Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

Bob Greenyer explains in this video that the lack of radiation in the
Lugano test is probably due ~1mm or so tungsten envelope
between the reactor core and the alumina tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs2We34jXo=youtu.be

He also describes some neat ideas for a ECat type reactor which could
switch between heat, electricity and light producing modes.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:00 PM, H LV  wrote:
> If the  spectrum from the MFMP experiment really does come from the
> reactor, and if MFMP reactor could run for 32 days
> without lead shielding would one have to sit right next to it for the
> entire time for it to be harmful?
>
> Harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
>> The sensors were placed relatively far away, and the total "dose" was low.
>> For the electronic rate meters, they did not report what they detected,
>> simply that it was below the alarm level that they had set (set where?).
>> There was no spectrometry.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:12 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>>
>>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
>>> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
>>> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
>>> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
>>> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
>>> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
>>> dosimeters register any radiation?
>>>
>>> harry
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Axil Axil]

One of the amazing properties of the monopole field is that it makes the
matter that it encompasses impervious to destruction. Hydrogen Rydberg
Matter covered in a monopole EMF field would be impervious to a nuclear
bomb blast. This can be understood in the experiments of LeClair, where he
produces transuranic elements using a hot fusion supernova pressure that
his water crystal exerts on matter.



Once formed in the E-Cat X and protected by an increasingly strong monopole
field, the reactor could sustain any temperature even up to the temperature
of the Sun. If the E-Cat X is producing light in the solar black body
spectrum, the E-Cat X could be operating at temperatures in the solar range.



The heat emitted by the E-Cat can be reduced if the temperature that the
E-Cat operates at is increased



Wien's Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__x4IjPQnro





If the E-cat can operate at very high temperatures, then visible light can
drive the reaction instead of heat. The heat produced by the E-Cat can be
minimized is the E-Cat can run at very high temperatures.





Rossi may have invented a plasma based system confined by a very high
melting point material.





Eliminating the production of heat as Holmlid has done by using a green
laser light implies that his reaction runs at a temperature that equals
that of the Sun.





Rossi may have invented a plasma based system confined by a very high
melting point material.





Might the E Cat X be using the same reaction that powers the SunCell except
that solar level reaction is confined in a very high melting point material.


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Ø   To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could
> have produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something
> in or near the experiment.
>
> Eric,
>
> Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free
> neutrons have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone in 15. The
> usual beta electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look like a
> gamma. And there is no evidence of an accelerated decay in a
> well-investigate field.
>
> However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This
> gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” but is soft. See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung
>
> If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and
> then with shielding, and compare the two - then many of these issues can
> be resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, then cosmic
> rays can be blamed. However, my prediction is that no shielding will show
> fewer, not more gammas. That is especially true if the reaction itself is
> making muons (the Holmlid effect).
>
> IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is
> to see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and
> to see a variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave is moved
> back from the reactor. Lastly, the peaks can be matched with the
> temperature differential.
>
> If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in
> the last test – then it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is
> correct.
>
> Jones
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

*   To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have 
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in or 
near the experiment.  
Eric,

Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free neutrons 
have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone in 15. The usual beta 
electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look like a gamma. And there 
is no evidence of an accelerated decay in a well-investigate field.

However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This 
gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” but is soft. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung

If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and then 
with shielding, and compare the two - then many of these issues can be 
resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, then cosmic rays can 
be blamed. However, my prediction is that no shielding will show fewer, not 
more gammas. That is especially true if the reaction itself is making muons 
(the Holmlid effect). 

IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is to 
see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a 
variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave is moved back from the 
reactor. Lastly, the peaks can be matched with the temperature differential.

If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in the 
last test – then it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is correct.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[torulf.greek]

There are non nuclear mechanisms how may generate x-gamma radiation.


Tape can produce it.


http://www.nature.com/news/2008/012345/full/news.2008.1185.html


Maybe same mechanism is in work during crack formation. The energy may
be enough to produce gamma rays if its enough to produce fraktofusion.


If the thermal effect observed real is exes heat this will indicate
that cracks is the NAE. 

