Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Here is a Radon map.
>
> http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/images/Radonmap.gif
>
> If a testing lab is in the "high radon potential" zones, such as say -
> Northern New Mexico, efforts must be made to exclude radon counts.
>

It looks like my old home, Colorado, is Radon-central.  I will not try to
use a Geiger counter there.

With regard to Storms's and Scanlan's note, I have only questions at this
point.  Transmutations in O16 and O17 are not satisfying, since oxygen is
not specific to GM #1.  Radon is an interesting possibility, and they even
remark on a change in the signal when a fan in the room is turned on.  But
two things are hard to explain -- (1) the clear 1-hourish decay and (2) the
clear change in behavior when the lead shield is interposed.  The change is
dramatic (the signal immediately goes way down).  That says to me that
there is something going on in the active material, above and beyond any
secondary effects witnessed at a further remove from the assembly.

The thing that is going on, though, might be fractofusion or something else
non-LENRish, since they are not observing heat.

Many questions.  I hope they follow up with another report.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

Not exactly - a massive source of radon in the Eastern USA is shale and low
grade coal - where there is sometimes 50 ppm of uranium which cannot be
mined, economically ... but because deposits can be hundreds of feet in
thickness over thousands of square miles - substantial radon seeps out - far
more than from a rich but localized deposit.


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

>Here is a Radon map.
>
>http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/images/Radonmap.gif

Given that Radon is a decay product of Uranium, this is probably also a map
of
Uranium deposits in the US.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:45:00 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Here is a Radon map.
>
>http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/images/Radonmap.gif

Given that Radon is a decay product of Uranium, this is probably also a map of
Uranium deposits in the US.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker

>If I have understood what I have read, the decay they're seeing is a signal
>being picked up by GM #1 when a lead barrier is interposed between it and
>the active material. So for the signal to be due to a fusion reaction,
>would this reaction need to be happening on the side of the lead barrier
>opposite the active material?

As a general caveat - when one is attempting to use lead as shield - and
measure low count rates, Pb-214 can interfere. This isotope is found in
surprising large amounts in natural lead - given its 10 hour half-life. Also
there is the mother of all radiation anomalies - Radon, which is gaseous and
can decay to 214Pb; and radon is quite prevalent in some locations and is
attracted to certain materials due to static electric charge.

Therefore, in cases where radon is found in relative abundance in the air -
a good bet for the source of decay in the several hour half-life range, is
radon daughter products. Note how easy it is to find high radiation counts
on your computer monitor, for instance. Compare the CPM here and in the test
in question.

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html

Here is a Radon map.

http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/images/Radonmap.gif

If a testing lab is in the "high radon potential" zones, such as say -
Northern New Mexico, efforts must be made to exclude radon counts.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:01:00 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>If I have understood what I have read, the decay they're seeing is a signal
>being picked up by GM #1 when a lead barrier is interposed between it and
>the active material.  So for the signal to be due to a fusion reaction,
>would this reaction need to be happening on the side of the lead barrier
>opposite the active material?
[snip]
I need to reread Ed's paper when I am less sleepy. (Siesta time ;). I'm not sure
I understand the setup and actions taken properly at the moment.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:01:00 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Up to now I've only heard about decay half-lives.  Is there another name
>for the fusion half-life or a page that describes it?

You probably won't find it. The terminology usually used for fusion is "reaction
rate" which is a sort of inverse time.

IOW the lower the reaction rate the longer the time (a half life is of course a
time).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM,  wrote:

16O + Hydrino molecule => 18Ne which decays in seconds to 18F, which has a
> half
> life of 109 min.


I forgot about the possibility of a more elaborate cascade.  That probably
opens up all kinds of possibilities.

Alternatively 16O + D => 18F directly.


I seem to have overlooked 16O.  :)

Interestingly, EXFOR does not have any record of this reaction.  I wonder
if that's because it hasn't been witnessed or because it has been seen but
then was not submitted to EXFOR.  I should just go straight to a
combinatorial calculation over the possibilities, like you're doing, rather
than rely on EXFOR data.


> The list could be narrowed considerably perhaps even definitively, if the
> decay
> energies were measured in a professional lab dedicated to the purpose.
>

The energies would be nice.


> Another alternative which may not have been considered, is the possibility
> that
> what they are seeing is not decay times, but fusion times, with prompt
> emission
> when fusion occurs.


If I have understood what I have read, the decay they're seeing is a signal
being picked up by GM #1 when a lead barrier is interposed between it and
the active material.  So for the signal to be due to a fusion reaction,
would this reaction need to be happening on the side of the lead barrier
opposite the active material?

Every fusion reaction will have a half life that depends
> a.o. on the separation of the isotopes involved in the reaction, thus
> Hydrinos
> of different sizes will have different fusion half lives, which may vary
> from
> femtoseconds, for the smallest, to multiple universe lifetimes, for the
> largest.
>

Up to now I've only heard about decay half-lives.  Is there another name
for the fusion half-life or a page that describes it?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:15:10 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>  20Ne + d -> 18F + ?
>  17O + p -> 18F + ?
>  40Ar + d -> 41Ar + p
>  68Zn + d -> 69Zn + p
>  70Ge + d -> 68Ga + ?

