MFMP: GS 5.3 - getting excess heat?

Just eyeballing it, maybe 1.5 C differerence? Was there something else?
It was about 462C outside when I looked, 30 mins after your post.

OK guys! Analysis of data from the long GS5.3 run is surfacing. What about this part of elevated radiation and excess heat correlated in time:

http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…mp-blog/522-glowstick-5-3

See comment #181, the thread up to #181 is interesting too.

And bear in mind this is a replication of a previous run GS5.2 that also showed excess heat and radiation.

Something is going on, but the thermocouples are not very good for judging the heat.
Well, maybe they are now, since the active may have recently popped loose to match the null thermocouple characteristics. I haven't seen any IR data for a while.

I don't see the temperature evidence as being even indicative, given all the known uncertainties of this setup. And I'd not expect MFMP to claim that?

The claimed radiation is more interesting, in the sense that there is more we don't know about its cause.

The key issue is whether the claims now are consistent with the claimed radiation before in terms of signature. I'm no expect on the instruments here (I looked at the Nai detector design and data a bit from an initial position of no knowledge). But the fact that the single "Signal" came in a measurement segment in which there was a recorded power glitch, and the very smooth nature of the data, makes me think it was probably a software glitch (the instrument they use has open source PC software written in VB accepting data via a sound card input).

I see no merit in looking at instrument outputs and seeing any unexpected output as evidence of extraordinary radiation. However looking for coherence is another matter. My concern here is that the bar for what is coherent may be set too low, e.g. "radiation" might be considered coherent with "radiation" whereas really it is not since any glitch or noise in radiation-measuring equipment will of course lead to an observation of "radiation".

Anyway, MFMP have the ability and I'd hope will to go on exploring what their new radiation-measuring equipment does.

Have they seen any more spectrometric possible interior bremmstrahlung signatures - without supply spikes? That would mean the "Signal" was reproducible which would be the first step in working out its cause.

Paradigm-noja: The small part showed in pictures is just that - a small part of the total data catched during the run. Temperature measurements are duplicated during the whole run with both thermocouples and a thermal IR camera (Optris, same type as in Lugano). Optris and TC:s correlate but differ in absolute terms. Details have been discussed during the run, some aftermath still to do.

All data is open for download and analysis.

TC: Agree radiation is very interesting now when it is very hard to dismiss temperature behaviour. Also pressure behaviour is interesting to get ideas of what is going on inside. In the GS5.3 setup there are a number of instruments picking up radiation signals. You can always propose glitches or systematic errors for one single instrument, if two or more correlate the results are harder to dismiss. Stay tuned.

I have to admit that it is possible that all instruments that are measuring radiation can be highly affected by RF coming from the reactor.
Depending on the control electronics you can observe the peak only at certain moments (e.g. state when some transistors or circuits are switching to a different mode).
My reactors are radiating strong RF a few meters away. Some of tested circuits can affect even LCD display to the extent you will see a blurry screen and even USB connection can break.
Even if it is all powered from the battery and shielded.

So the measurement must be done very carefully. Even neutron detectors that were used might show false bubbles. I have these detectors too. They can react even for cosmic radiation, temperature changes or if they are activated too long.

It would be also better to control the reactor with Optris or IR thermometer directly as I have did.

me356

I gave you a like for what seems to me to be a very open and honest approach by which you share information, you have my admiration for this alone. But also, I wish you well with your projects which appear to be 'ground breaking'.

Best regards
Frank

@Mats002
The radiation spikes coincident with pressure changes seems compelling. I haven't recently gone over the IR camera data, which comparative side to side I consider much more reliable than the thermocouples.
The seeming increase in heat of the entire device compared to the null is interesting. I'm not sure what to think of that. It could mean that the entire unit has enough internal leakage that a reaction occurs throughout the device, or that the emissivity of the tubes have been altered by the extended heating. Or?

