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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

It’s difficult for me to answer all your Qs at this point in time (due to time constraints), but let me try to add a few things (and Alan can certainly chime in here if he has the time)... These cells were never really designed as accurate calorimeters to the level that I think you are

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

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich wrote: The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run > and also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... The detected > radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell. I am a big fan of

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

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: > >

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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich wrote: Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this > (having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last several months). By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry,

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

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

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this (having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last several months). Typically Alan would first characterize the GlowStick Cell by inserting a thermocouple dead center, on the active side with a dummy loaded fuel

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

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,

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

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

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich wrote: Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, > Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to confirm. It’s only > one instrument, we need another to confirm. Temporary High Voltage >

Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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! -

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

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 ?

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 ?

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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:

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

Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

Yes, exactly. 1.2 would be very close to the limits of the GlowStick, and Alan can fill you in on the exact values if you join the chat at: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video/ The description is here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2 - Mark Jurich

[Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

Mark Jurich wrote: We (Team MFMP) did not see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this > crude calorimeter . . . > I am sorry to hear this is a crude calorimeter. Where is it described? If it is quite crude, perhaps the heat of 1.2 times input is a mistake. - Jed

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

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

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

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vo]:Discussion with the CEO of LENR CITIES

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-24-2016-lenr-cities-european-leader.html please try to discover Vanderberghe's Law for LENR energy density, similar to Moore's Law in IT.. and man y other things...industry is preparing for the LENR Era. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania

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

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

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

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

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

I just raised the price to $15. -Original Message- From: Frank Znidarsic To: rvargo1062 Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 1:17 pm Subject: Fwd: Interesting marketing game -Original Message- From: Frank Znidarsic To:

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

I noticed this when I was trying to provide a link to my books and apps. If you search amazon for "Znidarsic Science Books" only the higher priced versions of the my book come up. Where is my $10 version. Apparently the secondary vendors do a lot a business and pay for premium advertising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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

[Vo]:Fwd: Interesting marketing game

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

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

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

[Vo]:Interesting marketing game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

[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