kHz.  He came 
to the conclusion that what he was measuring was a secondary effect as a 
result of interaction of primary energy/particles that was being 
released with the outer surface of the steel container.  Perhaps that is 
also what is being seen here.  It would be interesting to know where the 
low energy peak was.  Could it also have been in the 1-5kHz region 
perhaps, in which case this could be very similar to the Vysotskii result.


Nigel

On 11/03/2018 00:13, Bob Higgins wrote:
Neutral particle flux probably won't create substantial 
electromagnetic noise and certainly no gamma.  Best case is that it 
would occasionally knock off some electrons that would excite the 
characteristic x-ray emission of their host atom.  They will excite 
acoustic noise that would quickly be converted to heat.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Axil Axil]

You made me go bact to the source article

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

Abstract:

" Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced
particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers. The mesons are formed
in such layers on metal surfaces using < 200 mJ laser pulse-energy. The
time variation of the signal to metal foil collectors and the magnetic
deflection to a movable pin collector are now studied. *Relativistic
charged particles with velocity up to 500 MeV u**-1 thus 0.75 c** are
observed.* Characteristic decay time constants for meson decay are
observed, for *charged and neutral kaons* and also for *charged pions*.
Magnetic deflections agree with *charged pions* *and kaons**. *Theoretical
predictions of the decay chains from kaons to muons in the particle beam
agree with the results. Muons are detected separately by standard
scintillation detectors in laser-induced processes in ultra-dense hydrogen
H(0) as published previously. The muons formed do not decay appreciably
within the flight distances used here. Most of the laser-ejected particle
flux with MeV energy is not deflected by the magnetic fields and is thus
neutral, either being neutral kaons or the ultra-dense H*N*(0) precursor
clusters. Photons give only a minor part of the detected signals. PACS:
67.63.Gh, 14.40.-n, 79.20.Ds, 52.57.-z."

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Neutral particle flux probably won't create substantial electromagnetic
> noise and certainly no gamma.  Best case is that it would occasionally
> knock off some electrons that would excite the characteristic x-ray
> emission of their host atom.  They will excite acoustic noise that would
> quickly be converted to heat.
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> According to Holmlid, there is a high flux of neutral atomic fragments
>> that receive a ton of kinetic energy from the primary reaction(nucleon
>> particle decay). These fragments would dissipate their kinetic energy
>> through particle collision cascades. That particle collision cascade
>> would produce the pink noise.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind that as large massive charged particles (200x that of an
>>> electron), muons would not penetrate materials very well.  For a given
>>> energy, they are moving much slower than electrons.  Also, because they are
>>> so heavy, they will stop slowly, and hence, not create much bremsstrahlung
>>> radiation.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:11 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:
>>>


 BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector
 as 1/f^2 noise  ??









 Nigel,



 Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on
 phenomena from another field ?



 I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to
 someone who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent
 presentation 

 However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal
 theories of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie
 hypothesis has been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the
 basis of a mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis
 in many systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general
 the spectrum of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be
 one-dimensional signals.

 Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is
 the reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place
 to start a search for statistical significance.





>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Bob Higgins]

Neutral particle flux probably won't create substantial electromagnetic
noise and certainly no gamma.  Best case is that it would occasionally
knock off some electrons that would excite the characteristic x-ray
emission of their host atom.  They will excite acoustic noise that would
quickly be converted to heat.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> According to Holmlid, there is a high flux of neutral atomic fragments
> that receive a ton of kinetic energy from the primary reaction(nucleon
> particle decay). These fragments would dissipate their kinetic energy
> through particle collision cascades. That particle collision cascade
> would produce the pink noise.
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind that as large massive charged particles (200x that of an
>> electron), muons would not penetrate materials very well.  For a given
>> energy, they are moving much slower than electrons.  Also, because they are
>> so heavy, they will stop slowly, and hence, not create much bremsstrahlung
>> radiation.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:11 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector
>>> as 1/f^2 noise  ??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nigel,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on
>>> phenomena from another field ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to
>>> someone who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent
>>> presentation 
>>>
>>> However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal
>>> theories of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie
>>> hypothesis has been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the
>>> basis of a mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis
>>> in many systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general
>>> the spectrum of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be
>>> one-dimensional signals.
>>>
>>> Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is
>>> the reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place
>>> to start a search for statistical significance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