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:16:21 -0600, Eric
Walker  wrote:  

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the
cosmic rays into a small neutron flux. MFMP did not measure neutrons.   
 
To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in
or near the experiment. (This might or might not be plausible.) 

Eric 



Links:
--
[1] mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it
> probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the
> cosmic rays into a small *neutron* flux.  MFMP did not measure neutrons.
>

To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have produced
short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in or near the
experiment.  (This might or might not be plausible.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Axil Axil]

There is some sort of radiation coming out of Rossi's Mouse reactor that
stimulates the unpowered Cat reactors. Maybe pions and muons... how can we
tell now that MDMP has a reactor that maybe is functional at a Mouse level
COP of 1.2

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Isn’t the reality check that eliminating a cosmic ray contribution means
> the expected gamma counts are going to be too low to impress anyone?
> However, I am very glad you are going to the trouble – if you also test for
> radiation (all types) with and without the enclosure, and then compare the
> two. Without both, the benefits of a cave alone are small.
>
>
>
> BTW - a PNNL study I ran across says that the best material to shield
> against cosmic-ray components is iron, which has the best combination of
> primary shielding and minimal secondary neutron production. As you are
> using iron with lead – that is good.
>
>
>
> A compromise is the simple expedient to test the ongoing reaction as you
> plan but also with no shielding. If bare gives significantly more counts,
> then you have made the right choice to shield. However, it is likely that a
> bare test will show fewer, not more. That is especially true if the
> reaction itself is making muons. And didn’t Mark mention having a second
> meter anyway? Perfect.
>
>
>
> IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this is to see
> significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a
> variance from inverse square when the cave is moved back from the reactor.
> If a radiation burst was to be  correlated with apparent endotherm, as in
> the last test – it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is
> correct.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Do you have a reference on this?  Otherwise, a lead cave would not be
> useful - it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays.
>
> My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by
> spallation.  If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely
> cause isotopic shift which will lead to beta emission and then
> characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 keV.  My plan is to follow the inside
> of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will absorb all of the 78 keV but will
> produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 keV.  Then there is the boric
> acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum absorbs the 6  keV from the
> Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray in small amount.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead
> (and it probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of
> the cosmic rays into a small* neutron* flux.
>
> Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the
> lead, causing the gamma radiation.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Isn’t the reality check that eliminating a cosmic ray contribution means the 
expected gamma counts are going to be too low to impress anyone? However, I am 
very glad you are going to the trouble – if you also test for radiation (all 
types) with and without the enclosure, and then compare the two. Without both, 
the benefits of a cave alone are small.

 

BTW - a PNNL study I ran across says that the best material to shield against 
cosmic-ray components is iron, which has the best combination of primary 
shielding and minimal secondary neutron production. As you are using iron with 
lead – that is good.

 

A compromise is the simple expedient to test the ongoing reaction as you plan 
but also with no shielding. If bare gives significantly more counts, then you 
have made the right choice to shield. However, it is likely that a bare test 
will show fewer, not more. That is especially true if the reaction itself is 
making muons. And didn’t Mark mention having a second meter anyway? Perfect.

 

IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this is to see 
significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a 
variance from inverse square when the cave is moved back from the reactor. If a 
radiation burst was to be  correlated with apparent endotherm, as in the last 
test – it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is correct.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Do you have a reference on this?  Otherwise, a lead cave would not be useful - 
it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays.

My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by spallation.  
If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely cause isotopic shift 
which will lead to beta emission and then characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 
keV.  My plan is to follow the inside of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will 
absorb all of the 78 keV but will produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 
keV.  Then there is the boric acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum 
absorbs the 6  keV from the Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray 
in small amount.

 

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

Ø   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it 
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the cosmic 
rays into a small neutron flux. 

Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the lead, 
causing the gamma radiation.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Bob, our solution to the cosmic spallation creating neutrons from lead was to 
move the lead far away… no lead no neutrons… I shared that story only to tell 
how easy it is to fuss about small signals… sometimes the signals are 
‘relatively’ large for the instrument but meaninglessly tiny for you and I. 