16O + Hydrino molecule => 18Ne which decays in seconds to 18F, which has a half
life of 109 min. Alternatively one of the shrunken electrons of the Hydrino
molecule may undergo enhanced electron capture, resulting in the direct
formation of 18F from 16O.
Alternatively 16O + D => 18F directly.

47Ti + Hydrino molecule => 49Cr with a half life of 42 min (possible measurement
error?)

If D was available, then Hydrino molecules such as D2 or HD are also possible,
which means that one can also try adding 3 or 4 nucleons to all the isotopes
present to see if either an isotope with a 58 minute half life is formed
directly, or after a the decay of another isotope with a very short half life.

The list could be narrowed considerably perhaps even definitively, if the decay
energies were measured in a professional lab dedicated to the purpose.

Another alternative which may not have been considered, is the possibility that
what they are seeing is not decay times, but fusion times, with prompt emission
when fusion occurs. Every fusion reaction will have a half life that depends
a.o. on the separation of the isotopes involved in the reaction, thus Hydrinos
of different sizes will have different fusion half lives, which may vary from
femtoseconds, for the smallest, to multiple universe lifetimes, for the largest.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Eric,

 

>From Wikipedia, the isotope of fluorine 17 has a half life of 64.49s. This
value is close to the 58sfrom the report of Ed Storms and Brian Scanlan.

 

Can we also consider also the reaction 16O + p -> 17F as a possibilities?

 

Arnaud

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Eric Walker]

Two weeks ago we talked about a note that Ed Storms and Brian Scanlan were
passing around [1].  They are conducting an experiment using GM counters
and have identified two signals for unknown species that are decaying.  The
half-lives are calculated to be 58 minutes and 109 minutes, respectively,
and there is a question about whether the signals are for the same species.
 The note uses a process of elimination to suggest that the decaying
species could be potassium-40.  Normally potassium-40 has a half-life of
1.24E9 years, so something unusual would have to happen to cause it to
decay more quickly.

At the time I was wondering what species had half-lives in nature on the
order of 58 to 109 minutes.  There is a Wikipedia page that mentions
nobelium-259 (58 minutes) and fluorine-18 (109 minutes) [2].  It turns out
this page is quite incomplete.  Using Mathematica, I was able to come up
with a more complete list:

IsotopeAtomic Number Decay Modes Half-life (m.)
Fluorine18 9 β+  109.771
Chlorine39 17β-  56.2
Argon4118β-  109.61
Scandium49 21β-  57.17
Cobalt61   27β-  99.
Zinc69 30β-  56.33
Gallium68  31β+  67.72
Germanium7532β-  82.78
Germanium7832β-  88.
Arsenic70  33β+  52.67
Arsenic78  33β-  90.67
Bromine75  35β+  97.
Krypton77  36β+  74.33
Krypton87  36β-  76.33
Strontium8038β+  106.3
Zirconium8740β+  100.8
Niobium97  41β-  72.17
Ruthenium9444β+  51.83
Ruthenium9544β+  98.58
Silver103  47β+  65.67
Silver104  47β+  69.17
Cadmium104 48β+  57.67
Cadmium105 48β+  55.5
Cadmium118 48β-  50.33
Indium108  49β+  58.
Tin128 50β-  59.07
Tellurium117   52β+, PE  62.
Tellurium129   52β-  69.67
Iodine120  53β+  82.
Iodine134  53β-  52.5
Barium126  56β+  1.e2
Barium139  56β-  83.06
Lanthanum131   57β+  58.
Lanthanum142   57β-  91.17
Cerium133  58β+  97.
Praseodymium13759β+  76.83
Neodymium136   60β+  50.67
Neodymium149   60β-  103.7
Samarium14262β+  72.48
Terbium147 65β+  1.e2
Terbium148 65β+  60.
Holmium156 67β+  57.
Erbium163  68β+  75.
Thulium163 69β+  108.6
Ytterbium164   70EC  75.83
Ytterbium177   70β-  114.7
Ytterbium178   70β-  73.
Lutetium16771β+  51.5
Hafnium183 72β-  64.02
Tantalum17473β+  68.
Osmium181  76β+  1.1e2
Iridium183 77β+, α   57.
Platinum18578β+, α   70.83
Thallium19581β+  69.67
Thallium19681β+  110.3
Lead19982β+  90.
Bismuth201 83β+, α   103.
Bismuth202 83β+, α   103.
Bismuth212 83β-, α, β-+α 60.55
Polonium20584β+, α   104.
Astatine20785β+, α   1.1e2
Astatine20885β+, α   97.83
Radon224   86β-  107.
Radium230  88β-  93.
Actinium22989β-  62.67
Protactinium23991β-  1.1e2
Uranium229 92β+, α   58.
Neptunium240   93β-  61.83
Americium237   95β+, α   73.
Americium238   95β+, α   98.
Curium249  96β-  64.15
Berkelium251   97β-  55.67
Californium255 98β-, F, α85.
Einsteinium249 99β+, α   

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Axil Axil]

Reference:  Self-organized atomic nanowires of noble metals on Ge(001):
Atomic structure and electronic properties

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F0906.4912&ei=xrGIUJ6BNMa70AGz_4CQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEmf0XIH21PHz0C-1lohScap7TfjQ&sig2=mF3fV0COlK1H4yJ8qhoK8g


New techniques in fabricating cracks (quasi-one-dimensional (1D)
structures) in noble metals (Palladium might work) have been achieved that
may make scientific analysis more tractable in the area of radiation
production through hydrogen loading in a palladium lattice.

