jeff: Celani-Type Replication

AlainCo wrote:

Quote

This is why asking high energy radiation with heat is like asking horse manure as evidence to birds existence. This is also why it is a popular demand, since it is impossible to fulfil.

I was not asking that they be observed together. Only that claiming two independent unprecedented nuclear reactions that contrive to prevent discovery of their nature is far less likely than claiming a single one. Especially if one of them produces measurable radiation. Characterizing measurable radiation (particularly gamma rays at the level many times background) has been done with high sensitivity and specificity for more than 60 or 70 years. If after 27 years of studying cold fusion, one would hope it would be possible to say more than "we saw gamma rays".

Quote

Excess heat is enough evidence, provided the observes are competent, this mean are chemist.

But so far the evidence for excess heat has not been considered good enough to conclude a nuclear origin by most competent scientists, including two DOE expert panels enlisted to examine the best evidence.

Quote

even if He4/heat evidence in PdD is even better.

The same goes for the heat/He4 evidence, most of which after the crude claims by Miles in the early 90s, which were challenged in the literature, have not even passed the modest standard of peer review.

Quote

You don't ask an expert in horse manure to analyse bird feather, so you don't ask a nuclear physicists to analyse a calorimetry paper, and reciprocally.

Nuclear physicist use calorimetry too.

Moreover, when claiming an energy density a million times higher than gasoline, it hardly seems necessary to need expertise in calorimetry. There are many claims that cold fusion has already reached the stage of practical application. If that were true, anyone should be able to tell if it works. You don't need expertise in aerodynamics to know that airplanes can fly.

Quote

Here the radioactivity evidences are intriguing, but to be honest NiH evidence today are far from the quality of PdD evidence from the 1990s.

The absence of any progress in the field, to which you admit here, is characteristic of pathological science.

Quote

Jeff anyway have done a serious job, and he just need to add some cross-checking, like using shields, moving sensors, adding ambiance sensors...

I quite agree.

Quote

Note that the theory of magic radioactive dust is reminding me an invisible unicorn joke.

Radioactive dust is no more magical than cold fusion.

Re the MFMP "Signal" [sic].

It is interesting. The nature of artifacts is that it is often very difficult to work out what they are without investigation. In this case the field is wide open.

For example, there is no evidence to support this anomaly being radiation, rather than an electrical noise artifact. There is some (minor and unverified) evidence in favour of electrical. To elaborate: the Theremino software used to generate the spectrum has as input an analog signal from the scintillator detected by an ADC card. This is a classic place where ground noiuse could be introduced. The Theremino software counts pulses estimating the area of each pulse. The spectrum comes from what is essentially a pulse area histogram.

(1) The ambient TC readings show variations which are significantly higher during trace 7 than other traces. This is suggestive of ground noise, but no more. such noise would likely affect both TC and ADC inputs.

(2) The spectrum appears roughly linear on a log count/bin versus energy graph. That is at least in the right ballpack from the distribution of pulse area that could be got from noise.

I'm not claiming that this mechanism is correct. Just that it is possible. When there is so little data to narrow possibilities many artifacts are possible - and therefore giving high probability to an extraordinary and unexplained mechanism is unwise.

Re Jeff's anomalous high GM count.

It will be very interesting to see the detailed results from Jeff's next run when he will no doubt do the plastic and lead shield checks suggested by Josh and me? That is low hanging fruit because easy to do and likely (though not certain) to resolve the matter.

Re specific artifacts.

I like to speculate about specific artifacts in these experiments. This perhaps gives people the idea that disproving my speculations (very possible) proves that the corresponding result cannot be an artifact. That is not true, and a waste of time. You prove that a result is not an artifact through positive means - extra controls, instrumentation, checks with shields, etc. Negative checks, trying to rule out artifacts, are never as good as positive ones because you rely on the cleverness of the researchers (or commentators) to think up artifact mechanisms. The space here is so large that in general it may not be done.

So while the fact that specific artifacts can be thought of is indicative, you get further think in terms of, and ruling out, artifact classes. Thus, for Jeff's experiment:

• Some heat or IR related artifact
• Some air flow related artifact
• Some ambient radioactivity change related artifact (atmospheric dust is the typical example)
• Some GM tube input power change related artifact

I don't guarantee this is a complete list of artifact classes - and some seem more likely than others - but the point is that Jeff can make his result significant by adding tests that show these not to be relevant. Shield testing could eliminate 1,4 and if done with small enough shields 2,3. Exact physical control testing could eliminate all of these. On the other side, shield testing could prove 1. as cause (plastic shield changes reading) or disprove radioactivity while not identifying the artifact (lead shield does not change reading).

Good catch H-G.

"Radioactive dust" also includes any airbourne radioactivity, e.g. free radon.