 

If one is making neutrons then there are neutron initiated gammas that one 
might need to watch out for. I found that having some neutron sensitive 
materials around like silver and gadolinium is a sure fire way to reveal 
neutrons with simple detectors. But there are almost certainly some strange 
emissions lurking in cold fusion/lenr that are not yet well understood, perhaps 
never having been described!

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 7:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

Do you have a reference on this?  Otherwise, a lead cave would not be useful - 
it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays.

My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by spallation.  
If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely cause isotopic shift 
which will lead to beta emission and then characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 
keV.  My plan is to follow the inside of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will 
absorb all of the 78 keV but will produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 
keV.  Then there is the boric acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum 
absorbs the 6  keV from the Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray 
in small amount.

 

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it 
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the cosmic 
rays into a small neutron flux. 

Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the lead, 
causing the gamma radiation.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Bob Higgins]

Do you have a reference on this?  Otherwise, a lead cave would not be
useful - it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays.

My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by
spallation.  If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely
cause isotopic shift which will lead to beta emission and then
characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 keV.  My plan is to follow the inside
of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will absorb all of the 78 keV but will
produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 keV.  Then there is the boric
acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum absorbs the 6  keV from the
Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray in small amount.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead
> (and it probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of
> the cosmic rays into a small* neutron* flux.
>
> Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the
> lead, causing the gamma radiation.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

If the  spectrum from the MFMP experiment really does come from the
reactor, and if MFMP reactor could run for 32 days
without lead shielding would one have to sit right next to it for the
entire time for it to be harmful?

Harry

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> The sensors were placed relatively far away, and the total "dose" was low.
> For the electronic rate meters, they did not report what they detected,
> simply that it was below the alarm level that they had set (set where?).
> There was no spectrometry.
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:12 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
>> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
>> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
>> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
>> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
>> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
>> dosimeters register any radiation?
>>
>> harry
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it 
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the cosmic 
rays into a small neutron flux. 


Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the lead, 
causing the gamma radiation.
 

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the
cosmic rays into a small *neutron* flux.  MFMP did not measure neutrons.
The Lugano evaluation only made intermittent spot checks for neutrons -
they found an increase near the reactor and they had no lead.

People who are making sensitive gamma reading use lead - a lot of it
generally.  I am building an enhanced cave that has a thick outer layer of
lead, and inner layers of Fe, boric acid, and Al before the NaI detector.
This should help remove spallated neutrons, and the characteristic x-rays
from lead.

So, Russ, how did you solve that problem?  Did you erect a neutron shield
between the lead and the neutron detector?

