There was not lithium. It does not recover from the oxide and hydride. Even if by some miracle is going to happen - instantaneously reacts with water
vapor. Hydrogen is not dry. Sodium chloride is bad dryer.
It dos not need miracle, only temp an carbon:
http://www.globethesis.com/?t=2121360065450956
Equilibrium is ofcourse moustly oxides, but some metallic Li appear.
It is not practical way to produce Li metal, but can do Li wapours.
H2O is not H2O with C it is CO + H2 at 1350C almost 100%.
While suggestive of something happening, the peak at 80KeV looks like background that is typically observed. I have lots of examples of this. Only if the appearance was correlated with heat AND not an artifact of heating the NaI detector, would it be really exciting. In our case, I thought there was some correlation but eventually concluded that the radiation was an artifact. I would need to see their data in their case to see the correlation.
This 78keV peak was part of the repeatable background and is well known. This entirely subtracted out of Spectrum 07 to yield a signal that had no evidence of this peak. The apparent peaking of the background subtracted signal at 30keV was just due to the energy cutoff of the spectrometer at 30keV. In fact, there is no evidence of peaking at 30keV - I.E. the spectrum appears to continue upward in intensity below the lowest energy (30keV) of the spectrometer. It seems to be continuing its 1/x^2 trend.
@Majorana
There are lots of modifications to consider going forward. Insulating the reactor makes it easier to heat, but makes it critically unstable when excess heat emerges - it makes it want to heat itself to destruction. What is needed is a convection fan to adjust the amount of heat removal. Unfortunately, adding a convection fan to the kind of apparatus being used to obtain calorimetry from differential thermometry would ruin the measurement. What I have proposed and have started building is a calorimeter with the convection fan inside the calorimeter. This would allow the convection fan to simply change the rate at which the calorimeter water was heated, but no heat would be lost when the convection fan is activated. It would change the coupling of the reactor to the working calorimeter fluid.
The most important thing that MFMP can do now is to repeat the experiment with an identical reactor and fuel. This would prove that following the recipe does lead at least to production of the same high energy emissions.
Hi Bob would you be able to load the static version of the graph here with the combination of spectrum 7, 8 and 10 along with the average?
Perhaps I am wrong but with the focus on the 78-80 keV peak here It seems to me that maybe some have not seeing the correct graph?
By the way I noticed that in the Piantelli, Focardi paper linked by Ecco that they used Boron as a neutron shield in the form of Boric acid powder sandwiched between polystyrene. I wonder if thats important to consider for the experiment.
Great analysis by the way.
I am surprised no one is discussing this effect from Freethinker considering the fanfare from the MFMP.
He was way ahead in the low gamma detection.
The operation similarities may help move this effect along to some sort of resolution, or…
His results were so low (at background levels) that they are less significant. Furthermore, if you want a mechanism, here it is:
As the reactor gets hotter it causes increasing convection currents. Different air currents alter the dust content in the air in front of the detector and therefore the background count.
This would be expected to be sensitive to changes in equipment position and maybe even other aspects of the room, so difficult to control.
The MFMP results are less likley to be due to this mechanism since higher and also one-off. They COULD be caused by some low level contamination floating past in the air, but this I think is less likely - though could not be ruled out.
Hi Thomas
Its a good point you make. I would add though that I think Freethinker did not have a Gamma spectrometer or Scintillator but just GMC device so perhaps this was also not sensitive to radiations less that 100 keV or so.
Regarding the radiation in the MFMP source It was quite broad spectrum and Bremsstrahlung like. I suppose it would need to be a charged particle probably Beta emitter and to emit quite strongly to create such a curve. Do you know of any natural sources that could produce this? Even Radon Progeny might produce Beta but i would imagine it would need to be quite a concentrated source? And if so shouldn't we see characteristic Gamma and X-rays too?
The following document is about background radiation and in particular Radon and Thoron Progeny.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.529.8305&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Its goes into a fair amount of detail I think. There are some Gamma frequencies mentioned in Figure 1.2a some of which I suppose should be visible?