And for Jeff's experiment direct IR or heat influence on the sensor is also an obvious possible. That it "did not get hot" due to air cooling says nothing about the temperature of internal elements, or the direct affect of IR.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

Quote

The space here is so large that in general it may not be done.

There is little reason for assuming that space is so large that ruling them out would be untenable. Yet, additional instrumentation certainly is in order as Jeff already suggested in his paper. In fact Jeff's recommendations, if followed, would render irrelevant much of the discussion that has taken place here about artifacts.

He wrote:

Quote

The observed levels of radiation should be sufficiently large to permit more accurate characterization of energies once improved equipment becomes available. A CZT or NaI detector plus an MCA would permit characterization of gamma energies. Better yet would be a cooled Si or Ge detector. A thermalizing type or a direct energy detecting neutron detector would also be of great use, if for no other reason than safety. With the energy signatures of the radiation quantified it will be possible to determine the isotopic origins thereof and potentially the pathways by which LENR activity occurs.

Jack,

I think you've misunderstood me.

Fixating on specific errors is unhelpful. however, eliminating classes of errors is helpful. if you read my previous but one post on this thread you would see I have suggested things Jeff could do with no extra instrumentation that would do that - and do it more surely than extra instrumentation.

In fact I'd expect he can do one more run, testing with small lead and plastic shields interposed between reactor and GM, and probably resolve the matter.

Jack,

Quote

The observed levels of radiation should be sufficiently large to permit more accurate characterization of energies once improved equipment becomes available. A CZT or NaI detector plus an MCA would permit characterization of gamma energies. Better yet would be a cooled Si or Ge detector. A thermalizing type or a direct energy detecting neutron detector would also be of great use, if for no other reason than safety. With the energy signatures of the radiation quantified it will be possible to determine the isotopic origins thereof and potentially the pathways by which LENR activity occurs.

While if there were known radiation from the reactor this would be very helpful, we are not there yet. Two different instruments would eliminate only some classes of error, the shield experiments suggested would do a better job (and be a lot cheaper).

Thomas,

I did misunderstand you. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

Analyzing figure 2. which plots the measured radiation:

In the steep part of the curve half live looks like 50' not 63'. In the lower already close to background part the half live increases to 2h. This looks like the superposition of at least two elements with the same decay mode, but with different (%) content in the steel/ALU.

To progress with research, I suggest to place different probes on one side of Your experiment, each containing possible candidates for “neutron capture”. After shutdown You can measure each probe isolated from background effects.

@jeff: I've made a table summarizing your steps for reference.

(EDIT: step 3 pressure corrected)

Is this table correct? Could you also clarify the following:

• (Step 3) Did you actually use a pressure of 5 mTorr of H₂ to reduce the wire or did you mean 5 Torr? 5 mTorr would be lower than the vacuum level reached during the evacuation steps. (EDIT: corrected according to Jeff's indications)
• (Step 4) For the second cell evacuation step you wrote that power was removed, but in the end you write that after reaching the desired vacuum level Joule heating was turned off. Did you mean that after removing the power needed for high temperature reduction you applied the same procedure as in Step 2, and then removed the corresponding power for maintaining a 300°C temperature? Could you also confirm the duration for this step?
• Could you provide larger / more detailed photos of the assembled reactor and wire?

Thanks to Thomas Clark and others who are offering very constructive skepticism! We have seemingly reached a time when there seems to be some repeatability of LENR phenomenon. It is time now for very extreme and diligent refinements of the experiments and that is where trained observers can direct their absolutely essential and proper criticism. It is fantastic to read through all this when positive results do not lead to accusations of fraud or incompetence. The gaps and holes in the experiments are genuine, but quite understandable at this point. Clearly if there is a LENR at all, it is an extremely subtle and delicate phenomenon to induce. At the end of the day it may well be that it will have taken the collective efforts of many, many people to refine. Constructive skepticism and relentless experimentation seem to be making progress. I hope so, but while I know that there has in no way been a definitive, undeniable result it is going to be through this kind of "crowd science" : worldwide, optimistic and yes skeptical without being either gullible dreamers or harsh and arrogant obstructionists.

Quote from TheGomp

It is fantastic to read through all this when positive results do not lead to accusations of fraud or incompetence. The gaps and holes in the experiments are genuine, but quite understandable at this point.

Well stated. I, for one, appreciate the tone of this [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]. We are on a search for Nessie or Big Foot. The dim, off-focus images I see on my computer are as trustworthy as any other stuff the internet sends my way. It doesn't matter how much any of us wants to believe (or disbelieve), let's be scientists first and work the possibilities. I have learned a lot in the last two weeks, and for that I am thankful. Keep up the great work and discussion.

TheGomp wrote:

Quote

It is time now for very extreme and diligent refinements of the experiments and that is where trained observers can direct their absolutely essential and proper criticism.

Now is the time? 27 years after the first claim of nuclear heat from the Ni-H system, it becomes time for diligent refinements? A phenomenon that has revolutionary, positive implications for energy consumption waits 27 years to perform diligent measurements?

Quote

The gaps and holes in the experiments are genuine, but quite understandable at this point.

I respectfully disagree. It is not understandable to me that someone would make such claims without filling in the gaps and holes first. Particularly, since they're not difficult to address. The field is 27 years old. Surely, a few weeks of diligent refinements would save everyone a lot of time.

When Roentgen discovered X-rays, he didn't make wild claims after his first observation. He wanted to be absolutely sure, so "In the following weeks he ate and slept in his laboratory as he investigated many properties of the new rays he temporarily termed "X-rays", ... Nearly two weeks after his discovery, he took the very first picture using X-rays of his wife Anna Bertha's hand. When she saw her skeleton she exclaimed "I have seen my death!" ... At one point while he was investigating the ability of various materials to stop the rays, Röntgen brought a small piece of lead into position while a discharge was occurring. Röntgen thus saw the first radiographic image, his own flickering ghostly skeleton on the barium platinocyanide screen. He later reported that it was at this point that he determined to continue his experiments in secrecy, because he feared for his professional reputation if his observations were in error." -- from Wikipedia

When he emerged, he was ready to publish and to demonstrate the effect unequivocally to anyone.

Quote

Clearly if there is a LENR at all, it is an extremely subtle and delicate phenomenon to induce.

This experiment, if it represents LENR, suggests otherwise. Nickel wire heated in a hydrogen atmosphere produced radiation 3 consecutive times.

But the claim, like others, is not likely to survive scrutiny. As always, the effect is close to background, even though this measurement is a million times more sensitive than heat measurement.

Indeed, the fact that this impression that the phenomenon is subtle and delicate for a variety of different measurements that range in sensitivity by factors of a billion, suggest that it is much more likely that it does not exist. That no measurement is definitive, whether heat and helium are measured requiring nuclear reaction rates in the range of 10^11 per second, or for tritium, easily detectable for rates a million times lower, or for gamma rays and neutrons a thousand or a million times lower still, or for transmutations involving radioactive nuclides at least as low, would require nature conspiring to prevent discovery of the process, much as she seemed to conspire in the 19th century to prevent discovery of the rest frame of the ether, until Einstein showed it was superfluous.

Quote

Constructive skepticism and relentless experimentation seem to be making progress.

Again, I disagree. The measurements under discussion here are far more primitive and preliminary than the many attempted measurements of radiation, tritium, neutrons, transmutations, and gamma rays over the years, and most of those with positive claims were primitive enough.

just for the record: I think it very proper to test these experiments, as far as possible, and hope for example that Jeff elaborates his own protocol so as to provide definitive results. I also 100% agree with what Josh says above, which is sort of obvious.

I'll wonder again if this not some sort of thermionic emission device. Why hydrogen under pressure works well is unusual, as well as the apparent energy of the emissions.
There must be some historical analogue to this work, considering these types of experiments were performed commonly over 100 years ago. The detectors then were obviously not as advanced, yet they were rather effective nevertheless.

Joshua, your response is a perfect example of non productive pouting. Are you doing any experiments? If not, why not? What can I take from your reply which is any way or manner constructive? What is your intent here? To merely criticise as it would seem?
Or better yet to have it all stop and go away? In my opinion you add nothing to the purpose or goals of a blog like this, and serve only to cloud the issues with your self congratulatory criticism. You seem angry about the lack of rigor shown. You should calm down.

@jeff - > would it be possible eventually to run this experiment over a long period and test for nickel isotopic shifts?

Quote from TheGomp

Joshua, your response is a perfect example of non productive pouting.. ..What can I take from your reply which is any way or manner constructive? What is your intent here? To merely criticise as it would seem? Or better yet to have it all stop and go away?

TheGomp, you might find the following quote enlightening:

Quote from Joshua Cude, when accused of "behaviour contributing to the demise of (another) forum",

Given that (in spite of my own regrettable participation) I think any forum on the subject of LENR or the ecat is beneath contempt, therefore, any reduction in the number of believers participating is an improvement.

This forum would reach its epitome if all LENR cult members were afraid to post here, and it went silent. I would regard that as a victory for evidence-based science, and a defeat for pseudo-science. (December 23, 2015)

TheGomp wrote:

Quote

Joshua, your response is a perfect example of non productive pouting. ... In my opinion you add nothing to the purpose or goals of a blog like this, and serve only to cloud the issues with your self congratulatory criticism. You seem angry about the lack of rigor shown. You should calm down.

I was discussing the experiment, and what seemed reasonable in connection with LENR experiments. I thought that's what the blog was about. You're issuing personal criticism (as is colwyn). I thought that's what the blog was not supposed to be about.

I fail to see how quoting you verbatim, without adding any commentary of my own, could be construed as a personal criticism. I merely want to help you get your point across, in as honest a way as possible.