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Thank you for confirming this detail. For some reason, it seemed not to be
> getting though.
>
> Get rid of the lead and the signal will disappear.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ George
>
> Many years ago in the early days of cold fusion I was running an
> experiment at Los Alamos. We had a high quality Germanium gamma detector
> and a neutron detector. The neutron detector was old but good though it
> printed it's data counts onto a paper tape. It had been calibrated in
> another lab down the hall from the lab I was working in. We wheeled it into
> my lab and placed it near ( 2 meters away) my deuterium palladium fueled
> sonofusion experiment which was known to produce prodigious amounts of 4He,
> (prodigious = e16 atoms in machines sensitive to e9 atoms.)
>
> No one had paid much attention to the neutron detector and its big box of
> spirals of paper tape that had the counts recorded. In a lull in work on
> the sono-fusion machine I paused to look at the paper tape counts. They
> were very simple having just a time code and a counts per minute recorded
> on each line. Every minute the machine would type out a new line of data.
> As I peered at the tape I noticed that the count rate had gone up suddenly
> by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Yikes I thought and with the other guys in the
> lab we stepped outside of that lab and down the hall just to put some
> distance between us and the experiment while we talked it over. We phoned
> the labs top neutron guy whose counter we were using and I told him what
> was happening. His immediate response was 'get out of that lab', I told him
> we were already calling from a phone down the hall. He came over
> immediately and once having briefed him he and I ran quickly back into the
> lab so I could show him the counts on the tape and back out again.
>
> Well he said that's a lot of additional counts but not so high as to be
> terribly dangerous. We should think about it a bit. He then walked to the
> door of the lab and peered in. Ah Hah he exclaimed I see the culprit. In
> the cornor of the lab, 15 feet from the detector, was a very massive block
> of lead that was used to encase the Germanium detector when it was in use.
> It was sitting on a wheeled cart. "That hunk of lead is catching cosmic
> rays and kicking out neutrons", he said. "Let's get it out of the lab and
> see what happens." Sure enough we wheeled the lead out of the room and that
> was that the count rate in the neutron detector went right back down to
> normal background.   When we looked carefully at the paper tape and time
> codes we could see the count rate had gone up when we moved the detector
> from its home lab to our 'lead heavy' lab.  No one had looked at it until I
> had done so and there was no mark as to the switch of labs. We were all
> well acquainted with looking for radiation from many cold fusion
> experiments and had not seen any up to that time.
>
> Moral of the story is radiation measurements are so wonderfully sensitive
> one can be fooled by what appears to be large signals but which are really
> such tiny signals many simple explanations can explain them away.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation
>
> Jones Beene  wrote: From: H LV
>
> >> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration
> test it looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above
> background... If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't
> the dosimeters register any radiation?
> >
> >
> > I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious:
> remove the lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at
> Lugano.
> >
> > The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which
> are documented by

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

Thank you for confirming this detail. For some reason, it seemed not to be 
getting though. 

Get rid of the lead and the signal will disappear.

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 

Many years ago in the early days of cold fusion I was running an experiment at 
Los Alamos. We had a high quality Germanium gamma detector and a neutron 
detector. The neutron detector was old but good though it printed it's data 
counts onto a paper tape. It had been calibrated in another lab down the hall 
from the lab I was working in. We wheeled it into my lab and placed it near ( 2 
meters away) my deuterium palladium fueled sonofusion experiment which was 
known to produce prodigious amounts of 4He, (prodigious = e16 atoms in machines 
sensitive to e9 atoms.) 

No one had paid much attention to the neutron detector and its big box of 
spirals of paper tape that had the counts recorded. In a lull in work on the 
sono-fusion machine I paused to look at the paper tape counts. They were very 
simple having just a time code and a counts per minute recorded on each line. 
Every minute the machine would type out a new line of data. As I peered at the 
tape I noticed that the count rate had gone up suddenly by 1-2 orders of 
magnitude. Yikes I thought and with the other guys in the lab we stepped 
outside of that lab and down the hall just to put some distance between us and 
the experiment while we talked it over. We phoned the labs top neutron guy 
whose counter we were using and I told him what was happening. His immediate 
response was 'get out of that lab', I told him we were already calling from a 
phone down the hall. He came over immediately and once having briefed him he 
and I ran quickly back into the lab so I could show him the counts on the tape 
and back out again. 

Well he said that's a lot of additional counts but not so high as to be 
terribly dangerous. We should think about it a bit. He then walked to the door 
of the lab and peered in. Ah Hah he exclaimed I see the culprit. In the cornor 
of the lab, 15 feet from the detector, was a very massive block of lead that 
was used to encase the Germanium detector when it was in use. It was sitting on 
a wheeled cart. "That hunk of lead is catching cosmic rays and kicking out 
neutrons", he said. "Let's get it out of the lab and see what happens." Sure 
enough we wheeled the lead out of the room and that was that the count rate in 
the neutron detector went right back down to normal background.   When we 
looked carefully at the paper tape and time codes we could see the count rate 
had gone up when we moved the detector from its home lab to our 'lead heavy' 
lab.  No one had looked at it until I had done so and there was no mark as to 
the switch of labs. We were all well acquainted with looking for radiation from 
many cold fusion experiments and had not seen any up to that time. 

Moral of the story is radiation measurements are so wonderfully sensitive one 
can be fooled by what appears to be large signals but which are really such 
tiny signals many simple explanations can explain them away.