Interestingly I don't see one mentioned here around 80 keV but I suppose if it ends up with lead in an excited sate gammas of this energy could be generated or are the 80keV emissions characteristic x-rays rather than gamma?
T
The operation similarities may help move this effect along to some sort of resolution, or corroboration.
Thomas, did you read my post with conversational generosity?
Did you follow the thread, and look at the information?
There are sections of 3 times background, and peaks 4 times background. Some excursions go for one or two hours. There are more than one example.
There are several experiments showing no increase over background.
The detector used is not as sensitive as the MFMP one.
Only the pre-baked Ni experiments seem to coincide with the gamma increases.
Defining the similar conditions may shed some light on the effect. Whatever the source.
Dust in the air spiking the gammas is a weak suggestion considering the sensitivity of the device.
Have you tried figuring out how much dust it would take to bump the CPM readings to double? Not twice as much dust. Not even close.
The background gamma count source is primarily geological. To compete with that, you need a "hot" radioactive source, or a motherload of dust.
Or some other source of noise, maybe a sensitive electrical tie-in with the heater, a reaction, a gusher of radon, a star blew up or belched somewhere a long time ago. Whatever.
Find the common conditions, vary experimental conditions, find out more about how it and when it happens, then start positing a source. That is how science is done.
Not pull an idea of out a hat. That goes for both experimenters and skeptics.
Background varies enormously, and dust is a strong component, so it is a decent explanation. Not proven, but possible, and therefore better than some extraordinary physics explanation.
Of course there are many other possibles too.
It is also true, as I said, that the MFMP artifact (one-off) is very different.
Bob G says that the nature of this radiation breaks all known LENR theories and is very difficult to explain. That is no doubt true. Instead of taking that is an extra indicator that this is an artifact, he announces it as proven LENR. It is premature - to put it mildly. But it does not matter, as others have said, nature will reveal itself if you spend enough time looking. MFMP will with luck do that.
Hi Bob would you be able to load the static version of the graph here with the combination of spectrum 7, 8 and 10 along with the average?
The spectrum data files are here:
The .spu format is the Spectrum Techniques storage format. You can download their software, call up each of these spectra, and save them out as .csv files to read into any program you wish.
following last MFMP report, you said that the closer theory , it seems, to explain this positive result is Piantelli model.
Therefore you suggest to fit it, how ?
Well, David, what follows is pure speculation on my part and involves no input from Piantelli on this topic. Piantelli says that a hydrogen anion is drawn into his particularly sized nickel metal grains. Somehow, the anion is compacted and becomes a part of a Ni atom. Due to its high mass and negative charge, behaving like a heavy muon, it settles into a close orbit around a Ni nucleus. Then, some interaction with the nucleus occurs, and results as Piantelli describes, in the ejection of a MeV class proton.
Here is what I speculate... The shrunken anion is a composite fermion with a proton and 2 electrons. What happens to the electrons when the proton is ejected? Perhaps the nuclear reaction with the anion can result sometimes in electrons ejected with MeV energy instead of the proton. Perhaps it is a continuous random parsing of the nuclear mass deficit energy between the electrons and the proton (sort of like what happens between the electron and the neutrino in beta decay - but I am not suggesting a neutrino is involved). This process could result in emission of protons and electrons with a range of MeV class energies. Piantelli discovered the protons by quickly removing a rod from active LENR operation and putting it in his cloud chamber. However, my understanding is that MeV class electrons would not be visible in the cloud chamber - they could have been there and would have gone undetected. An MeV proton is moving 1000 times slower than a MeV electron, and cannot be quickly stopped to make much of a Bremsstrahlung spectrum. It takes the MeV electrons to create the spectrum that we recorded. The MeV protons may be there, but we don't see their effects on the spectrum. The MeV electrons may have escaped notice before.
Bob G says that the nature of this radiation breaks all known LENR theories and is very difficult to explain. That is no doubt true. Instead of taking that is an extra indicator that this is an artifact, he announces it as proven LENR. It is premature - to put it mildly. But it does not matter, as others have said, nature will reveal itself if you spend enough time looking. MFMP will with luck do that.