Atomic structures of quasi-one-dimensional (1D) character can be grown on
semiconductor substrates by metal adsorption. Significant progress
concerning study of their 1D character has been achieved recently by
condensing noble metal atoms on the Ge(001) surface. In particular, Pt and
Au yield high quality reconstructions with low defect densities. We
reported on the self-organized growth and the long-range order achieved,
and present data from scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) on the structural
components.

For Pt/Ge(001), we find hot substrate growth is the preferred method for
self-organization. These atomic wires exhibit metallic conduction at room
temperature, as documented by low-bias STM.

For the recently discovered Au/Ge(001) nanowires, they now have developed a
deposition technique that allows complete substrate coverage.

The Au nanowires are extremely well separated spatially, exhibit a
continuous 1D charge density, and are of solid metallic conductance. In
this review we present structural details for both types of nanowires, and
discuss similarities and differences.

A perspective is given for their potential to host a one-dimensional
electron system. The ability to condense different noble metal nanowires
demonstrates how atomic control of the structure affects the electronic
properties.

In reducing the size to the single-atom scale, and specifically by
constructing two-dimensional (2D) and even uasi-one-dimensional (1D)
structures, the physics of the electronic charge carriers will change
dramatically. In particular, one is used to a description of the electron
states within the Fermi liquid picture.

Also, one is familiar with treatments of phase transitions within the
mean-field theory. The latter, e.g., is used successfully to describe the
conventional superconducting ground state of metals within the BCS
formalism.

However, in turning to material systems that are essentially 1D in nature,
there is indication that these scenarios do no longer apply.

With nearly 1D properties, this newly fabricated nano-material lets us
expect rather strong interactions of electrons and lattice, owing to a
reduction of electrostatic screening. Specifically, the 1D nature of the
electron system can be responsible for the occurrence of a charge density
wave (CDW), implying a metal-insulator transition for the electron band
concerned.

This now offers us an opportunity to study unusual physics that results
from the predicted breakdown of the Fermi liquid picture. The physics of
charged particles: electrons and protons in low dimension topoligy is
dramatically different from that encountered in conventional
three-dimensional bulk metals, and solid state theory predicts exotic
many-body scenarios. Most prominent for 1D systems is the emergence of the
so-called "Luttinger liquid", which results from a decoupling of the spin
and charge degrees of freedom.

In a friendly suggestion and in order to atone for my misreading of Ed
Storms latest paper, Mr. Storms among other workers would be well served to
build some of these palladium nanowires and load them with protons from
ionized hydrogen. These lattice structures are well ordered; demonstrating
high regularity which makes them an ideal target for analysis.


In addition, this week, researchers have discovered that electrons flow in
alternating directions and in parallel down within the ridges of this noble
metal nanowire array and not on or in them.

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-obstinate-electrons-assumptions-path.html







Cheers:  Axil




On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Alan, if you look at the photograph, you see GM#1 on the apparatus, where
> it is clearly shown in the diagram (Fig. 5),  and GM#2 is hanging by a wire
> off to the right , as clearly stated under the photograph.
>
> GM#2 never detects radiation from the sample but can detect radiation from
> GM#1 when it is activated. (Fig. 13)
>
> The GM used were the only ones available at the time. We never expected
> the mica to be activated. Now that we know this, we are doing what is
> obvious to everyone. However, as I clearly state, this is a progress report
> being published to alert people to the strange behavior.
>
> Ed
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
>  At 11:26 AM 10/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I uploaded a version of this paper 

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Edmund Storms]

Alan, if you look at the photograph, you see GM#1 on the apparatus,  
where it is clearly shown in the diagram (Fig. 5),  and GM#2 is  
hanging by a wire off to the right , as clearly stated under the  
photograph.


GM#2 never detects radiation from the sample but can detect radiation  
from GM#1 when it is activated. (Fig. 13)


The GM used were the only ones available at the time. We never  
expected the mica to be activated. Now that we know this, we are doing  
what is obvious to everyone. However, as I clearly state, this is a  
progress report being published to alert people to the strange behavior.


Ed

On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


At 11:26 AM 10/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I uploaded a version of this paper with some revisions and  
corrections.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf


I had to read it several times to figure out the relationship  
between GM#1 and GM#2.


Let me summarize my current understanding to see if I've got it right

Specimen  --->  Mica Window --> GM#1
  *- - - - - - - >   *---> GM#2

GM#1 and GM#2 show counts both from the specimen and from the Mica  
Window


Insert lead :

Specimen  --->  LEADMica Window --> GM#1
  
*---> GM#2


GM#1 and GM#2 are no longer detecting radiation from the Specimen,  
but are detecting the decay of K40

in the Mica window.

So the the discovery is that the radiation from the specimen is  
doing "something" to K40 -- which decays with a half-life of 109  
minutes.