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

Jones Beene  wrote: From: H LV

>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
>
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

> If it is do due cosmic rays then it is quite a coincident that it happens 
> just when the reactor enters phase 7.

No coincidence at all. Please notice that section 7 is NOT the zone of greatest 
gain. Just the opposite - it is the zone of greatest "apparent endotherm" -- 
which is where the null temperature exceeds the active temperature by the 
greatest differential, and thus would be inversely correlated with fusion 
events but directly correlated with events which produce UDH, and these are 
presumed to be endothermic in the reactor, but radiating muons outward.

The muons from cosmic rays serve to bring the sensitivity level of the meter up 
to the threshold - at that point, all the muons produced from the Holmlid 
effect can be seen as the differential over the control.

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Many years ago in the early days of cold fusion I was running an experiment at 
Los Alamos. We had a high quality Germanium gamma detector and a neutron 
detector. The neutron detector was old but good though it printed it's data 
counts onto a paper tape. It had been calibrated in another lab down the hall 
from the lab I was working in. We wheeled it into my lab and placed it near ( 2 
meters away) my deuterium palladium fueled sonofusion experiment which was 
known to produce prodigious amounts of 4He, (prodigious = e16 atoms in machines 
sensitive to e9 atoms.) 

No one had paid much attention to the neutron detector and its big box of 
spirals of paper tape that had the counts recorded. In a lull in work on the 
sono-fusion machine I paused to look at the paper tape counts. They were very 
simple having just a time code and a counts per minute recorded on each line. 
Every minute the machine would type out a new line of data. As I peered at the 
tape I noticed that the count rate had gone up suddenly by 1-2 orders of 
magnitude. Yikes I thought and with the other guys in the lab we stepped 
outside of that lab and down the hall just to put some distance between us and 
the experiment while we talked it over. We phoned the labs top neutron guy 
whose counter we were using and I told him what was happening. His immediate 
response was 'get out of that lab', I told him we were already calling from a 
phone down the hall. He came over immediately and once having briefed him he 
and I ran quickly back into the lab so I could show him the counts on the tape 
and back out again. 

Well he said that's a lot of additional counts but not so high as to be 
terribly dangerous. We should think about it a bit. He then walked to the door 
of the lab and peered in. Ah Hah he exclaimed I see the culprit. In the cornor 
of the lab, 15 feet from the detector, was a very massive block of lead that 
was used to encase the Germanium detector when it was in use. It was sitting on 
a wheeled cart. "That hunk of lead is catching cosmic rays and kicking out 
neutrons", he said. "Let's get it out of the lab and see what happens." Sure 
enough we wheeled the lead out of the room and that was that the count rate in 
the neutron detector went right back down to normal background.   When we 
looked carefully at the paper tape and time codes we could see the count rate 
had gone up when we moved the detector from its home lab to our 'lead heavy' 
lab.  No one had looked at it until I had done so and there was no mark as to 
the switch of labs. We were all well acquainted with looking for radiation from 
many cold fusion experiments and had not seen any up to that time. 

Moral of the story is radiation measurements are so wonderfully sensitive one 
can be fooled by what appears to be large signals but which are really such 
tiny signals many simple explanations can explain them away.

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 5:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
>
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>

If it is do due cosmic rays then it is quite a coincident that it happens just 
when the reactor enters phase 7.
Also if it is due to muons then it supports some of Holmlid research.
Nobody loses here.

Harry

> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron 
> production in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in 
> sensitive GRS experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may 
> interact with target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be 
> accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:htt
> ps://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11
> =en=clnk=us#87
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
>
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>

If it is do due cosmic rays then it is quite a coincident that it
happens just when the reactor enters phase 7.
Also if it is due to muons then it supports some of Holmlid research.
Nobody loses here.

