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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: H LV > > MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data > What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over > time? My reading of

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

I wrote: > In some cases they have been anti-correlated. Cells have produced > radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation, then radiation again. > By radiation I mean gamma rays (MeV). Lots of cells produce x-rays (keV) as detected with dental film placed close to the cathode. Maybe

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

Axil Axil wrote: On the contrary, the storage of energy is at the core of the LENR reaction. > No, it isn't. The only examples of endothermic storage before the reaction turns on are caused by palladium loading. They are fully explained by conventional chemistry. There is no

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

Jones Beene wrote: > Otherwise that would mean that there is no connection between excess heat > and radiation . . . > There is no correlation. In some cases they have been anti-correlated. Cells have produced radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation, then

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

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

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

The interpretation (or in this case the mis-interpretation) of the metric can me more important than the metric itself. For instance, as Rothwell says, “There are many reports of experiments that produced massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry

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

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

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > H LV wrote: > >> >> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy >> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for >> the last 9hrs. 'Excess Heat' is

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

Jack, thanks for the links. The calibration curves seem to indicate that the temperature difference is significantly smaller then the temperature difference which occurs during the experimental run so my interpretation is still valid. Harry On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jack Cole

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

OTOH, presence of gamma rays (for example in an electrolytic cell), not due to natural background, is a convincing indicator of a nuclear effect, as often stated by others. Ludwik === On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Bob Higgins

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

Bob Higgins wrote: > OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric. > I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry and yet which produced *no

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

Harry, Here is an animated chart of the calibrations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kZ295dXF0cTVLSW8/view It doesn't appear that it was calibrated empty, but rather had an alumina rod inserted. It's not completely clear to me what they did, but they did do 4 calibrations it

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

Jack, Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both calibrated empty? Harry On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole wrote: > Harry, > > I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower > than null to start and later higher.

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

You on touching on one of the fundamental issues with experimental LENR - what do you use for a metric? If you want to progress from no results or poor results in your experiment, you need to have a way to measure whether you are getting better or worse as you introduce changes - you need a

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

-Original Message- From: H LV MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time? My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy for the first 19 hrs and ends

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

H LV wrote: > My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy > for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for > the last 9hrs. 'Excess Heat' is not evident. > I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy

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

Harry, I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower than null to start and later higher. However, there was already the differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even during the calibration. Also, chemistry effects in these types of

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

MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data. https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3 What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time? My reading of the active data set

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

In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:48:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] >As I said in the article, the deepest DDL level (see JofCMNS vol-18 Paillet >and Meulenberg) is about 509keV. That is energy TAKEN from the atom to >shrink it into that deepest state. Suppose that all of that

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

One theory and set of experiments which provides the fastest electron via f/H is Holmlid’s. He labels the dense hydrogen as UDH or UDD. But there is nothing low energy about Holmlid, if you look closely enough. He documents lots of muons, and when muons decay you get two neutrinos and an

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

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's from the nucleus); Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being feed by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon

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

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

As I said in the article, the deepest DDL level (see JofCMNS vol-18 Paillet and Meulenberg) is about 509keV. That is energy TAKEN from the atom to shrink it into that deepest state. Suppose that all of that energy catalyzed out by evanescent means was suddenly released applied to a photon or a

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

[image: Inline image 1] A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the matter in

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

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

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

The long view https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3 Harry On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >>

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

more... arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6851.pdf How to extract metalized hydrogen from a 5 year old battery. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > To get the heat level up, we must progress from LENR which is low level > activity to LENR+ which is high

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

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

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

Nyet. That is the decay spectrum of a silver sample that has been exposed to a neutron activation flux from the FF. It is not the prompt emission from fusion of the FF. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor >

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

Here is the silver gamma spectrum of the Fusor http://www.fusor.net/board/download/file.php?id=3829 =a1b499f80621282e42d797de7b48729a There are several related threads on Fusor.net From: Bob

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

As I understand the way Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) work is that the photon becomes entangled with the electron that is vibrating as a dipole with a hole in the nickel lattice. The photons are accumulated in of soliton physically displaced from the electrons which are still in the nickel

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

That's an interesting question. The problem is that the FF is a known producer of neutrons, so you would need to measure the gamma spectrum on the far side of a neutron absorber. I have never seen a properly taken gamma spectrum from the FF, have you? On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Russ

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

Ok. Presumably they would have caught their error had they succeeded in attaching a thermocouple to the surface of the reactor right over the reaction chamber. Harry On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > AFAIK, the Lugano team never publicly commented

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

What might be the comparison of this recent radiation flux signature with that of something like a Farnsworth Fusor? From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? Alan has

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

Also if Bob higgins and MFMP could determine how the curve continues to rise at lower energies then they could use it to calculate the "excess heat". This method would be far more sensitive than bulk calorimetry. Harry On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:16 AM, H LV wrote: > On

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > Why can't the peak be at 100eV or 10eV and many order of magnitude more > intense. Yes. >There is not much in the shown signal > that indicates a peak in teh extreme spectra near the seen peak in the >

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

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

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

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: The detection count was not as low as you seem to believe. In spectrum 07 > there were almost 300,000 counts in a signal that we believe probably > lasted only a minute or two. Suppose it was 2 minutes or 120 seconds.

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

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

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

I made sure to apprise Ed on these experimental results. I am sure he will consider how they may be explained at some point. The detection count was not as low as you seem to believe. In spectrum 07 there were almost 300,000 counts in a signal that we believe probably lasted only a minute or

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

I agree, this paper is a nice find. It used high end equipment - 4" NaI sensors and HPGe detector. It is presently beyond the scope of MFMP (at the moment). The advantage of the HPGe detector over the NaI is that it has a narrow detection bandwidth. The NaI detector has a 6.5% FWHM while the

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 wrote: > >

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]: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: > >

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

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]: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 ?

@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? Alan has a full set of gamma check sources. Initial calibration was done with 137Cs. The energy scale drifted over time with heating from the reactor. The background always showed the 78keV x-ray and 1461 40K background peaks. I re

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]:Big surprise or big dud ?

for flea signature. From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? Yeah ... I don't thinks so. Think about it. At 100,000,000K, you get some small output at 100keV

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

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

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.

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 ?

ruary 24, 2016 9:45 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? > > > > One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the > spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation. I did some analysis and can > tell you that it does NOT

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 ?

and is rapidly repeated. Some obvious steps will define the nature of the emission. From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? One of the researchers that I discussed

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

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

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

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