Pity you can't have an accident and stumble over something useful yourself.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 6:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



As was obvious from the start, your so-called evidence sucks…
 
 

From: Adrian Ashfield

 
As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, I see no 
point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is not going to show 
anything more of the QX until they are in production and he hopes that will be 
before the end of 2018.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 


 

Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 

 

This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !

 

Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.

 

But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 

 

Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?

 

Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 

 

He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.

  

 


From: Brian Ahern


 

There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either. 




From: Adrian Ashfield 


 



I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.


 




 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Axil Axil]

According to Holmlid, there is a high flux of neutral atomic fragments that
receive a ton of kinetic energy from the primary reaction(nucleon particle
decay). These fragments would dissipate their kinetic energy through
particle collision cascades. That particle collision cascade would produce
the pink noise.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Keep in mind that as large massive charged particles (200x that of an
> electron), muons would not penetrate materials very well.  For a given
> energy, they are moving much slower than electrons.  Also, because they are
> so heavy, they will stop slowly, and hence, not create much bremsstrahlung
> radiation.
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:11 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector
>> as 1/f^2 noise  ??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel,
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on
>> phenomena from another field ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to
>> someone who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent
>> presentation 
>>
>> However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal
>> theories of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie
>> hypothesis has been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the
>> basis of a mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis
>> in many systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general
>> the spectrum of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be
>> one-dimensional signals.
>>
>> Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the
>> reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to
>> start a search for statistical significance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Bob Higgins]

Keep in mind that as large massive charged particles (200x that of an
electron), muons would not penetrate materials very well.  For a given
energy, they are moving much slower than electrons.  Also, because they are
so heavy, they will stop slowly, and hence, not create much bremsstrahlung
radiation.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:11 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector as
> 1/f^2 noise  ??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nigel,
>
>
>
> Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on
> phenomena from another field ?
>
>
>
> I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to
> someone who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent
> presentation 
>
> However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal
> theories of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie
> hypothesis has been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the
> basis of a mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis
> in many systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general
> the spectrum of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be
> one-dimensional signals.
>
> Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the
> reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to
> start a search for statistical significance.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

As was obvious from the start, your so-called evidence sucks…


From: Adrian Ashfield

As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, I see no 
point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is not going to show 
anything more of the QX until they are in production and he hopes that will be 
before the end of 2018.



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
 
Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 
 
This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !
 
Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.
 
But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 
 
Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?
 
Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 
 
He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.
  
 
From: Brian Ahern
 
There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either. 

From: Adrian Ashfield 
 
I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.
 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

Hey guys
Perhaps we could forget I mentioned Rossi.  Its the graph, which does 
look as if it contains interesting data, that interested me.


Nigel

On 10/03/2018 22:23, Adrian Ashfield wrote:
As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, 
I see no point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is 
not going to show anything more of the QX until they are in production 
and he hopes that will be before the end of 2018.




-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory.
This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  
let’s hear or see this evidence !
Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and 
hopefully there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it 
will not be called JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with 
those robots which he promised were coming to Boston back in 2012 for 
that other factory, the one which was to make the prE-Scat before IH 
entered the picture.

But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?!
Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with 
any honest and independent showing of a working device. Why build a 
factory without a product to show ?
Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being 
tested at a local University before you go over to the factory?
He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a 
reliable place with a top level  physics department - to test and show 
it off.

*From: *Brian Ahern <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.
*From:*Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>

*Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:l...@eskimo.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like
I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there 
are signs that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some 
independent evidence that he has indeed started a factory to produce 
them and he remains optimistic production will start in 2018.


If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly 
insulting to suggest he "stumbled" upon it.