At the very least, that should be in the abstract as well as in the  
conclusion.


Lead-on question :

Why not use a NON-mica GM#1 AND #GM2,  and then insert mica into the  
specimen->GM#1 path



Specimen ---> GM#1
-> GM#2

Insert MICA :

Specimen  ---> MICA  --> GM#1
 -> #GM2

and/or

Specimen  ---> LEADMICA  --> GM#1
- 
> #GM2


Then remove the mica and put it next to GM#3 to record its decay  
(possibly with a separate background-detector GM#4)


MICA ---> GM#3

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Alan J Fletcher 


GM#1 and GM#2 are no longer detecting radiation from the Specimen, but are
detecting the decay of K40 in the Mica window.

So the the discovery is that the radiation from the specimen is doing
"something" to K40 -- which decays with a half-life of 109 minutes.

 

Does anyone know how or why carbon-14 was eliminated from consideration as
the beta emitter?

 

There is 10 times more carbon than potassium in the window, apparently -
from the EDAX, and the half-life is shorter by a factor of nearly a million
to one, meaning: less stable. OTOH the natural abundance of 14C is much less
than 40K . 

 

If the new kind of radiation accelerated beta decay as one of its main
features, then one might think that the less stable species (lowest half
life) - 14C would be favored, even in lower percentage.

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Axil Axil]

Ed Storms is stuck on fusion in his thinking about radiation coming from
hydrogen concerning its nuclear effects on a cracked metal lattice.

This unsupported preconception is undercutting an objective examination of
what nuclear transmutation processes are happening in the lattice.
The hydrogen cross section for hydrogen fusion is impossibly low. The
ability for the fusion of hydrogen to build up elements as heavy as iron is
literally impossible.

The transmutation products seen in the experiment as follows:

C - 55 wt. %
O - 16 wt. %
Si - 10 wt. %
Al - 9 wt. %
K- 5 wt. %
Fe - 3 wt. %
Mg, Ti, Na - < 1 wt. %
The new elements seen in the crack experiment is caused by fission of
nickel and/or copper.

The atomic numbers of the fission products add up.
Si(14) = C(6) + O(8)
Al(13) = Si(14) – proton
K(19) = Cu(29) -  Ne(10)
Si(14) = Ni(28) – Si(14)
Mg(12) = Ni(28) – C(6) – O(8)
Al(13) = Cu(29) – C(6) – O(8)
 Fe(28) = Ni(28) – He(2)
Ti(22) = Ni(28) – C(6)

Lowering the coulomb barrier will increase both alpha, beta and gamma
nuclear decay rates and in direct proportion to the barriers lowered level.

In sum, the lowering of the coulomb barrier accounts for both the
transmutation pattern that Ed sees in the experiment and the increased
nuclear decay rate of K(40).


Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Storms, E. and B. Scanlan, *Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a
> metal exposed to H2*. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012(submitted).
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:26 AM 10/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I uploaded a version of this
paper with some revisions and corrections.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf
I had to read it several times to figure out the relationship between
GM#1 and GM#2.
Let me summarize my current understanding to see if I've got it
right
Specimen  --->  Mica Window --> GM#1 
 
*- - - - - - - >   *--->
GM#2
GM#1 and GM#2 show counts both from the specimen and from the Mica
Window
Insert lead :
Specimen  --->  LEAD    Mica Window -->
GM#1  

*---> GM#2
GM#1 and GM#2 are no longer detecting radiation from the Specimen, but
are detecting the decay of K40
in the Mica window.
So the the discovery is that the radiation from the specimen is doing
"something" to K40 -- which decays with a half-life of 109
minutes.
At the very least, that should be in the abstract as well as in the
conclusion.
Lead-on question : 
Why not use a NON-mica GM#1 AND #GM2,  and then insert mica into the
specimen->GM#1 path

Specimen ---> GM#1
   
-> GM#2
Insert MICA :
Specimen  ---> MICA  --> GM#1

-> #GM2
and/or
Specimen  ---> LEAD    MICA  -->
GM#1
   
-> #GM2
Then remove the mica and put it next to GM#3 to record its decay
(possibly with a separate background-detector GM#4)
    MICA ---> GM#3

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded a version of this paper with some revisions and corrections.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

In the paper, Storms and Scanlan describe the Geiger-Muller
activity of unknown species that appear to have half-lives of 58 and 109
minutes, respectively; they wonder whether they're actually the same
species, observed under different conditions... Storms and Scanlan refer to
a possible speeding up of the decay of potassium-40.  Potassium-40 normally
decays via three channels -- β+, β- and electron capture -- and has a
half-life of 1.248E9 years.  Their line of reasoning would seem to imply an
acceleration of the weak interaction and the difficulties that go along with
that -- am I mistaken here?  

Well, no one can say for sure - but even an informed opinion could depend on
which result requires “fewer miracles” – accelerated decay or a virtual
neutron. Both are possible, neither are commonplace.

There is an interesting alternative source to pursue based on the Storms and
Scanlan findings – given that palladium is used in their experiment as well
- and should be a more ready source of any anomaly; which could be due to
those pesky isotopes 109mPd and 111mPd. Both of these are “halo nuclei” and
of military importance.

