jeff: Celani-Type Replication

Alain,

This is background level radioactivity. Radioactive dust is normal.

oystla wrote:

Quote

Point being? Like 27 years is a long time to figure out a new phenomenon? Well let me tell you 27 years is no time in the history of science. It may well take a long long time to figure out explanations of anomalous observations.

Oh dear. I certainly did not mean to suggest that anomalies should always be explainable in 27 years or in any time, and I apologize if that's how it sounded.

In addition to your examples, superconductivity took 50 years to explain, atomic spectra a century, elliptical orbits centuries...

My astonishment was at the suggestion that we should *now* begin diligent examination, as if all those claims for 27 years were enough to believe nuclear reactions were happening, but not enough to examine diligently. Particularly since the claims now being considered are more modest and more haphazard than the many claims over the decades, and that is saying something.

Quote

And the Field og cold fusion has had no money and few scientists, so no surprise it has moved slowly.

This is quite beside the point, but in fact, the usual argument in support of cold fusion's credibility is the *many* scientists that have worked on it, and the considerable number of publications that have been generated.

But again, the time to start diligent investigation of a revolutionary and enormously beneficial phenomenon is when it is first claimed, if the claims have any credibility -- not 27 years later.

And diligent investigation did start 27 years ago, and the claims were found wanting. My reaction was to one advocate's suggestion that *now* was the time, as if these new claims were somehow more impressive than those of the past 27 years, when in fact quite the opposite is the case.

It's not that the field has moved slowly. It's that it hasn't moved at all, other than in reverse. And these claims are good illustrations when compared to the claims of Piantelli et al. from the mid-90s. It's as if someone were announcing superconductivity discovered at 30K, 30 years after it was demonstrated at 78K (if the field had merit, as HTSC does).

Quote

Anyhow: 27 years ago and until recently almost all CF research where Focused on wet Pd-D systems, and litle on gas type Ni-H LENR.

But I referred specifically to Ni-H which was claimed in 1989 not long after the P&F announcement.

Jeff,

In your write-up of your study you state:

Quote

Radiation measurements were made with the cell in the insulated airflow calorimeter chamber with the lid partially open to accommodate the cable to the detector head.

Some have talked about a good place to find radon (computer power supply fans for one). I didn't find the radon hypothesis very plausible until I considered your box has fans in it. It does seem possible that radon could have collected in the fan(s) of your calorimeter and that the dust particles could be stirred up when it heats up. The dust could also collect and settle on the aluminum foil. Anyway, something to consider.

Seems like the whole discussion about funding and why the radiation problem was not solved long ago is distracting from the issue of Jeff's study. If LENR research is such a waste of time, then why contribute a mix of useful information and derision for the whole field? It is puzzling how both Joshua and Thomas contribute a mix of recommendations for further study while sometimes simultaneously expressing the opinion that the whole endeavor is a waste of time. I guess I don't understand the motivation behind it. What is the goal you are working towards?

Quote from Jack Cole

It is puzzling how both Joshua and Thomas contribute a mix of recommendations for further study while sometimes simultaneously expressing the opinion that the whole endeavor is a waste of time. I guess I don't understand the motivation behind it. What is the goal you are working towards?

Personally, I'm not concerned about Joshua's and Tom's motivations, because they have good observations to provide in relation to specific experiments. I suggest to any LENR advocates who might take offence at their prodding and generalizations to ignore the whole meta-historical discussion in these experimental threads.

Quote

Seems like the whole discussion about funding and why the radiation problem was not solved long ago is distracting from the issue of Jeff's study. If LENR research is such a waste of time, then why contribute a mix of useful information and derision for the whole field? It is puzzling how both Joshua and Thomas contribute a mix of recommendations for further study while sometimes simultaneously expressing the opinion that the whole endeavor is a waste of time. I guess I don't understand the motivation behind it. What is the goal you are working towards?

I enjoy unravelling mysteries, and learning. Studying these amateur LENR claims gives me both.

I'm also interested (mildly) in the phenomena of how something that is almost certainly wrong can be presented as correct. But, without the experimental stuff, that would not be enough for me.

Finally, I think it is unfortunate when $50m of good research money is spent on an inventor who through a long history has never shown any sign of making inventions that work, and who is claiming a world-changing invention (about as important as the computer) and yet has never yet delivered proof of concept, nor independent scientific validation. This is a real drama, though not uncommon.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I enjoy unravelling mysteries, and learning. Studying these amateur LENR claims gives me both.

I'm also interested (mildly) in the phenomena of how something that is almost certainly wrong can be presented as correct. But, without the experimental stuff, that would not be enough for me.

