Implications of Signal, Seeing into the Cat with X-Rays - Video from MFMP

Quote from H-G Branzell

Thomas, may I suggest that when you quote somebody you also give us a hint as to the author of the quote. This will make it easier for the reader find the context if he finds the quote interesting. It may also save the reader some time if he decides on a statistical basis that it isn't.

The above type of quote doesn't work for me on my Pad. It does work from my laptop. I'm not sure if it is browser or operating system related. I haven't tested it. (posted using Firefox)

H-G,
I was generally commenting on the forum Quote function, since you indirectly brought it up.
I agree that supplying a source is useful, if it won't automatically work.
Sometimes way more people post ahead of what I think is going to be the next response in line.

Oh, and here is a scrubbed signal image.
Spectra 24 was used as a background, and removed three times consecutively (until the K40 peaks totally disappeared) from Spectra 7.
Not the correct way, but effective at almost totally eliminating any excessive "normal" background contribution to the signal.
(There is almost no other dots left on the spectra.)

@Shane D.
It wasn't discreetly released, merely dis-greeted.
Last time I looked, it was the last comment on the MFMP signal page, where it was also greeted by cricket sounds.

There are a number of items that don’t fit into this description of the signal.

1 - The signal only persists for 4 seconds and only appears once and only once in a very long test. If the signal was a result of a process that caused excess heat, it would persist as long as the excess heat was being produced.

This one time burst of EMF looks like a change of state where the LENR process is beginning. The burst looks like photon radiation being released from a storage mechanism as the mechanism is changing state from many individual randomized incoherent photon holders to a coherent and entangled Bose condensate.

It is this photon based Bose condensate (like a laser) that produces excess heat and eliminates further high energy EMF emissions.

2 – Why is X-rays seen in the Defkalion system and not the Rossi system.

The DGT system destroys the Bose condensate each time the high voltage spark in produced and it take time to get the Bose condensate established again. This time of incoherent behavior is when high energy radiation is produced.

In the Rossi system, the Bose condensate once formed continues to thermalize the nuclear binding energy catalyzed by the LENR reaction without a break.

This leads to a prediction. Once excess heat is seen in a system, an application of a large magnetic field will produce a burst of high energy EMF after which thermalization of that EMF will begin again when the magnetic field is removed.

3 - If the EMF seen in the burst was from Bremsstrahlung or "braking radiation", a sharp peak of radiation would appear when the electron is produced. These peaks are called “characteristic lines” where the beta emission is generating the electrons.

Since no characteristic lines are seen, electrons or negative ions are not being produced as the source of EMF.

I think the same, it is not that simple.
My new scintillator is on the way, so I am very curious what I will see with my reactors.
Instruments should be very sensitive, so it might show interesting things.

Quote from axil

3 - If the EMF seen in the burst was from Bremsstrahlung or "braking radiation", a sharp peak of radiation would appear when the electron is produced. These peaks are called “characteristic lines” where the beta emission is generating the electrons.

If the bremsstrahlung arise within the active core, in order to get characteristic x-rays there must be atoms with inner shell orbitals whose binding energy is sufficiently high to produce x-rays that can penetrate out of the reactor body. This will not obviously happen with nickel or aluminum.

Quote from Eric Walker

If the bremsstrahlung arise within the active core, in order to get characteristic x-rays there must be atoms with inner shell orbitals whose binding energy is sufficiently high to produce x-rays that can penetrate out of the reactor body. This will not obviously happen with nickel or aluminum.

At 1.4 MeV, the EMF is coming from inside the nucleus.

Quote from axil

At 1.4 MeV, the EMF is coming from inside the nucleus.

But the characteristic x-ray peaks you were asking about come from atomic transitions. I'm saying that atomic transitions will be stopped (although nuclear transitions will not). The hot electrons giving rise to bremsstrahlung will excite atomic transitions but probably not nuclear ones.

Where does this 1.4 MeV value come from? I don't mean from a nucleus etc, I mean where was it determined?

Quote from Eric Walker

But the characteristic x-ray peaks you were asking about come from atomic transitions. I'm saying that atomic transitions will be stopped (although nuclear transitions will not). The hot electrons giving rise to bremsstrahlung will excite atomic transitions but probably not nuclear ones.

This vortex-L post from Bob Higgins appeared in a thread that you participated in and must have forgotten or not read completely.

Quote

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 from a LENR process is exceedingly rare and of unique value to LENR science.

The spectrum has every indication of being Bremsstrahlung ("braking") radiation that occurs when a light particle is stopped very quicky by a heavy atom. The lighter the light particle and the heavier the heavy atom, the greater the Bremsstrahlung amplitude. The lightest particle would be the electron, and the heavy atoms could be Ni, Fe, Cr, Mo from the fuel and the SS capsule containing the fuel. BUT, the Bremsstrahlung spectrum has a sharp cutoff at the initial energy of the electron. The fact that this spectrum shows energy out to beyond 1MeV means that you must have MeV+ electron energies inside! This is a big deal. What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons? Actually, there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the Bremsstrahlung. MeV protons will not create this spectrum (too heavy and low speed).