These two isotopes are not found naturally, yet there are two common
isotopes 108 and 110 which are in all palladium, which could yield the
odd-numbered ones around them, with half lives in hours following a virtual
neutron absorption. Actually since these two are halo  that little
convenient fact could actually obviate the need for a neutron absorption at
all !! In fact, hydrogen in a DDL could in principle be captured as a halo
nucleus ab initio. Wow, this just dawned on me – a DDL (Deep Dirac Layer)
and a “halo” around certain target nuclei - are almost the same thing, no?
Can the two be distinguished?

Plus - If beta decay is accelerated, either isotope would be in the one hour
range of half-life, yet the possibility of a “halo” makes either most
intriguing in the context of a “new kind of radiation”. Correspondingly,
there is little information about these two – or about any halo nuclei – due
to the high level secrecy of certain coherent emission devices (the infamous
death ray gun) … yet one suspects that these isotopes are being produced in
quantity, ostensibly for medical uses.

Of course, either halo nucleus would imply a real or more likely a virtual
neutron - such as f/H or deep redundancy or Inverse Rydberg hydrogen, or
Deep Dirac Layers etc. No surprise there. In fact it is even possible that
all halo nuclei have DDLs, instead of neutrons !

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

We found that when several materials are subjected to conditions expected
> and found to produce voids, and then exposed to H2, a source of radiation
> results that is consistent with the radiation reported by previous workers.
> In addition, this radiation has strange effects on other materials, which
> is a new discovery.
>

In the paper, Storms and Scanlan describe the Geiger-Muller activity of
unknown species that appear to have half-lives of 58 and 109 minutes,
respectively; they wonder whether they're actually the same species,
observed under different conditions.  Wikipedia has a listing of
radioisotopes by half-life [1], but it is incomplete.  The only two
radioisotopes mentioned there within range are nobelium-259 (58 minutes)
and fluorine-18 (1.8 hours).  Is there a more complete listing somewhere?
 Also, I wonder whether the gamma energies are narrow or broad. It would be
nice to have another detector whose activity could be correlated with that
of the GM counters which could give an indication of the energy levels.

Storms and Scanlan refer to a possible speeding up of the decay of
potassium-40.  Potassium-40 normally decays via three channels -- β+, β-
and electron capture -- and has a half-life of 1.248E9 years [2].  Their
line of reasoning would seem to imply an acceleration of the weak
interaction and the difficulties that go along with that -- am I mistaken
here?  Is the gamma thought to be an electron-positron annihilation photon?

Like David says, it would be nice to see some calibration runs against
known radiation sources.  Also it would be nice to run an active and an
inactive assembly in parallel, to address questions about background noise
messing up the signal.

Eric

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life#103_seconds
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[David Roberson]

I found the paper most interesting.  It might reveal a valuable tool in 
detecting LENR activity.  I have a question for Ed.  Is there some way that you 
can calibrate the detectors with a known radiation source to obtain similar 
delayed responses?  I am not familiar with the normal behavior of these 
devices, but it seems strange for those delays to occur at this time unless 
others have seen them in the past.


If you are witnessing a new phenomena, then something major may come out of 
this research.  Perhaps there is another form of radiation that is only emitted 
by LENR behavior?  I would be very surprised if this is the case, but who knows.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan


Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:


I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available for your information 
and comment - sort of a universal peer 
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been 
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept. 
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is "Nature 
of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms and 
Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach when they 
submit papers for publication.

This is an important paper because it uses radiation measurements to identify 
when LENR occurs rather than energy production. Because such radiation can only 
result from a nuclear reaction and its measurement can detect a nuclear 
reaction at a much lower rate than is possible by measuring energy production, 
radiation provides an excellent tool for studying the LENR process.  Of course, 
heat is being produced but a much larger sample would be required for its 
detection.

The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the theory that I 
published recently. This is the first example of using a theory to produce a 
predicted result using a predicted method.  We found that when several 
materials are subjected to conditions expected and found to produce voids, and 
then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that is consistent with the 
radiation reported by previous workers. In addition, this radiation has strange 
effects on other materials, which is a new discovery.

We are making these results available at an early stage in our studies to alert 
people to the possible benefit of observing radiation. I expect many questions 
and objections will result.  Nevertheless, people need to be encouraged to 
duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or not.

I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment required to make the 
effect occur every time.  Although I produced 4 samples that work, many did 
not. I now know the reason.  This method is ok  as a way to study the effect 
but it is not useful to scale up to produce a commercial source of energy. 
However, it gives support to my theory and provides a good method to 
demonstrate LENR. The nature of the radiation also provides useful insight into 
the mechanism.

Your comments would be welcome.
 

