Shielding from reactor emitting RF and RF measuring

The particle and associated charge separation that occurs in "Hole Superconductivity" produced in metalized alkali hydrides is what generates the anapole magnetic fields that are central to the LENR reaction. In metalized alkali hydrides, the positive charges are confined to the interior of the crystal and the negative charges are expelled by the Meissner effect to the exterior surface of the crystal. The spin waves that form are also partitioned with the North Poles all confined to the center of the crystal and the south poles confined to the exterior surface of the crystal. The monopole flux lines are a vector sum based on the precessing angle of the particle spin waves. The North Pole of the magnetic field come from the center of the crystal and the South Pole come from the magnetic flux lines emanating from the exterior surface of the crystal.

One of the important magnetic amplification mechanisms that superconductivity provides is that all the particles are aligned in the same direction. In a metallic magnet, only a small fraction of the magnetic particles are aligned along the magnetic flux lines resulting in very weak magnetic field production. Simply stated, the metalized alkali hydrides produce super magnetism.

Quote from axil

There is a potential for a large amount of energy storage in the spin wave.

Could You give us a sample and compare E_magn with E_kin of a valence electron? What is large and compared to what?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Could You give us a sample and compare E_magn with E_kin of a valence electron? What is large and compared to what?

The magnetic particles that comprise the spin wave don't move, so most of the energy is magnetic. There is momentum transfer as the differences in magnetic spin travel across the surface of the spin wave. One magnetic particle passes magnetic energy to the next...that is momentum transfer.

RF and superconductivity at first glance seems to be incompatible because the Meissner effect does not permit any photons from entering inside of the superconductor. So RF must be produced on the outside skin of the superconductor with a fraction of that RF being reflected off the interior of the superconductor to the far field.

Plugging back to this old thread, does anybody have practical suggestions on how to shield either a reactor or instrumentation from RF in a manner that would prevent reasonable criticisms from pointing out that a positive signal could be due to related emissions leaking out/in?

On my side, just a regular portable AM radio that I've been using for real-time monitoring purposes for electrolytic experiments under atypical conditions—as you might recall from another forum thread. A NetIO GC10 Geiger counter with an SBM-20 GM tube has always been used close to the cell, but never showed anything interesting or clearly correlated with cell activity. On the other hand the background radiation level at my location is relatively high and I could have missed low-level gamma emissions.

So, the idea is that if the cell is actually emitting something more than "regular" RF (as early comments in this thread appear to suggest) then it's possible that the radio could work as a more sensitive instrument for it, and that a reasonably well-constructed Faraday cage could highlight this.

However, before turning again the desk next to my PC into a chemical lab I'd like to know in advance what to do to avoid goalpost-moving criticisms on this regard. I'm still not sure if it would be worth the time as I personally can/will only perform rather crude experiments with already-available tools and materials.

Earlier this year Magicsound replicated the same cell/experiment and even significantly improved it on several aspects using the best equipment available in the open source LENR experimentation community, but it turned out (not unexpectedly) to produce significant RF emission that upon operation would apparently increase the signal from his sensitive detectors for neutron and gamma radiation. It was not possible at that time to discern whether it was a "true" signal or just noise.

More than low energy (i.e. low keV) radiation I meant low intensity, since the short-term variation of the background signal where the experiments used to be performed at my location varies on a typical day between 75 and 105 CPM with the SBM-20 Geiger tube—I've also measured this recently in a few short unlogged 10-minute tests. This would drown out small signals. It's difficult to imagine that with a more sensitive pancake-style tube CPM values could be 10 times larger.

In replications performed last January-February (last test here) Magicsound used one very similar to what you linked, and in fact it was a slower low-voltage version of the same detector: https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/7317/ It was observed earlier on to be sensitive to RF emitted by the discharges that the experiment inherently created and it was somehow fixed along the way along with related issues with other detectors, but such sensitivity apparently remained on the neutron detectors and to a limited extent his NaI gamma spectrometer.

It would be very easy to dismiss all of this as just the result of RF noise, but there's a possibility (albeit small) that high energy nuclear particles produced by the reaction could leave the surfaces they pass through charged either directly or by secondary emission, which could cause all sorts of apparent noise artifacts that might be difficult to separate from actual RF-induced noise without detailed analysis or different types of measurements. The problem remains of course proving it.