Harry

> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron production 
> in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in sensitive GRS 
> experiments as the
> secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may interact with target nuclei to 
> produce γ-ray events which could not be accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11=en=clnk=us#87
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Bob Higgins]

Well, this is partly true.  Only charged particles will come to rest
quickly and generate Bremsstrahlung.  Protons, because they are so heavy
compared to an electron, must be 1800x the energy of the electron to have
the same initial velocity.  Then the heavier proton will basically
decelerate 1800 more slowly, creating less Bremsstrahlung.  Basically for
protons you don't see much of any Bremsstrahlung.  Mesons would obviously
be somewhere between.  However, the most Bremsstrahlung is created by the
high energy electron.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The photo of the detector placement has helped to understand this mystery
>
> As far as 'breaking radiation' aka Bremstrahlung, any form of energetic
> particle coming to a halt produces that characteristic signal, whether they
> are crazy heavy muons or speeding electrons...or ??? Neutron clusters or
> tetraquarks or Rydberg hydrogen perhaps as they are rare but on the cold
> fusion flavor of the day menus.
>
> The present situation with not even a dental x-ray worth of radiation
> being observed is one thing as it derives from an infinitely small fraction
> of a joule of nuclear activity, if hundreds of joules of cold fusion
> nuclear activity are seen in similar x-rays the dose would be multiplied by
> a very large number.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 4:41 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: H LV
> >
> >> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration
> test it looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above
> background... If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't
> the dosimeters register any radiation?
> >
> >
> > I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious:
> remove the lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at
> Lugano.
> >
> > The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which
> are documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of
> the muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
> > This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the
> apparent radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on
> the known muon interaction with lead:
> >
> > "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron
> > production in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect
> in sensitive GRS experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced
> may interact with target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be
> accounted for otherwise"
> >
> > https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:htt
> > ps://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11
> > =en=clnk=us#87
> >
>
> This paper might be a good resource so here is a link which displays all
> the charts and pictures.
> https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf
>
> It is just my opinion, but I doubt that muons interacting with lead would
> be capable of generating the observed the spectrum.
> However, couldn't muons and electrons could both generate Bremsstrahlung
> radiation?
>
> harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Russ George  wrote:
> The photo of the detector placement has helped to understand this mystery
>
> As far as 'breaking radiation' aka Bremstrahlung, any form of energetic 
> particle coming to a halt produces that characteristic signal, whether they 
> are crazy heavy muons or speeding electrons...or ??? Neutron clusters or 
> tetraquarks or Rydberg hydrogen perhaps as they are rare but on the cold 
> fusion flavor of the day menus.
>
> The present situation with not even a dental x-ray worth of radiation being 
> observed is one thing as it derives from an infinitely small fraction of a 
> joule of nuclear activity, if hundreds of joules of cold fusion nuclear 
> activity are seen in similar x-rays the dose would be multiplied by a very 
> large number.


from
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/hst2000/teaching/expt/muons/cascades.htm
"As the mass of the muon is some 200 times that of the electron then
it can be expected to have a radiation length much greater than that
of the electron. This explains why muon energy loss by bremsstrahlung
is negligible compared with that of electrons and hence the muons are
capable of traversing much greater lengths of absorbing material
before being brought to rest."

So if the bremsstrahlung radiation were caused just by muons, the
energy loss would be negligible. Could this be why the heat produced
*appears* so small?

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

The photo of the detector placement has helped to understand this mystery

As far as 'breaking radiation' aka Bremstrahlung, any form of energetic 
particle coming to a halt produces that characteristic signal, whether they are 
crazy heavy muons or speeding electrons...or ??? Neutron clusters or 
tetraquarks or Rydberg hydrogen perhaps as they are rare but on the cold fusion 
flavor of the day menus.

The present situation with not even a dental x-ray worth of radiation being 
observed is one thing as it derives from an infinitely small fraction of a 
joule of nuclear activity, if hundreds of joules of cold fusion nuclear 
activity are seen in similar x-rays the dose would be multiplied by a very 
large number. 