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones,
They may be simply measuring photons from the same phase shifted black 
light plasma from which Mills derived his company name.  I remain of the 
opinion that Storms NAE is relativistic based on Casimir "suppression" -  
instead of the normal "compression"  we associate with deep gravity wells or 
near C velocities. Jan Naudts published a paper endorsing the hydrino as being 
relativistic similar to hydrogen being ejected at high velocity from the suns 
corona but I submit such hydrogen or any particle approaching C would appear to 
slow down and decay slower from our perspective on earth because the hydrogen 
is traveling at the hypotenuse of it's 3d velocity relative to the time axis 
[which we in a local frame can only perceive of as having a constant velocity] 
- the relativistic hydrogen inside a metal powder would instead experience 
"suppression" where velocity is unimportant and instead the time axis is 
suppressed such that the "hydrino" rides a hypotenuse that diverges on the 
temporal axis. My posit is that the photons from this plasma are being created 
at an accelerated rate -even just spontaneous emissions would accumulate and 
then downshift as the light is propagating out of the compressed space time 
back to our normal unsuppressed reality. Perhaps we are trading energy for 
aging the hydrogen and just collecting the emitted photons?
Fran

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 5:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan


There are a couple of troubling things about this paper that stand out on a 
first read. I hate to sound critical, since in the extreme case (to be 
explained) this could be a very important paper.

Like Forsley before, Ed Storms finds radiation, but unlike Forsley there is 
little acknowledgement of how extremely low the radiation rate is. Count rate 
is in "arbitrary units" ?? How does this compare with background rates? What is 
it in watts, when downshifted to thermal? My strong suspicion is that this rate 
is extremely low and could be a relic of many other things.

GM meters are notoriously easy to fool with RF, and RF could come from mundane 
sources such as a loose or chaffed feedthrough of an electrical connection.

If the rate turns out to be significant in the real world, and not due to 
fooling the meters - then the next most troubling thing (or most exciting if 
true) is this statement: "Radiation, which had the characteristics of photons, 
was detected using large area Geiger-Muller detectors." Does this mean that the 
radiation being detected is a new kind of radiation that has characteristics of 
photons but can only be detected in the way it interacts with Mica in the 
detector window? That kind of open-ended statement leads to all kinds of 
confusion.

Apparently there are indications of secondary decay which match the rate of 
40K, however, potassium is not even always guaranteed to be Mica - so did they 
test this window for potassium content? Some Mica used in these windows has K 
content and some does not, and the makes try to use Mica that has none for the 
obvious reason ! ... and in any event, K is small percentage of Mica, the Mica 
is thin, and this rationale seems bizarre - but OTOH the implication is that 
this new kind of radiation stimulates a particular element's decay, and does so 
to a greater extent than can be detected on its own.

A new kind of radiation would be a huge breakthrough! MONSTROUS But is that 
really where this is going here ? If so - it is the wrong approach and the 
paper is premature

Since - rather than come out and say it is a new kind of radiation, they seem 
to be beating around the bush, so to speak. I would be extremely surprised if 
this paper got past peer review in a journal for all of the reasons above, but 
OTOH, it would be EXTREMELY important if there was real evidence of a "new kind 
of radiation."

It's almost like they "want to say that" yet they realize - if they do say it - 
the floodgates of skepticism will open forth, so they are trying to be 
circumspect. You cannot have it both ways. My advice is to go back and try to 
bolster the case for a new type of radiation.

I can think of several ways to do this - if there is really an interaction of a 
new kind of radiation with potassium.


  From: Jed Rothwell

  Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:


  I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available for your 
information and comment - sort of a universal peer 
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been 
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept. 
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is "Nature 
of energetic radiation emitted from a

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

Correction: I sent the preceding out too quickly since on review I see the
EDAX of the mica, which somehow shows it is over half carbon when in nature,
mica has none. Possibly mica laminated to a film of polycarbonate. It does
show 5% potassium. 

Anyway - this statement says it all - the good that bad and ugly: "The
radiation being emitted by the sample is proposed to result from a fusion
reaction that produces coherent photons. These photons are proposed to react
with K40 nuclei in the mica window of the GM to stimulate its decay by beta
and gamma emission that is easily detected by the GM."

However, to put this in perspective of all the literature - there is NO
evidence here of a fusion reaction, but plenty of evidence for accelerated
decay. Instead of fusion, there is an enormous amount of literature, in
excess of 100 publication going back to 1990 - from Mills and other, of
potassium and nickel and hydrogen together giving excess heat.

It this "new kind of radiation" which is seen - itself giving the excess
heat seen in those papers via accelerated decay? That is the importance of
this finding.

In no way does this finding validate "fusion" and in fact there is less
evidence of fusion here than any other possible M.O. If it were real fusion
there would be unequivocal levels of gammas.

Jones
_


There are a couple of troubling things about this paper that
stand out on a first read. I hate to sound critical, since in the extreme
case (to be explained) this could be a very important paper.

Like Forsley before, Ed Storms finds radiation, but unlike
Forsley there is little acknowledgement of how extremely low the radiation
rate is. Count rate is in "arbitrary units" ?? How does this compare with
background rates? What is it in watts, when downshifted to thermal? My
strong suspicion is that this rate is extremely low and could be a relic of
many other things. 

GM meters are notoriously easy to fool with RF, and RF could
come from mundane sources such as a loose or chaffed feedthrough of an
electrical connection.

If the rate turns out to be significant in the real world,
and not due to fooling the meters - then the next most troubling thing (or
most exciting if true) is this statement: "Radiation, which had the
characteristics of photons, was detected using large area Geiger-Muller
detectors." Does this mean that the radiation being detected is a new kind
of radiation that has characteristics of photons but can only be detected in
the way it interacts with Mica in the detector window? That kind of
open-ended statement leads to all kinds of confusion.