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:l...@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like
There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than 
Rossi) on this site.
If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because 
he is a dishonest scam artist.
There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something 
valid at this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.

*From: *Brian Ahern <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to 
Andrea Rossi ! Why would you site this site?

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, I see no 
point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is not going to show 
anything more of the QX until they are in production and he hopes that will be 
before the end of 2018.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



 
Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 
 
This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !
 
Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.
 
But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 
 
Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?
 
Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 
 
He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.
 
 
 

From: Brian Ahern

 
There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.
 


From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like 

 


I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like


 

There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.

 

If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 

 

There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.

 

 


From: Brian Ahern


 

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?

 

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.




 
 

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 

This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !

Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.

But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 

Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?

Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 

He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.



From: Brian Ahern

There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.


From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like 
 
I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like
 
There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.
 
If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 
 
There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.
 
 
From: Brian Ahern
 
The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?
 
This is an example of cognitive dissonance.
 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I think there is a real possibility that some detectors are not 
detecting what we thought they were detecting.  I had not considered 
that possibility in this case, but I will keep that in mind.


On 10/03/2018 20:11, JonesBeene wrote:


BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular 
detector as 1/f^2 noise  ??

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Axil Axil]

 Quantum 1/f noise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise

The *conventional Q1/fE* represents 1/f fluctuations caused by
bremsstrahlung, decoherence and interference in the scattering of charged
particles off one another, in tunneling or in any other process in solid
state physics and in general.

The subatomic particles flux related to decay, particle
creation(electron/muon), scattering and interference produced by Ultra
dense hydogen fits this criteria nicely.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:11 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector as
> 1/f^2 noise  ??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nigel,
>
>
>
> Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on
> phenomena from another field ?
>
>
>
> I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to
> someone who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent
> presentation 
>
> However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal
> theories of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie
> hypothesis has been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the
> basis of a mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis
> in many systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general
> the spectrum of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be
> one-dimensional signals.
>
> Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the
> reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to
> start a search for statistical significance.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.




-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like


There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.

If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist.

There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.


From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

Conversely, The muons may just be 1/f noise.



From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like




BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector as 
1/f^2 noise  ??









Nigel,



Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on phenomena 
from another field ?



I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to someone 
who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent presentation 

However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal theories 
of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie hypothesis has 
been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the basis of a 
mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis in many 
systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general the spectrum 
of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be one-dimensional signals.

Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the 
reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to start 
a search for statistical significance.

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector as 
1/f^2 noise  ??




Nigel,

Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on phenomena 
from another field ?

I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to someone 
who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent presentation 
However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal theories 
of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie hypothesis has 
been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the basis of a 
mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis in many 
systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general the spectrum 
of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be one-dimensional signals. 
Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the 
reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to start 
a search for statistical significance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



 
There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.
 
If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 
 
There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.
 
 

From: Brian Ahern

 
The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?
 
This is an example of cognitive dissonance.
 

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.

If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 

There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.


From: Brian Ahern

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?


This is an example of cognitive dissonance.



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

It has the characteristics of bremsstrahlung radiation, likely from stopping of 
beta emission within the reactor.


On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Nigel Dyer 
<l...@thedyers.org.uk<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:
I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is between 
0 and 100KeV"
 at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantumheat.org%2Findex.php%2Fen%2Fhome%2Fmfmp-blog%2F519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal=02%7C01%7C%7C922b309cd68e473810ff08d5869cd8cf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636562930562394546=PQ7%2FEj0kzt2YMAeoCsJxFdWwWcndkY2%2FrcRuNQyhApU%3D=0>
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen right at 
the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse frequency 
squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something about the 
underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find any other examples 
of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
Any ideas?
Nigel

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Bob Higgins]

