The Gamma Ray thing happened in 2013, that was the link I posted. I am glad to see someone at MFMP taking this seriously.
On Friday, July 7, 2017, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I wrote: > > Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an > unsuccessful replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it), > and we cannot say there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat > was less than the error of the crude calorimeter measurement… > > > > … I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it, > with a more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building > and a small amount of funding. > > > > Kevin writes: > > That means you have not been pursuing it. It's been 4 years and > basically no mention on the MFMP blog. > > > > I assume here that “you” means MFMP. MFMP’s Bob Higgins is currently > performing a series of automated experiments (at least 2 are completed) > which utilize a NaI Detector (as well as other detectors), also looking for > the “Gamma Ray Thing” (X-ray signal). As far as I’m aware, nothing has > shown up, so far. Have you been following the experiments on LENR-Forum? > Each experiment not showing any signal, is interesting information. We > still don’t know if the signal could have been an artifact unless we > reproduce it… > > > > The Signal (or Gamma Ray Thing), occurred in February of 2016. The > replication attempt ended in late May, 2016. The analysis ended about a > month after that. It’s been about 12 months since then. During those 12 > months, MFMP has spent time building Neutron Detectors, beefing up the > experiment automation for the subsequent experiment (not a replication > attempt but using the same NaI Detector setup) using the built-up equipment > (reported on QuantumHeat.Org, but no signal seen), prepping for the Me356 & > Ecco Tests and performing the Me356 Test (amongst other things)… > > > > … If “you” meant myself, I’ve been spending every bit of my available time > in those 12 months, working on a follow-up experiment with a better shot at > seeing the signal once again, if the group doesn’t see it. I suppose that > there will come a time when the group realizes that this is the direction > we should go in, and we all work towards that goal. In the meantime, I > think it’s important for me to give MFMP the space/time it needs to pursue > other directions it deems as fruitful, until we are all back on the same > page. If not, I am happy to continue towards the goal of increasing the > success of seeing the signal when we are ready to do it. If there is > anyone else out there interested in helping out, I am quite open to any > suggestions and can put you to good use, if desired! It’s going to require > yet another round of funding, I’m afraid… > > > > Kevin further writes: > > Even if there is no excess heat, it still was the most promising lead > -- there is actually an endothermic reaction that lets out radiation. The > fact you can throw H2 and Nickel atoms together and end up with a nuclear > product would change EVERYTHING. > > > > I agree that this was the most promising lead so far and is the reason I > have not lost sight of it (and won’t). I see this signal (if real) as a > precursor to excess heat, or a bifurcation that leads to no excess heat. > We have the resources to understand it, if we can only replicate it. We’ve > taken a few shots at replication under different conditions using similar > detection, without success. Either the signal was an artefact, we need to > improve the recipe leading up to the event or we need to build a better > mouse trap. > > > > Mark Jurich >