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 4:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>
> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron 
> production in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in 
> sensitive GRS experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may 
> interact with target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be 
> accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:htt
> ps://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11
> =en=clnk=us#87
>

This paper might be a good resource so here is a link which displays all the 
charts and pictures.
https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf

It is just my opinion, but I doubt that muons interacting with lead would be 
capable of generating the observed the spectrum.
However, couldn't muons and electrons could both generate Bremsstrahlung 
radiation?

harry

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>
> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron production 
> in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in sensitive GRS 
> experiments as the
> secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may interact with target nuclei to 
> produce γ-ray events which could not be accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11=en=clnk=us#87
>

This paper might be a good resource so here is a link which displays
all the charts and pictures.
https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf

It is just my opinion, but I doubt that muons interacting with lead
would be capable of generating the observed the spectrum.
However, couldn't muons and electrons could both generate
Bremsstrahlung radiation?

harry

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

A much better test might be to add a more efficient 'crazy muon' receptor 
occluding perhaps half of the detector. Say a foil of silver or gadolinium. 
With such material the count rate might go up.  How many cm away was the NaI 
from the source?  Of course this presumes the signal can be reproduced at will.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

-Original Message-
From: H LV
 
> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
> radiation?


I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.

The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the muons 
are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.

This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known muon 
interaction with lead:

"overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron production in 
Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in sensitive GRS 
experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may interact with 
target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be accounted for 
otherwise"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11=en=clnk=us#87

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

The number of nuclear events/radiations in the recent MFMP test is very very 
tiny, perhaps representing 1 million events in total , ??. Considering DD 
fusion as an example to make a single watt/joule of output requires e12 events 
it is no wonder that this signal is hard to observe. The 'nuclear' event 
observed is likely to have been less than a billionth of a watt of 'cold 
fusion' equivalence.

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1) 
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it looks 
like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters 
register any radiation?

harry

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV
 
> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
> radiation?


I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.

The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the muons 
are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.

This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known muon 
interaction with lead:

"overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron production in 
Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in sensitive GRS 
experiments as the
secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may interact with target nuclei to produce 
γ-ray events which could not be accounted for otherwise"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11=en=clnk=us#87

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Bob Higgins]

The sensors were placed relatively far away, and the total "dose" was low.
For the electronic rate meters, they did not report what they detected,
simply that it was below the alarm level that they had set (set where?).
There was no spectrometry.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:12 PM, H LV  wrote:

> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
> emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
> http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
> I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
> looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
> If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
> dosimeters register any radiation?
>
> harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[H LV]

In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
dosimeters register any radiation?

harry

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[David Roberson]

Of course any strongly insulating material can be used in the application but 
it is much easier to design in an air gap between the surfaces.  Now, once the 
device reaches a high temperature it is likely that water, which initially 
resides within the gap(actually I expect a leaky 3D container instead of a gap 
in one dimension) would be turned into vapor and mostly expelled through small 
cracks along the joints.  The remaining vapor would be very thin since it can 
contact the high temperature(>1000) core surface.

Molten lead would be quite difficult to handle and to keep from leaking into 
the environment under these conditions.  To me, depending upon molten lead is 
risky.  How would you like to be the guy that needs to change the fuel charge 
that is surrounded by lead which has hardened after being melted?  If an air 
gap is used instead this would be an easy task.  It would be a relatively 
simple to design narrow ribs that define a location to support the core system 
at a desired distance away from the surface that receives radiation from that 
core device.

The support ribs design is also compatible with mounting of solar cell like 
structures upon the radiation receiving cavity surface to generate DC power.  
Molten lead would be incompatible with this type of structure.

 

 Somewhere within the structure there is likely to be a highly insulating 
material that is used to reduce the input heater drive power requirement and to 
set a large temperature drop between the core operating temperature and the 
coolant output temperature.  Lead seems like a poor choice for that application 
whereas an air(water vapor) gap maintaining a controlled radiation, convection 
and conduction path fits well.  Any lead contained after that gap should be 
subjected to a temperature that is lower than its melting point.

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation



OR, the materials in the stack of his flat plate reactor include a thermal 
resistance material.  It doesn't have to be an air gap to provide the thermal 
resistance that would allow the fuel to be at a different temperature than the 
molten lead.