Finally, I think it is unfortunate when $50m of good research money is spent on an inventor who through a long history has never shown any sign of making inventions that work, and who is claiming a world-changing invention (about as important as the computer) and yet has never yet delivered proof of concept, nor independent scientific validation. This is a real drama, though not uncommon.

In my interest in LENR, I have found some alternative science theories contradicting seemingly undisputed science facts. One such theory is the Liquid Sun. This theory says that the Sun's source of energy is condensed matter reactions... AKA cold fusion.

I would hope that you could come up with a proof that the liquid sun theory is invalid. Just imagine how wrong science is in so many ways if the Liquid Sun was true.

@jeff: perhaps you could do the following test.

Take a metallic object that was previously measured to not show elevated radiation and enclose it in a paper box with very thin walls, sealing the openings with small amounts of tape so that supposedly radioactive dust cannot enter.

Place the paper box with the clean metallic sample close to the operating reactor tube for as much time needed to activate its contents.

When you're done, carefully open the paper box after wiping off any dust that might have collected on it and inspect the contents in a different room.

If the activation is due to penetrating particles, the metallic sample should now show elevated radiation.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “Seems like the whole discussion about funding and why the radiation problem was not solved long ago is distracting from the issue of Jeff's study. If LENR research is such a waste of time, then why contribute a mix of useful information and…

I like your answer Thomas--direct and honest. I can understand that. Whether correct or not, it certainly is an interesting study both of science and people.

Ecco,

That is very clever and much cheaper. I do have one question. Could the particles from the radioactive dust activate the metal in the box? Presumably the answer would be no since the decay of radon and it's progeny would not emit neutrons.

@Jack Cole: I think that's a correct assumption. The skeptical hypothesis proposed by others is that the metals aren't really getting activated, but rather contaminated on the surface by low level radiation from dust mobilized by heat convection. In this case preventing such dust from getting in contact with the metallic sample should also prevent any sort of apparent activation.

If on the other hand this activation still happened through the sealed paperboard box it would imply that a really unusual and potentially dangerous radioactive contamination occurred somewhere at Jeff's place... or that the reactor is indeed emitting penetrating particles (neutrons, muons, etc).

Perhaps others might be able to come up with different explanations.

Quote from jeff

So I'm skeptical that ambient dust is a factor, but I'll run the experiment to confirm.

I agree. Its a ridiculous idea that dust can cause 7x background radiation. If it does it should not fall off, should remain constant or grow. There is a clear correlation with start of heating.
Anyway, I'm waiting for your control experiment with any other wire and any other gas. It should settle the matter forever.

Quote from AlainCo

About muons, as far as I understand it is behaving like heavy=energetic electrons, with just possibility to decay as electrons (plus neutrinos) when speed=energy is enough below speed of light (relativity allow fast muons to live longer from outside clock)... it should be detected like energetic electrons are ? and should cause no more damage than what the detector detect ?

My understanding is that if slow enough (several MeV range) negative muons are being emitted like Holmlid observed, who suggests that their generation could be inherent in LENR systems, different outcomes could arise. Muons might decay into an electron and a neutrino before interacting with matter, or otherwise engage in a complex process called muon capture by replacing an electron in a host atom.

Once this occurs the captured muon starts descending into inner orbitals where it eventually either decays or gets captured by the nucleus via weak interaction. In the latter case a new excited atom is formed with a proton turned into a neutron (Z-1, N+1). This excited atom can dissipate its energy with the emission of a neutrino and neutral or charged particles. Here are the possible muon capture reactions and probabilities for 27Al, from https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:39079347 :

This being said, we don't know yet if this is actually occurring or not in Jeff's case.

Quote from Tarun

I agree. Its a ridiculous idea that dust can cause 7x background radiation. If it does it should not fall off, should remain constant or grow. There is a clear correlation with start of heating.
Anyway, I'm waiting for your control experiment with any other wire and any other gas. It should settle the matter forever.

HG Branzell posted this a couple days ago: http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html

Dear Mods,
I'm sorry I can't hear the signal in midst of meaning less noise here.
Would you like to take some action?

This place is for lenr enthusiasts and researchers who are trying to solve energy problems of the world, not a small thing, but every small contribution matters. Those who think that lenr is a pseudoscience should seek other scientific places. This is also not a place to study people.

I can barely see any discussion by the researcher himself or any offers of help by others. All I see is negativity and attempts to discourage further research. Why are mods allowing this ?

Thank you barty.
I'm really hoping that this experiment of Jeff will evolve into DIY lenr kits. Its so simple to do.

After that happens, I won't mind if this entire forum is taken over by noisy text book thumpers.

To Admin: Could you move posts that are related with Jeff and his replication from this thread to the Jeff's thread, please? I think that it will be more clean then.