The root cause for the temp difference is still unknown. The two sides do communicate thermally so if the cause is an exothermic reaction on the Active side then the Null side would also be hotter than a calibration run with same power in - which it is(!). The color of the mullite tube darkens a little bit after 7 days of thermal stress, probably both sides would degrade about the same but someone skilled in the art of emissivity impact on Optris might can elaborate on that. A post calibration run would tell I think.

Quote from Mats002

The color of the mullite tube darkens a little bit after 7 days of thermal stress

I haven't followed GS5.3 closely. I saw the panoramic photo. I assume they're using black refractory paint? If so, the color of the mullite under the paint should not be an issue. If they are not using refractory paint, why are they not?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The key issue is whether the claims now are consistent with the claimed radiation before in terms of signature. I'm no expect on the instruments here (I looked at the Nai detector design and data a bit from an initial position of no knowledge). But the fact that the single "Signal" came in a measurement segment in which there was a recorded power glitch, and the very smooth nature of the data, makes me think it was probably a software glitch (the instrument they use has open source PC software written in VB accepting data via a sound card input).

The NaI gamma scintillator detector and spectrometer used in GS5.2 and GS5.3 were the same: a Spectrum Techniques UCS30 spectrometer, and NOT the sound card based spectrometers found on some web sites. The UCS30 is an entirely self-contained scintillator power supply and MCA. The PC interacts with the UCS30 to set up spectrum integrations, to monitor the integrating spectrum, and to download the recorded spectrum data out of the instrument at the end of the integration. It is a high quality instrument.

You may be confusing the fact that the UCS30 has an ROI (Region Of Interest) output that can be setup to provide a pulse whenever there is an measured scintillator event that is recorded. I think Alan may have setup to record the ROI output via PC audio to provide an additional data set with scintillator pulses vs. time. However, this has nothing to do with how the gamma spectrum was recorded. Alan did not do this ROI recording in GS5.2 because his UCS30 did not have that option installed at that time. Between GS5.2 and GS5.3 he sent the instrument back to Spectrum Techniques to have that option added to the instrument.

Hi Bob,

That is good, so if the glitch turns out to be something real you will get the same signature...

I got the impression you were using the Theremino-based kit for some reason from some vcomments - but will remember now that you were not!

Best wishes, Tom

Quote from me356

I have to admit that it is possible that all instruments that are measuring radiation can be highly affected by RF coming from the reactor.
Depending on the control electronics you can observe the peak only at certain moments (e.g. state when some transistors or circuits are switching to a different mode).
My reactors are radiating strong RF a few meters away. Some of tested circuits can affect even LCD display to the extent you will see a blurry screen and even USB connection can break.
Even if it is all powered from the battery and shielded.

Could you clarify here? Do you actually mean that the reaction is producing strong RF with suitable stimulation, or that the power control system is?

There is a slight possibility that the GS5.3 tube under certain conditions (driving power with a SCR controller instead of a variac) is for some reason emitting some kind of EMI which is affecting the output of the CdTe X-ray detector that is being used with other instruments, which according to the manufacturer (Amptek) is sensitive to such interference.
Upon closer analysis (from cumulative 1-minute spectra that I made AlanG/JustaGuy set up for that experiment), it turns out that the x-ray spectrum of such interference from the detector looks similar in character (example here) to that of the GS5.2 "signal", even though the scale is different.

So I'm wondering if in both cases we're not actually looking at some kind of artifact caused by unexpected RF/EMI/ or EMP-like interference to the electronics of the detector rather than really x-rays. The UCS-30 spectrometer which detected the signal in GS5.2 this time didn't seem to detect anything special, perhaps it was a stronger interference last time.

@Ecco
The NaI scintillator tube is encased in a continuous aluminum shell, almost completely immune to RFI. It is connected to the Spectrum Techniques MCA by high quality coaxial cables. The Spectrum Techniques UCS-30 is in a metal box, and while not perfectly shielded, only its front end could be susceptable to RFI - after that it is all digital. The digital portion would require extremely high RFI and then would probably crash the internal uC (which did not happen). RFI effects are unlikely in the NaI scintillator/UCS-30 system until levels would be so high your computer would probably malfunction.