In the calibrated trace, which you may not be seeing, it is not 1/f^2
exactly.  Also, there will be absorption and scattering in going through
the reactor that will affect the shape of the curve.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 9:28 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> OK – but the context of what is being graphed  is not clear ---
>
>
>
> Is Trace 7 real or calculated? Maybe Trace 7 has been manipulated to show
> a desired fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Nigel Dyer 
>
> It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but
> neither of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line over
> the red dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it almost looks
> as if that is how it was generated.
>
> JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.
>
>
>
> Where is the inverse peak?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Nigel Dyer 
>
>
>
> I have been looking at the graph titled
>
> "After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is
>
> between 0 and 100KeV"
>
>  at
>
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/
> 519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
>
> which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like
>
> experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen
>
> right at the start.
>
> It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse
>
> frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something
>
> about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find
>
> any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[AlanG]

This was discussed in depth here, and on the QuantumHeat blog. Bob 
Higgins commented at that time:



The way the signal behaved, it was strong in Spectrum-07, weak in 
Spectrum-08, missing in Spectrum-09, and tiny in Spectrum-10. It did not 
exist in Spectrum-06 at all. If it were a hot particle, it would have to 
be moving around and blocking the gamma. That's an analysis crux. You 
just don't get a smooth Bremsstrahlung with no gamma peaks from 
radioisotopic contamination.


Another thing that has been mentioned is that the spectrum falls too 
fast for Bremsstrahlung ... Well, that might be true if the 
Bremsstrahlung came from a source of monochromatic electrons. But, if it 
comes from beta emission, the beta energy falls off with energy AND the 
Bremsstrahlung also falls off with energy, so the fast roll-off suggests 
Bremsstrahlung from beta with a double roll-off.



There was also some numerical analysis of the curve shape, which I 
cannot locate now. But if I recall correctly, it seemed to conform to 
the curve derived by Befiki rather than a pure 1/f relation. There was 
some consensus that it represented an inner Brehmsstralung mechanism, 
based on the energy distribution.


@Jones - The curve for Spec7 as published is straight from experimental 
data, as you should recall from my presentation at SRI, which you attended.


AlanG


*From: *Nigel Dyer 

It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but 
neither of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line 
over the red dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it 
almost looks as if that is how it was generated.


JonesBeene wrote:

Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.

Where is the inverse peak?

*From: *Nigel Dyer 

I have been looking at the graph titled

"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat
mode is

between 0 and 100KeV"

 at


http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal

which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like

experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen

right at the start.

It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse

frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something

about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot
find

any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.

Any ideas?

Nigel


 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

OK – but the context of what is being graphed  is not clear ---

Is Trace 7 real or calculated? Maybe Trace 7 has been manipulated to show a 
desired fit.




From: Nigel Dyer
It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but neither 
of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line over the red 
dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it almost looks as if that 
is how it was generated.
JonesBeene wrote:
 
Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.
 
Where is the inverse peak?
 
 
 
From: Nigel Dyer
 
I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is 
between 0 and 100KeV"
 at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen 
right at the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse 
frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something 
about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find 
any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
Any ideas?
Nigel
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but 
neither of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line 
over the red dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it 
almost looks as if that is how it was generated.


On 10/03/2018 15:46, JonesBeene wrote:


Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.

Where is the inverse peak?

*From: *Nigel Dyer 

I have been looking at the graph titled

"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is

between 0 and 100KeV"

 at

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal

which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like

experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen

right at the start.

It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse

frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something

about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find

any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.

Any ideas?

Nigel

RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[JonesBeene]

Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.

Where is the inverse peak?



From: Nigel Dyer

I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is 
between 0 and 100KeV"
  at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen 
right at the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse 
frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something 
about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find 
any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
Any ideas?
Nigel

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Bob Higgins]

It has the characteristics of bremsstrahlung radiation, likely from
stopping of beta emission within the reactor.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> I have been looking at the graph titled
> "After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is
> between 0 and 100KeV"
>  at
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-
> the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
> which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like
> experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen right
> at the start.
> It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse
> frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something about
> the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find any other
> examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
> Any ideas?
> Nigel
>
>
>

[Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is 
between 0 and 100KeV"

 at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen 
right at the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse 
frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something 
about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find 
any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.

Any ideas?
Nigel