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

[Mark Jurich]

Or Attenuate at the source and/or detector with a known response 
material (as suggested by Bob G)...

... We should have another scintillator at our disposal, thanks to Stanford!

From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 7:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

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 <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:




  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, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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

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

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

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 <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:




  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, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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

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

[Mark Jurich]

The paper is well known to myself (I’ve studied it extensively several months 
ago in regards to the new peaks), but it’s good to 
bring it up again.  I’m a little surprised that no one here has realized that 
Holmlid/Olafsson have also reported the broad low 
energy spectrum in one of their recent papers.  Ecco actually brought this up 
within a few minutes/seconds after displaying the 
Trace #7 anomaly.  I know this paper is more encompassing than just a broad low 
energy background, but the truth is that there have 
been others that have reported electromagnetic radiation and I don’t think that 
MFMP ever denied that ... MFMP has just replicated 
it.  Which is important (and the main part of their existence is to replicate 
the work leading to excess anomalous heat).

- Mark Jurich

From: Stephen Cooke
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Where is the big surprise?

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

What am I missing?

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

[Mark Jurich]

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

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

- Mark Jurich

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

From: Axil Axil



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



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







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

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

[Axil Axil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak pumping means no laser beam is produced.

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

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[Mark Jurich]

You make some good points about MFMP.

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

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

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

- Mark Jurich

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric


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

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

[Eric Walker]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Eric


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

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

[Mark Jurich]

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

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

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

- Mark Jurich

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


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

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

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

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

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

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


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

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

Eric

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

[Mark Jurich]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Mark Jurich