What was the experiment you had Alan run to test for RFI sensitivity of the X-123?

Ecco, BobHiggins: I have verified that especially NaI scintillator tube/electronics (even that it is in aluminium shell) can be affected by EMI to a very high extent.
I have also everything shielded, using top quality cables but it does not matter. The peak(s) can exceed background noticeably and you might not be able to check, that it is really noise or radiation.
I have performed many tests in this area and found that it can be filtered well, but it is really not good, because measurement can be flawed in any way. The peaks are moving and even that there is single frequency, there might be more peaks close together.

Noise that is generated from my reactors is not blocked even by 1cm thick aluminium block - only attenuated. Unfortunately there is also radiation that comes from the process and also some from the heater.

So personally I would not trust any electronic detection system in vicinity of the reactor before very carefull investigation.

@BobHiggins
RFI sensitivity as a source of the signal was only my speculation after realizing the similarity of the spectral distribution (disregarding the actual range) with that of GS5.2, given that there don't seem to be issues when a variac is used. I also recalled that a power spike seemingly occurred during GS5.2 in the timeframe where "trace #7" likely also occurred (see the arrow; I remember that other people did point that out at the time): http://i.imgur.com/zfDT7IA.png

The experiment I wanted AlanG and JustaGuy to perform with GS5.3 was actually originally intended to verify:

1) The reproducibility of a radiation count spike from the same CdTe detector when hydrogen is pumped or vacuumed out of the cell, which was caught earlier as it happened by an other user;

2) The behavior of the cell when a relatively deep vacuum is applied after hydrogen is pumped while the cell is hot - similarly to how @me356 seemed to be doing from some of the data he recently posted. This actually resulted in an odd (apparent?) pressure/vacuum level anomaly which AlanG reported here on LENR-Forum a couple days ago.

This issue/signal I linked in the graph of my previous comment actually appeared a bit before the actual experiment began, when the detector(s) was put closer to the GS5.3 reactor tube. It seems to vary in character depending on the power applied (and I guess, distance, but I wasn't there to check in detail). I have plotted other spectra from that experiment section on this page. The data I used for these is available in this shared folder. These files were saved at regular interval with a (sort of) macro script I made for the Amptek DppMCA program, which doesn't natively allow this (only manual saving).

Here's an overview of that experiment section mixing pressure data from Hugnet on top of an image showing the total radiation count rate from the Amptek X-ray probe and other detectors. As data from Hugnet cannot be properly downloaded I had to superimpose it on another plot with an image editor. Amptek CdTe radiation counts have been scaled down by a factor of 100 here. The detector was brought closer to the reactor at about 21:30 (UTC) and power was switched to a variac at about 1:55:

(EDIT: from this chart it looks like either the Amptec CdTe probe or the Ortec Quad Counter have an incorrectly setup internal time)

Quote from Ecco

[quote='me356','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3016-MFMP-GS-5-3-getting-excess-heat/?postID=17957#post17957']I have to admit that it is possible that all instruments that are measuring radiation can be highly affected by RF coming from the reactor.

To recapitulate some history, Defkalion produced huge amounts of RF. The DGT reactor disabled the phone system in the building that the ICCF-18 demo was being staged. The National Instruments team who were instrumenting the reactor had a hard time with the RF. It was in this system that a double Faraday box was used to protect from EMF interference and still the RF got through. A 1.6 tesla magnetic field was detected at 20 CM from the core of the DGT reactor.

The LENR reaction is driven by monopole magnetism. NMR active elements in the reactor produce the RF as is the case in an MRI machine. RF is caused by non-zero nuclear spin. The presence of RF may be a solid indicator that the LENR reaction is active inside a reactor.

See

http://www-usr.rider.edu/~grus…able/nmr_pt_frameset.html

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

http://www.bruker-nmr.de/guide/eNMR/chem/NMRnuclei.html