Apparently there are indications of secondary decay which
match the rate of 40K, however, potassium is not even always guaranteed to
be Mica - so did they test this window for potassium content? Some Mica used
in these windows has K content and some does not, and the makes try to use
Mica that has none for the obvious reason ! ... and in any event, K is small
percentage of Mica, the Mica is thin, and this rationale seems bizarre - but
OTOH the implication is that this new kind of radiation stimulates a
particular element's decay, and does so to a greater extent than can be
detected on its own.

A new kind of radiation would be a huge breakthrough!
MONSTROUS But is that really where this is going here ? If so - it is the
wrong approach and the paper is premature

Since - rather than come out and say it is a new kind of
radiation, they seem to be beating around the bush, so to speak. I would be
extremely surprised if this paper got past peer review in a journal for all
of the reasons above, but OTOH, it would be EXTREMELY important if there was
real evidence of a "new kind of radiation."

It's almost like they "want to say that" yet they realize -
if they do say it - the floodgates of skepticism will open forth, so they
are trying to be circumspect. You cannot have it both ways. My advice is to
go back and try to bolster the case for a new type of radiation. 

I can think of several ways to do this - if there is really
an interaction of a new kind of radiation with potassium.


From: Jed Rothwell 

Ed published this description of the paper
at CMNS:


I'm making a prepublication copy of a new
paper available for your information and comment - sort of a universal peer
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept.
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is
"Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms
an

RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jones Beene]

There are a couple of troubling things about this paper that stand out on a
first read. I hate to sound critical, since in the extreme case (to be
explained) this could be a very important paper.

Like Forsley before, Ed Storms finds radiation, but unlike Forsley there is
little acknowledgement of how extremely low the radiation rate is. Count
rate is in "arbitrary units" ?? How does this compare with background rates?
What is it in watts, when downshifted to thermal? My strong suspicion is
that this rate is extremely low and could be a relic of many other things. 

GM meters are notoriously easy to fool with RF, and RF could come from
mundane sources such as a loose or chaffed feedthrough of an electrical
connection.

If the rate turns out to be significant in the real world, and not due to
fooling the meters - then the next most troubling thing (or most exciting if
true) is this statement: "Radiation, which had the characteristics of
photons, was detected using large area Geiger-Muller detectors." Does this
mean that the radiation being detected is a new kind of radiation that has
characteristics of photons but can only be detected in the way it interacts
with Mica in the detector window? That kind of open-ended statement leads to
all kinds of confusion.

Apparently there are indications of secondary decay which match the rate of
40K, however, potassium is not even always guaranteed to be Mica - so did
they test this window for potassium content? Some Mica used in these windows
has K content and some does not, and the makes try to use Mica that has none
for the obvious reason ! ... and in any event, K is small percentage of
Mica, the Mica is thin, and this rationale seems bizarre - but OTOH the
implication is that this new kind of radiation stimulates a particular
element's decay, and does so to a greater extent than can be detected on its
own.

A new kind of radiation would be a huge breakthrough! MONSTROUS But is that
really where this is going here ? If so - it is the wrong approach and the
paper is premature

Since - rather than come out and say it is a new kind of radiation, they
seem to be beating around the bush, so to speak. I would be extremely
surprised if this paper got past peer review in a journal for all of the
reasons above, but OTOH, it would be EXTREMELY important if there was real
evidence of a "new kind of radiation."

It's almost like they "want to say that" yet they realize - if they do say
it - the floodgates of skepticism will open forth, so they are trying to be
circumspect. You cannot have it both ways. My advice is to go back and try
to bolster the case for a new type of radiation. 

I can think of several ways to do this - if there is really an interaction
of a new kind of radiation with potassium.


From: Jed Rothwell 

Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:


I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available
for your information and comment - sort of a universal peer
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept.
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is
"Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms
and Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach
when they submit papers for publication.

This is an important paper because it uses radiation
measurements to identify when LENR occurs rather than energy production.
Because such radiation can only result from a nuclear reaction and its
measurement can detect a nuclear reaction at a much lower rate than is
possible by measuring energy production, radiation provides an excellent
tool for studying the LENR process.  Of course, heat is being produced but a
much larger sample would be required for its detection.

The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the
theory that I published recently. This is the first example of using a
theory to produce a predicted result using a predicted method.  We found
that when several materials are subjected to conditions expected and found
to produce voids, and then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that
is consistent with the radiation reported by previous workers. In addition,
this radiation has strange effects on other materials, which is a new
discovery.

We are making these results available at an early stage in
our studies to alert people to the possible benefit of observing radiation.
I expect many questions and objections will result.  Nevertheless, people
need to be encouraged to duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or
not.

I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment
required to make the effect occur every time.  Although I produced 4 samples
that

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Axil Axil]

“Now we only need a foolproof, methodology to reliably and cheaply create
these NAE on common metals (such as Ni, Cu). Maybe Francesco Celani has
one?”

Rossi first invented this when he used tubules to cover nickel
micro-powder.


Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:

> On 2012-10-22 20:44, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Storms, E. and B. Scanlan, /Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a
>> metal exposed to H2/. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012(submitted).
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**StormsEnatureofen.pdf
>>
>
> I don't think I have the expertise needed to discuss this in detail, but
> it's quite an interesting, clearly written paper and I recommend others who
> do, to read it as well.
>
> It doesn't sound like it should be too hard to verify the claims for
> experienced researchers, but for this reason it's in turn hard to believe
> that radiation emission from metals (treated at a nanometric scale) just by
> exposure to H2 and [optionally] heat due to small scale fusion effects has
> never been observed so far, even by chance (as NAE, cracks, appear to be a
> prerequisite for this to happen), in other fields such as the battery/fuel
> cell industry for example.
>
> Hidden in plain sight would be a suitable expression to define this effect
> if really confirmed.
>
> Now we only need a foolproof, methodology to reliably and cheaply create
> these NAE on common metals (such as Ni, Cu). Maybe Francesco Celani has one?
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Axil Axil]

In the document, the word fusion should be replaced with the word “fission”
due to coulomb barrier lowering as a direct consequence of Anderson
localization of electrons in and near the lattice discontinuities in the
metal.

Scale up od the effect can be done using electrostatic amplification
actioned by sparks in dense hydrogen gas, nano-second electric pulsed
current, and/or alkali based superatom ion clustering.

Cheers:   Axil

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:
>
>
> I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available for your
> information and comment - sort of a universal peer review.(
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been submitted
> to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept. Consequently,
> you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is "Nature of
> energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms and
> Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach when
> they submit papers for publication.
>
> This is an important paper because it uses radiation measurements to
> identify when LENR occurs rather than energy production. Because such
> radiation can only result from a nuclear reaction and its measurement can
> detect a nuclear reaction at a much lower rate than is possible by
> measuring energy production, radiation provides an excellent tool for
> studying the LENR process.  Of course, heat is being produced but a much
> larger sample would be required for its detection.
>
> The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the theory that I
> published recently. This is the first example of using a theory to produce
> a predicted result using a predicted method.  We found that when several
> materials are subjected to conditions expected and found to produce voids,
> and then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that is consistent
> with the radiation reported by previous workers. In addition, this
> radiation has strange effects on other materials, which is a new discovery.
>
> We are making these results available at an early stage in our studies to
> alert people to the possible benefit of observing radiation. I expect many
> questions and objections will result.  Nevertheless, people need to be
> encouraged to duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or not.
>
> I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment required to make the
> effect occur every time.  Although I produced 4 samples that work, many did
> not. I now know the reason.  This method is ok  as a way to study the
> effect but it is not useful to scale up to produce a commercial source of
> energy. However, it gives support to my theory and provides a good method
> to demonstrate LENR. The nature of the radiation also provides useful
> insight into the mechanism.
>
> Your comments would be welcome.

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-10-22 20:44, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Storms, E. and B. Scanlan, /Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a
metal exposed to H2/. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012(submitted).

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf


I don't think I have the expertise needed to discuss this in detail, but 
it's quite an interesting, clearly written paper and I recommend others 
who do, to read it as well.


It doesn't sound like it should be too hard to verify the claims for 
experienced researchers, but for this reason it's in turn hard to 
believe that radiation emission from metals (treated at a nanometric 
scale) just by exposure to H2 and [optionally] heat due to small scale 
fusion effects has never been observed so far, even by chance (as NAE, 
cracks, appear to be a prerequisite for this to happen), in other fields 
such as the battery/fuel cell industry for example.


Hidden in plain sight would be a suitable expression to define this 
effect if really confirmed.


Now we only need a foolproof, methodology to reliably and cheaply create 
these NAE on common metals (such as Ni, Cu). Maybe Francesco Celani has one?


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jed Rothwell]

Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:


I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available for your
information and comment - sort of a universal peer review.(
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been submitted
to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept. Consequently,
you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is "Nature of
energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms and
Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach when
they submit papers for publication.

This is an important paper because it uses radiation measurements to
identify when LENR occurs rather than energy production. Because such
radiation can only result from a nuclear reaction and its measurement can
detect a nuclear reaction at a much lower rate than is possible by
measuring energy production, radiation provides an excellent tool for
studying the LENR process.  Of course, heat is being produced but a much
larger sample would be required for its detection.

The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the theory that I
published recently. This is the first example of using a theory to produce
a predicted result using a predicted method.  We found that when several
materials are subjected to conditions expected and found to produce voids,
and then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that is consistent
with the radiation reported by previous workers. In addition, this
radiation has strange effects on other materials, which is a new discovery.

We are making these results available at an early stage in our studies to
alert people to the possible benefit of observing radiation. I expect many
questions and objections will result.  Nevertheless, people need to be
encouraged to duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or not.

I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment required to make the
effect occur every time.  Although I produced 4 samples that work, many did
not. I now know the reason.  This method is ok  as a way to study the
effect but it is not useful to scale up to produce a commercial source of
energy. However, it gives support to my theory and provides a good method
to demonstrate LENR. The nature of the radiation also provides useful
insight into the mechanism.

Your comments would be welcome.

[Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan

[Jed Rothwell]

Storms, E. and B. Scanlan, *Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a
metal exposed to H2*. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012(submitted).

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf