jeff: Celani-Type Replication

Perhaps I jumped to the wrong conclusion. It seemed to me by the context you provided, that the quote was intended to support ransom's criticism.

If you were not being critical, then I withdraw your parenthetical inclusion in that sentence.

I would agree that your reply seems to support 'ransom's' position, as it offers a justification, as opposed to a refutation.

I only disagree that an honest person could deem their own words to be a criticism of them self.

colwyn:

I believe you have contravened site rules

"Joshua Cude, when accused of behaviour contributing to the demise of another forum, wrote:"

Your quote above, introducing what you say is Josh's quote and providing context, is the problem. It is an ad hom, and clearly not backed by any facts.

But, even if it were backed by facts, Josh's (claimed by you) angst about LENR forums does not prevent his posting here, and therefore he would be self-avowedly conflicted in this matter.

Josh's contribution to this thread has been accurate and substantive. The difference between him and me is that I view it as worthwhile for those doing LENR experiments, however amateur, to improve them to obtain more accurate results and am more tactful in that I do not rub people noses into the fact (well known here) that I strongly expect more accurate results to be null results.

Josh has contributed as much to helping people make experiments more accurate as me. It is just that he makes his (also my) opinion clearer in perhaps a slightly repetitive way.

I suppose that you could argue his repetition is against site rules, but, if you look at this thread, you will see that his repetition comes from a careful analysis of and logical reply to what other people have said.

Tom, as with any belief ("an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof") you are free to hold it.

Providing a neutral context was necessary for every part of the quote to make sense. The context was also a direct quote, the factualness of which is backed up by Joshua's response.

Having read "the rules" I understand to avoid aggressive or insulting (or repetitive) language. Yes, perhaps it was off-topic, so maybe a deeper verbatim analysis of Joshua's motivations is worthy of it's own thread? If he so wishes, that is.

@jeff: I've corrected the table; now the procedure makes more sense, thanks.

Barty: I apologise for this continuation, but it is not OT for this thread. Here, Josh, I and others have been commenting on Jeff's results and his experimental protocol, making substantive and helpful points. Chasing any of us off the forum is unhelpful. An atmosphere in which such people feel unwelcome is equally unhelpful. You will perhaps still get those few souls like me and Josh who enjoy a knockabout - but lose a potentially large number of other helpful commenters.

Colwyn:

I must please ask you to refrain from threatening posters. "Maybe a deeper verbatim analysis of Joshua's motivations is worthy of it's own thread? If he so wishes, that is." I don't know about you, but few people would welcome such an analysis, especially when it is supported by diverse quotes of different user names from other sites (so that for them to be valid, if they were, you'd have to break someone's desired anonymity).

Suppose we instead were to consider (more specifically and not OT) the effect of your original criticism. By moving from the contents of Josh's posts, to an eliptical and potentially abusive (because perhaps breaking desired anonymity) [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] about his motives, you have contributed not one iota to the thread content. Josh's comments here are factual and not insulting. His motives do not come into it. But by such OT criticism the effect is to discourage anyone wishing to critique Jeff's experiment from doing so unless they have colwyn-agreed general views about LENR.

I realise your intervention here will not be unpopular on this site, which has a somewhat one-sided view of this topic. All the more reason then, in the interests of encouraging accurate critiques, for you to be more restrained.

@jeff,
Do the radiation counts appear to be stronger on one end than the other? Like more on the positive electrical lead end?
I also wonder if an anode with a higher V than the rig (with a common ground) would act as a collector or not.
That may narrow some stuff down.

@jeff: can you plot a graph including input power, temperature and geiger counts over time for this run?

I think there is a typo in the reported radiation level above. The background radiation level in the graph included in your previous report was 0.03 mrem/hr.

Josh, you keep throwing out some strange comments on this forum....

The purpose being...what?

Like: "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?"

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.

It's easier the other way: propose a testable theory, test it, and prove or disprove it.

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

You think physics have not other "anomalous" not explained observations ? Well, there are many. Like the experimentally measured value of the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment ("muon g−2") being significantly different from the theoretically predicted value of that physical constant. And Why is there a discrepancy between the amount of lithium-7 predicted to be produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the amount observed in very old stars - HAHA any LENR going on there? And Why can't the Standard Model predict a particle's mass?

And thunderstorms may produce antimatter..... sometimes...., and was discovered years back. No consensus on theory to explain it - yet.

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. It may well be that focus where on the wrong LENR system, on the more "subtile and delicate" type wet Pd-D LENR that didn't produce adequate results.

Jeff,

dust will often have much higher radioactivity than background - no activation needed - see H-G's link above.

I'm glad you have started to understand your original anomalous results. However, I'm not sure that you have sufficiently separated possible heat affects from dust, so your latest observations do not completly settle the issue of from where these higher counts come.

