The Playground

"Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition"

starting at ~17:50 min shows the video in question. The point of the ir video is to show thermal variations acress the face of the codeposited cathode. If one reads the experimental descriptions from the SPAWAR group one concludes the field of view is ~1x 1.25 inches. (There was an actual slide in a presentation posted to the Internet once that showed this, but I failed to grab a copy and it shortly disappeared.) That allows us to calculate that an individual spot from a still is ~1-2mm in size, which is right in line with bubble sizes for this system. During the whole video one observes an intital period with no spots, a growing in of spots to the point where an area ~1/3-1/4 of the surface area is covered, followed by a dying away of the signals. Given that and the physical dimensionalites and the functional intent of the of the videography equipment, plus the later confirmation with a piezosensor, plus the fact that this is what would expect from ATER, I would not consider these 'spots' to be noise.

P.S. You can get it here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/SzpakIR.wmv

Thanks. There's a better clip at 15:00, which doesn't have the titles scrolling over it.

All the pixels are flickering, it's just hard to see because of the low contrast between adjacent colours. The red-white just makes it easier to see.

What causes the supposed ignition of the bubbles in your theory? Is there any evidence that this can even happen? Or is it just a conjecture? If so, it seems very odd that you dismiss the well-known process of noise digitisation, before jumping to a more exotic theory, whilst accusing others of wrongfully doing the same on the previous page.

Also I notice in the video that Szpak describes them as hot spots, not explosions.

Quote

If one reads the experimental descriptions from the SPAWAR group one concludes the field of view is ~1x 1.25 inches. (There was an actual slide in a presentation posted to the Internet once that showed this, but I failed to grab a copy and it shortly disappeared.) That allows us to calculate that an individual spot from a still is ~1-2mm in size

Errrm what? Maybe if there camera's sensor was 30x30 pixels, then each pixel would represent an area 1-2mm across. But it seems obvious from watching the video that the resolution is very much higher than that

@ DAK

Re: the ref. you give

OK, in Figure 5a-d we have mass spec for the ~91-101 AMU range. They show
sample results in a-c and an Mo spectrum in d. First off, note that the
Mo spectrum is ~500-1000 times more intense than the sample spectra. This is
not good analytical procedure. I've commented before that when you do trace
analysis, your calibration standards should be of the same rough concentration
as the unknowns. But anyway...moving on...

Spectra 5a-c suggest a higher mass 96 peak in relation to the others, but I
personally think there are changes in the 92 and 98 peaks as well. This suggests
clusters that are 2 AMU apart. What weighs 2 AMU? D. Is there D in the experiment?
Absolutely. So, do we have a sequence deriving from SrDx clusters?? Who knows?
What happened to the 87 AMU zone (Sr)? How about a blank, where no permeation
was done? How about runs with H? If it's chemistry, that might show similar
results. Nuclear probably not. Reproducibility? Looks pretty uncontrolled to me...

Also, lets recall that I have suggested MoS2 as a contaminant. What are the results
for the S region? Do we see any growing in along with the 'Mo'?

And then we have Pr mass spec shown over the range of 140.0 - 142.0 AMU. In that
we see a big peak at 140.9 and an unlabeled peak at 141.91. We also see a small peak
at 141.07 that is labeled 'molecular ions'. There is also some 'noise' just into the
spectrum at ~140.0-140.2 which is unlabeled.

Now recall that I think there is a Pr contaminant which is concentrated to the surface
during the permeation experiment. Am I surprised to see Pr? Not at all. But
what is that peak at 141.91? I have an idea, how about you? Hint: What is often the
predominant background gas in a SIMS system? Second hint: The peak seems to
prove my concern about molecular species (along with the undefined 'molecular ions'
noted on the Figure itself). There is no discussion of the 141.9 peak and its
potential implications in the paper, which is 'par for the course'.

So anyway, your reference proves my point...insufficient data and insufficient testing.

Quote from zeus46

What causes the supposed ignition of the bubbles in your theory? Is there any evidence that this can even happen? Or is it just a conjecture? If so, it seems very odd that you dismiss the well-known process of noise digitisation, before jumping to a more exotic theory, whilst accusing others of wrongfully doing the same on the previous page.

So, you prove you haven't read and incorportated what I propose yet. Hmmm.. Yet you can designate my explanation as unlikely as your not. I applaud your mastery of ESP...

Fire requires fuel (hydrogen), oxidizer (oxygen), and an ignition source (catalytic reaction of H2 + O2 at-the-electrode (ATE)). Fast fires often end up as explosions (or at least hot spots). ATE should perhaps be OTE, on-the electrode.

Quote from zeus46

Also I notice in the video that Szpak describes them as hot spots, not explosions.

Originally, in their sceintific publications, they were described as 'mini-nuclear explosions'.
Here (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf) they use spots and explosions together. Also see:
S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, J. Dea and F. Gordon, Polarized D+/Pd-D2O System: Hot Spots and “Mini-Explosions”. in Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: World Scientific

Quote from zeus46

If one reads the experimental descriptions from the SPAWAR group one concludes the field of view is ~1x 1.25 inches. (There was an actual slide in a presentation posted to the Internet once that showed this, but I failed to grab a copy and it shortly disappeared.) That allows us to calculate that an individual spot from a still is ~1-2mm in size

Errrm what? Maybe if there camera's sensor was 30x30 pixels, then each pixel would represent an area 1-2mm across. But it seems obvious from watching the video that the resolution is very much higher than that

OK, I agree that I perhaps made another mistake way back when I was measuring and computing...but... the hot spot area is still confined
to one general zone. Further, that general zone is on the upper part of the electrode - which I claim fits the idea of some bubble upwards travel as they are translated to the cathode. Not a critical item, just a minimal support point. This is the 'physicality' of the hot spots. Argues against noise. Bottom line: more data is needed, more replications, more studies, if one wants to sort this out. The CFers don't, and I don't know that it would be useful either.

Enough for today folks...maybe tomorrow work allowing....

P.S. I accidentally 'liked' DAK's post of Dec 12th, 6:17PM. I tried to cancel that by disliking it but that left it 'disliked'. I don't like/dislike posts I am commenting on. Apologies.

I find this discussion informative. I want to understand the reaction. I am currently on the fence with Ni LENR devices. In order for me to believe the results, it is best if I know how the sampling errors can occur.

I am not sure here, but think you (kshanahan among others) are saying that some of the positive transmutation results could be explained by the anode or even the catalyst is either absorbing or plating (or contaminating) the other "dode" and this is chemically altering the results.

Another point is that the SIMS (SEMS or other ash testing device) can contaminate the ash through the seals with high temps. Another way would be to misinterpret a noise as a signal. ("there are lies, damn lies and then statistics")
I think it is important to look at ways that the LENR effect can be proven one way or the other. I am sure there are a myriad of ways, but the important ones that address the issue, are the ones I target for questions.

Quote from kirkshanahan

So, you prove you haven't read and incorportated what I propose yet

Yep, it's true. No time so far, work is hectic. Watch this space.

Quote from kirkshanahan

@ DAK

Re: the ref. you give

OK, in Figure 5a-d we have mass spec for the ~91-101 AMU range. They show
sample results in a-c and an Mo spectrum in d. First off, note that the
Mo spectrum is ~500-1000 times more intense than the sample spectra. This…

I do not know what gas that you believe is in a SIMS instrument. It could be anything. It even depends on the bombardment species. Often it is Ga but others used Xe. Ar is also used as well as O, He, and Ne. Generally, hydrogen and water are the dominant species in high vacuum systems. If you believe the peak at 141.07 is a hydride, I think you are misidentifying that peak. It is likely a hydrocarbon contaminant due to its mass excess. Thus, the label of unknown is correct as that HC would not be IDed. The 141.91 is either Ce or Nd. The resolution is insufficient to tell and the mass range shown is too small (although it would have been available - you could ask MHI if you want for the full spectrum).

As to the intensity vs. ID/quantitation. It is not necessary to do what you suggest for ID. It is helpful for quantitation but not required. We can go into many details, if you wish, but I need not give a lecture on SIMS because this is an irrelevant detail.

As to the spectrum in Fig 5. The S/N on the small peaks is poor so the intensity will vary and many matches are possible. You will have issues with HC contamination because the resolution is too poor to reduce/eliminate. The bottom line is that it is not entirely natural Mo from contamination (so that is ruled out but some Mo may be present (which should be subtracted before looking at the residual)) so either it is transmutation or molecular species. You cannot tell from the data presented. The peaks fit CaFe well. You should plot that pattern yourself and visually compare (frankly, Ca2O matches visually better but I will stick with CaFe).

The numbers are:
CaFe
94 6.36759
95 0
96 100
97 2.31732
98 1.11136
99 0.154608
100 2.15644
101 0.0501017
102 0.0230183
103 9.52519e-005
104 0.192832
105 0.00445303
106 0.000592616

Ca2O

96 100
97 0.0380926
98 1.54033
99 0.279028
100 4.31095
101 0.00407231
102 0.0460235
103 0.00601124
104 0.432239
105 0.000188429
106 0.00364057
107 0.000538339
108 0.00830781
109 4.2665e-006
110 3.29795e-005
111 6.06397e-009
112 0.00037214
113 1.41745e-007
114 7.64678e-007

PA while back I wrote:

Quote

Abd - now free to insult with impunity - has written on his latest bolt-hole website, planet-lomax.com, accusing me of reacting with glee to his banning...

The comment received several downvotes including those from the Doxxer's perennial favourite, THHuxley, and the social maverick (and alleged wanna-be cult leader), Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax.

Well, in a rapid and shameless return to form, Lummox has once again made a mockery out of his websites supposed mission statement. Increasingly paranoid, he blames his downfall on a shadowy and mysterious figure known only as 'Zeus45', who is accused of making "private complaints" about His Lordship's behaviour (No one likes a Grass, Lomax), and of repeatedly putting collections of non-insulting words into a special order which then somehow became insulting.

All the while, refusing to acknowledge both that the words "idiot" and "troll" are actual insults, and the various other veiled and unveiled insults he tosses at some well known members here, including the erstwhile THHuxley, dismissed as "clearly a pseudoskeptic" and further victimised by yet another casual doxxing.

...Which come to think of it, maybe doesn't prove an awful lot - except perhaps that there really is no honour amongst the humourless, and that age offers no barrier to hypocrisy.

-----

Other highlights from planet-lomax.com include details of the various Machiavellian strategies pursued in order to divide and conquer the Lenr-forum moderation team, and a forlorn cry for all to join him in his continued boycott of the forum...

link: www.planet-lomax.com

Dear Zeus46,
Please knock it off.

Dear Abd,
Please consider coming back. As in quickly with a "sense of urgency". Please put this in perspective. Bitch all you want but your voice is missed here.

As a funny and non-related off topic note. At one of my old jobs, we would have internal names for projects. It was the "sales guys versus the developers". They (sales) came up with the product name "Bridge Builder" our internal name was "Ditch digger". You are more of a Bridge Builder, so even your detractors would appreciate your voice here. Besides we (here) are pretty good at ditch digging. And need some help with the other half--- the building part is alluding us.

Eric Walker,
Could you consider changing your avatar to represent you can ban people as a moderator? While in general I read and like your posts, I would hate to think that someone that I could possibly disagree with in the future could ban me. Since my remarkable sense of humour falls flat here sometimes, it would help me catch myself. Please understand I respect the need for moderation in the LENR forum, just a suggestion.

Quote from Rigel

Eric Walker,
Could you consider changing your avatar to represent you can ban people as a moderator? While in general I read and like your posts, I would hate to think that someone that I could possibly disagree with in the future could ban me. Since my remarkable sense of humour falls flat here sometimes, it would help me catch myself. Please understand I respect the need for moderation in the LENR forum, just a suggestion.

Hi Rigel,

I'm now a "super moderator", as the team panel on the right will hopefully show. Since I love a good technical debate, when I was approached about this I asked that the label not be included, so as to allow me to keep that status in the background.

The following types of contributors are not at risk of being banned by me:

• People whose contributions are informed.
• People whose contributions are uninformed, but who are not annoying.

I will never ban someone simply because I disagree with them on something. I will gladly ban anyone who trolls this site. I will consider banning people whose behavior is sufficiently annoying to cross a threshold, which appears to be borderline trolling. I will give a brief series of warnings before permanently banning an account. My hope is that it will have been obvious to all that someone was at a risk of being banned well before it happens. I will consult with the other mods in borderline cases and will uphold any decisions that are taken collectively.

You and most other contributors here posting in good faith are basically at zero risk of being banned by me.

I am trying to remove this post. But can not, my apologies. On the domain name header.

Quote from Keieueue

How does that warrant green text, and a warning?

You wrote: "Much like the TR-3B and the Aurora, this EM-Drive will go down in history as the uneducated ramblings of pseudoscientists and tinfoil-wearing kooks". This is incivil, contentless ad hominem. There are many people here who have from time to time been incivil. But nearly everyone here has some insight to add to the technical or legal discussion. You stand far apart from them in that you only contribute incivil comments about people and their motives, and nothing to technical or legal discussions. You are bringing the level of discussion down with this kind of ad hominem. It does not matter that you are sincere in what you write. If you cannot contribute to the technical or legal discussions, you should remain quiet.

Keieueue's account has been permanently banned. A first warning was given here. His account was suspended for two days here, after ignoring the warning. He was given a second warning here. This ban takes place now, after ignoring the second warning and the clarification that was provided in response to a question.

Quote from Keieueue

This is pretty hilarious, as people like Dewey Weaver, Mary Yugo, and several others spent their thousand+ posts only trolling named people very ad hominemly, and bringing the level of discussion down to mud flinging.

This forum is riding the crest of the post truth era, and the underlying motivation for it is baseless. That makes the entire exercise meaningless and comical. Like mangy hyenas scuffling over a carrion encrusted bone ripped from a cadaver, Rossi's IP is worthless.

Quote from Eric Walker

Keieueue's account has been permanently banned. A first warning was given here. His account was suspended for two days here, after ignoring the warning. He was given a second warning here. This ban takes place now, after ignoring the second warning and the clarification that was provided in response to a question.

Eric: One thing Keieueue said is very precise: There are people systematically down voting, posts even if they have no technical/physical knowledge. I would very much welcome a rule, that people can only down vote in a technical thread, if they posted at least two valuable items during the last two weeks.

For a leisure thread, e.g. about A.R. etc., let the down/up -vote puppets dance. It's part of the game.

@Wyttenbach, I definitely agree that the systematic downvoting is very annoying. A rule like that is an interesting idea. It might be hard to enforce. What are other people's thoughts?

Quote from Eric Walker

Keieueue's account has been permanently banned.

Why? Why not just select the option to hide his posts? That's what I did.

I don't think banning people is a good idea.