MeV+ energies for single entities (as are indicated here) are really only available from a nuclear process. There is no stretch of Mills or DDL theories (supra-chemical) that can account for >509keV photons/particles. There is presently no description in a [lexicon]hydroton theory[/lexicon] for MeV+ electron emission. It could fit in with Piantelli's theory with modification. It could fit in with Hagelstein's and Karabut's photon energy multiplication (but it would be extreme).

There are some skeptics that still believe that Ni-H LENR may not exist - even if they believe in Pd-D LENR. This is unmistakable proof that Ni-H LENR is happening.

Is this the holy grail experiment, ready to put in your hot water heater? No. But, with further corroboration and analysis, this will provide a sensitive means to indicate the onset of LENR in a class of Ni-H experiments and will become an important probe into the science behind the curtain. It will lead to replication and then to engineering.

Display More

Quote from axil

This vortex-L post from Bob Higgins appeared in a thread that you participated in and must have forgotten or not read completely.

Perhaps you're replying to Paradigmnoia's question, above, about the source of the 1.4 MeV energy, and mixed up the reply from me with his question?

Quote from Eric Walker

Perhaps you're replying to Paradigmnoia's question, above, about the source of the 1.4 MeV energy, and mixed up the reply from me with his question?

yes...

Quote from BH quoted by Axil

There are some skeptics that still believe that Ni-H LENR may not exist - even if they believe in Pd-D LENR. This is unmistakable proof that Ni-H LENR is happening.Is this the holy grail experiment, ready to put in your hot water heater? No. But, with further corroboration and analysis, this will provide a sensitive means to indicate the onset of LENR in a class of Ni-H experiments and will become an important probe into the science behind the curtain. It will lead to replication and then to engineering.

My problem with MFMP's current proclamations is they are based on a single unusual result, close to noise level, with a spectrum similar to the "calibration" spectra coming from the PC-based software used in a system that has known high electrical noise which is also known to be much higher than usual during the time period in which the anomalous result is obtained.

I realise from subsequent comments that this unsubstantiated and unusual result, in the minds of some at MFMP, is in line with other results, and theoretical speculation, relating to Piantelli's theories. That perceived coincidence is why they are so excited, I think.

Personally I disagree on the validity, or the power, of the coincidences. Apophenia rules, and the matches here are not strong. But regardless, arguing back from a hoped-for outcome to the data on which it rests is not good science. The unusual spectrometer result itself is currently unexplained, but also low confidence, with artifact being high on the list of candidates because it is low level and one off.

LOS is fine, and excuses the airing of tentative data. However, adding to those a whole superstructure of theoretical speculation which is widely and deliberately publicised seems to me unwise, just as F&P's original and rushed paper was unwise. The reach will be much less because the claims are much less - no-one outside the LENR community will look at the current single result, nor the current speculations, and see anything to merit further investigation. I'm glad that the matter will be further investigated and await replication (or not) with interest as the start of a process that will lead to clearing up this mystery.

I guess I forgot it because I see no strong evidence of extra or unusual bremsstrahlung beyond about 300 keV. Perhaps the true tail could maybe go to 500 keV based on the typical tail profile, but I don't see clear evidence of that over background.
However K40 is making both 1.31 MeV betas and 1.461 MeV gammas that can be seen in the spectrum.

@Thomas Clarke
I disagree strongly that the Signal is close to noise level. At least to presently known noise.
I do think that testing for artifacts caused by power glitches should be looked at, like the USB connection problems or similar things. Maybe that is a problematic thing to test, due to potential for equipment damage.

Quote

I disagree strongly that the Signal is close to noise level. At least to presently known noise.I do think that testing for artifacts caused by power glitches should be looked at, like the USB connection problems or similar things. Maybe that is a problematic thing to test, due to potential for equipment damage.

It is about 6X noise level. That is obviously different from normal noise, but still small.

The system suffers from TC noise (presumably from ground loop) which varies greatly and is at its highest during the period with the higher trace. That can't be ruled out although my feeling is that this anomaly is more likely some one-off event, e.g. a software glitch.

My gut feeling is that it is a software artifact from a glitch (electrical noise or software event) which would explain the smooth trace.

It is also possible that some one-off supply etc anomaly causes the glitch. Such things are very difficult to track down so I don't hope for much progress. It is not needed. If this result can be replicated then it will be worth thinking about. Also there will be more data. As it is, the excitement from MFMP is very premature. It is understandable, but one might hope that "one burnt twice shy" would apply to LENR grand announcements.