Finally, to determine whether the reactor is in any way implcated in these readings, a good source of extra data easily gathered would be the lead/plastic shield experiments as proposed by Josh and me. You should do an identical lead shield with the inactivated reactor to get a control for how much of the background it cuts out.

It is very helpful that you disclose this additional data because otherwise people are left with the impression that LENR-related radioactivity has been easily observed and that can skew future experiments in an unprofitable direction.

Best wishes, Tom

Hi Jeff! Did you try to shield the radiation with lead or alumina? The signal should change I suppose and if not then the origin is not your experiment.

Quote

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

A lot of money - 100s of millions of dollars at least. And maybe only about 20 (?) scientists now but that is a decent number and very many more in the early days.

Quote from jeff

Given
that the rest energy of a muon is ~207x that of an electron, yielding a value
of ~105 MeV, I would be interested in understanding how muons could be created
by any nuclear process involving lighter elements.

Jeff

Homlid's experiment is a goldmine for LENR theory. It is so unworldly, it is impossible
to believe but alas true.

The muon is just the tip of the iceberg. For every muon produced there is a Kaon produced.
The muon is a decay product of the negative Kaon. The energy content of the K−, negatively
charged (containing a strange quark and an up antiquark) has rest mass 493.667±0.013 MeV and mean lifetime (1.2384±0.0024)×10−8 s.. When that Kaon decays to a muon, most of the energy content of the Kaon is released. But Holmlid says that the Kaon has some aenergy of just under one giga electron volts. There should be an 800 MeV gamma produced by the decay of a Kaon to a muon which involves the production of an intermediate pion. But no gamma is seen.

DN(0) →···→···→ K± → π± → μ± → e±

Nx4x938MeV →···→···→ 493MeV → 139MeV → 105MeV → 0. 511MeV

There must be an energy transfer and storage function going on where a large amount of
energy is accumulated and made available to Kaon production. The only way that
science can explain such energy transfer and storage is black hole theory where
energy is moves into a black hole through quantum entanglement and the energy
is stored there until that energy so amassed is at least one giga electron volts in size.

When the energy has reached the proper level, a kaon is built through Hadronization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization

String theory provides for the creation of hadrons thought black hole evaporation. It is a kind of Hawking radiation.

IMHO, metalize hydrogen provides this dark mode energy storage and redistribution function.

Quote from jeff

Activation of Elements in GM Detector

After running an experiment with Joule heated Ni wire in a low pressure H2 atmosphere I recorded a radiation level as high as 0.8 mrem/hr which is over 20x the 0.03 mrem/hr background level. This level is well in excess of anything I had recorded previously. To be sure the GC was operating correctly the detector was moved 20 feet away from the vicinity of the apparatus. Interestingly, it still registered almost the same reading. So my first suspicion was that dust was somehow activated or dust with a low level of radioactivity had accumulated on the detector. Blowing off the surface of the detector had no effect. Also, no other locations outside the chamber that could have collected dust had measured above background.

I then disassembled the detector and wiped all surfaces with alcohol. Not a good idea. The opaque coating on the detector window dissolved and was wiped away. However, its removal restored the radiation measurements close to background. The detector still works fine, and I can only speculate that the coating is intended to exclude light or perhaps to dissipate static charge. I mention this only because this phenomenon has been reported previously. See p 92 of Storms' "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction". Note: after cleaning and reassembling the GC I also wiped down the interior of the chamber with a damp cloth, and the dust on the cloth showed radioactivity over 5x background. So not only was the GM detector activated, but the dust in the chamber was also activated.

IMHO, metalized hydrogen can pass through glass and attach itself to material where it continues to produce nuclear effects. This modality of loss of confinement has be seen in CR-39 experiments were large numbers of alpha particles are detected to originate from a central source and spread from that point of reaction causation in a radial pattern.

If you put your wire on a photographic medium and leave it to expose on the film for 24 hours through a sheet of dark paper, you will see particle tracks produced by these hydrogen molecules.

Keith Fredericks has deduced much about the nature of these particles from their particles tracks.

See restframe.com for theory and pictures of these tracks from many other LENR experiments.

In 1989 F&P suggested the US congress to redirect 20 MUSD from hot fusion research to CF (a few percent of hot fusion total US budget). The US congress turned them down, after the deathblow from CALTECH and MIT.

After that only small funds where available in the US.

Claiming that 100's of MUSD have been spent on CF research is most likely a zero too much.

• Well, in the last year it looks like Rossi has got $50M!
• Japan spent a lot (and still spends some) over a long period.
• SPAWAR has spent a lot.
• In the initial rush after F&P everyone was doing it.