Photons that have energies at least to 1.4MeV are difficult to explain without nuclear involvement. I went through the arguments for why DDL cannot create this (509keV max is predicted by Paillet and Muelenberg). What is left that can supply this much energy in a single quantum? It requires a nuclear mass deficit. That means that it is fundamentally a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.
I think that periodic testing of the detector, (or an equidistant parallel detector, one turned the other way... lots of possibilities), with a known weak radioactive source (bag of zircons, depression era uranium glassware, etc.), would give a better idea of what is going on.
Use of multiple detectors at multiple distances (three should do), compared to the inverse square proportionality of attenuation of radiation over distance from a source can at least identify whether or not the effect is caused by a radiating source at these energy levels.
I think that periodic testing of the detector, (or an equidistant parallel detector, one turned the other way... lots of possibilities), with a known weak radioactive source (bag of zircons, depression era uranium glassware, etc.), would give a better idea of what is going on.
The gamma spectrometer is calibrated to begin with a 137Cs check source. It is also tested with several other isotopic check sources.
Use of multiple detectors at multiple distances (three should do), compared to the inverse square proportionality of attenuation of radiation over distance from a source can at least identify whether or not the effect is caused by a radiating source at these energy levels.
If wishes were fishes we would have food for life. We are happy to entertain donations to buy additional sensors.
The gamma spectrometer is calibrated to begin with a 137Cs check source. It is also tested with several other isotopic check sources.
Bob, I meant quick tests during the experiment.
If wishes were fishes we would have food for life.
...
Yes, I know. It is merely a suggestion. Something like my multiple detector idea may need to be done, if the plan is to narrow down the possibilities with confidence. Spectrometers are probably not required. Simpler devices should suffice.
Edit: The essence of my suggestion, (take it or leave it leave it, no worries) is simply to demonstrate in an uncomplicated and deterministic way that something is in fact radiating from the test device. The inverse square distribution of detection is one way.
There are probably some other good, and hopefully cheaper ways.
Let us go back to 2011 when Rossi ran his first public demo
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
http://avonhistory.org/mil3/rossi11.htm
Commentator 1 wrote:
That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active material.
As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which knob you twist to make the thing go.
Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control?
It would be nice if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is "dangerous" to run without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case.
Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details.
Rossi had trouble with radiation coming from his reactor until he installed a auxiliary heater.
We can go back now and understand why Rossi had a secondary heater installed in the early versions of his reactor
Three E-cats without insulation and one insulated. Text in blue indicates hydrogen inlet, main heater, auxiliary heater and water inlet. Foto: Giuseppe Levi
Rossi said that it would be dangerous to operate his reactor without a secondary heater. That heater got the reaction temperature into the proper SPP infrared photon pumping zone to remove gamma radiation from the LENR reaction.
On one side H negative (with 2 electrons) gives its electrons to the nickel lattice, then this proton bounces outside to react with Li.
But you must realize that the energy to launch the proton at >1MeV must come from somewhere and must be capable of acting on the single object. The only source capable of acting with such energy on a single proton would seem to be a nucleus, and for the nucleus to give up >1MeV of energy, it must give up some of its mass.
The most important thing that MFMP can do now is to repeat the experiment with an identical reactor and fuel. This would prove that following the recipe does lead at least to production of the same high energy emissions.
I agree with you 100x. This is the most important thing to do and no time should be wasted now.
But you must realize that the energy to launch the proton at >1MeV must come from somewhere and must be capable of acting on the single object.
The only source capable of acting with such energy on a single proton would seem to be a nucleus, and for the nucleus to give up >1MeV of energy,
it must give up some of its mass.
Have you idea why H(p,e+ ve)D 1.4Mev positron hit Ni and do brake radiation instead collision with electron and not do ̃511kev gamma?
Where reaction go? On, in or away Ni?
Or other ideas?
Is there evidence that Rossi do 500kev gamma? Is heater remove danger coupled that?
And where e+ go? where is 511kev?????