On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Bob made an interesting video but I believe that his thoughts about melted lead 
surrounding the active cells are incorrect.  It is much more likely that these 
core cells are operating at a very high external temperature of over 1000 C and 
radiation to a low temperature surface is the main escape path for the 
generated heat.

Rossi has stated that the actual temperature of the output heated water/steam 
is highly variable.  This is easy to achieve if radiation is the main thermal 
path.  The surface that collects that radiation can then conduct it to the 
water where the temperature of the cooling water is established by adjusting 
its flow rate.  If you desire a higher coolant temperature you would slow down 
its flow rate so that more heat is absorbed per kilogram during its pass 
through the system.

Also, having radiation as the main heat flow path from the core allows Rossi to 
use much less activation heating power.  If a lead conductor such as that 
discussed were used then far more heat would be needed in order to raise the 
temperature of the active cells.   That is counter to achieving a good COP.

All of my models support what I am proposing and I have pointed it out several 
times on this site in the past.  One glance at Parkhomov's experimentation and 
results clearly show that he achieved the most gain and instability(associated 
with too much positive feedback) when he covered the system with an insulating 
or reflecting material.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Bob Higgins]

OR, the materials in the stack of his flat plate reactor include a thermal
resistance material.  It doesn't have to be an air gap to provide the
thermal resistance that would allow the fuel to be at a different
temperature than the molten lead.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:09 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Bob made an interesting video but I believe that his thoughts about melted
> lead surrounding the active cells are incorrect.  It is much more likely
> that these core cells are operating at a very high external temperature of
> over 1000 C and radiation to a low temperature surface is the main escape
> path for the generated heat.
>
> Rossi has stated that the actual temperature of the output heated
> water/steam is highly variable.  This is easy to achieve if radiation is
> the main thermal path.  The surface that collects that radiation can then
> conduct it to the water where the temperature of the cooling water is
> established by adjusting its flow rate.  If you desire a higher coolant
> temperature you would slow down its flow rate so that more heat is absorbed
> per kilogram during its pass through the system.
>
> Also, having radiation as the main heat flow path from the core allows
> Rossi to use much less activation heating power.  If a lead conductor such
> as that discussed were used then far more heat would be needed in order to
> raise the temperature of the active cells.   That is counter to achieving a
> good COP.
>
> All of my models support what I am proposing and I have pointed it out
> several times on this site in the past.  One glance at Parkhomov's
> experimentation and results clearly show that he achieved the most gain and
> instability(associated with too much positive feedback) when he covered the
> system with an insulating or reflecting material.
>
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[David Roberson]

Bob made an interesting video but I believe that his thoughts about melted lead 
surrounding the active cells are incorrect.  It is much more likely that these 
core cells are operating at a very high external temperature of over 1000 C and 
radiation to a low temperature surface is the main escape path for the 
generated heat.

Rossi has stated that the actual temperature of the output heated water/steam 
is highly variable.  This is easy to achieve if radiation is the main thermal 
path.  The surface that collects that radiation can then conduct it to the 
water where the temperature of the cooling water is established by adjusting 
its flow rate.  If you desire a higher coolant temperature you would slow down 
its flow rate so that more heat is absorbed per kilogram during its pass 
through the system.

Also, having radiation as the main heat flow path from the core allows Rossi to 
use much less activation heating power.  If a lead conductor such as that 
discussed were used then far more heat would be needed in order to raise the 
temperature of the active cells.   That is counter to achieving a good COP.

All of my models support what I am proposing and I have pointed it out several 
times on this site in the past.  One glance at Parkhomov's experimentation and 
results clearly show that he achieved the most gain and instability(associated 
with too much positive feedback) when he covered the system with an insulating 
or reflecting material.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Feb 27, 2016 7:50 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

Mathieu Valat of MFMP made this comment on the youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeHU4vBmc

Mathieu Valat14 hours ago
Bob gave a lot of himself in the last week. Big cheers up for this
video! For the record, my friends are retired nuclear scientists. What
they hypothesised is Bremsstrahlung radiation, right of the bat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Harry