Quote from can

Plugging back to this old thread, does anybody have practical suggestions on how to shield either a reactor or instrumentation from RF in a manner that would prevent reasonable criticisms from pointing out that a positive signal could be due to related emissions leaking out/in?

Quote from Alan Smith

The primary source of problems may not be RF, but induced currents in sensor leads. But- what kind of instruments do you want to protect? ETA- different instruments are sensitive to different things of course.

RFI is pernicious and the problem, as Alan says, is that you do not know there is any problem and it requires care to identify this.

RF issues affect instrumentation most likely by coming in on sensor leads and being rectified by amplifying circuits.But they can come on on supply leads, or (very common) earth leads. Just having a mains earth connection can be like introducing a large RF source

There is a standard technique to make electronics independent of RF. Put all the electronics (which must not itself contain RF noise sources) into a diecast aluminium or (see below) copper PCB box. Ensure that all leads - signal or power, go through feed-through capacitive connections in the box. Power leads may need some external to box ferrite beads to prevent noise, and adding these to signal connections is no bad idea since it greatly improves HF rejection at the box edge.

https://www.mouser.co.uk/Passi…rough-Capacitors/_/N-5g96

If the RFI is relatively low frequency, say high power in range 100k - 10M - you need to ensure the RC time constant of the low frequency filters from your feedthroughs are << RF frequency. That may mean an extra filter capacitor in parallel with the feedthrough (say 0.1u ceramic) mounted physically on the inside of the box between feedthrough inner and outer. Also at these lower frequencies ferrite beads may not be enough so make sure there is a few 100 ohms resistance as well on each connection into the box.

(Q-Pulse RFI is pernicious, difficult to eliminate, having high amplitude from 1K - 100M or so).

The box itself must be connected to your circuit (inside the box) ground and no other grounds present to prevent ground loops, which can be a problem with some mains powered equipment.

One neat technique is to make a custom box out of 6 rectangles of PCB. Easy to drill holes for and connect feedthroughs, and prototype circuits inside the box can use the bottom side as a ground plane using "ground plane" prototyping which when done neatly gives better performance than a standard PCB.

The above does not protect against ac near-field magnetic field, but practically those are seldom an issue. Other e-m fields get screened because the box knocks out the electric component.

There is a lot of variability in all this, but it is possible, with care, to make circuits with DC or LF signal in and out which are totally bombproof and have guaranteed high RFI rejection. These are the techniques used on RF analog front-ends.

You can sometimes do the same thing in reverse to keep RF noise sources inside sealed boxes.

THH

Quote from can

n replications performed last January-February (last test here) Magicsound used one very similar to what you linked, and in fact it was a slower low-voltage version of the same detector: https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/7317/ It was observed earlier on to be sensitive to RF emitted by the discharges that the experiment inherently created and it was somehow fixed along the way along with related issues with other detectors, but such sensitivity apparently remained on the neutron detectors and to a limited extent his NaI gamma spectrometer.

I found that the metal case in which the LND7317 pancake tube was mounted had no ground connection. This resulted from the peculiar circuit of the GMC-320+ used to power and detect the tube signal. That circuit has the detector front end amplifier connected at the cathode of the tube (its metal case), measuring the current through a small series resistor. To make this work, the tube case is insulated from the box in which it is mounted. Adding a separate system ground wire for the box cured the RF sensitivity.

For context, this experiment was meant to characterize high current arcing between closely spaced plates in an electrolytic cell. I measured the di/dt of mechanically-induced sub-mcrosecond arc events at around 10k amperes/second. Peak currents from unloading the large V+ air-core inductor were on the order of hundreds of amperes. In another test at ~10 amperes continuous electrolytic current, I detected sustained oscillation with pulses of ~228 MHz sawtooth-like waveform at about 3 KHz repetition rate. In other words, LOTS of RF energy, around 100 watts RMS. So I was not surprised when my sensitive Li6I neutron scintillator wasn't happy.

In general, similar problems will exist in most systems that concentrate a more or less large amount of electrical energy in a brief period of time on a small spot, like for example the various Russian "water explosion" experiments (including Parkhomov's "Woodpecker", from which mine could be considered to take a loose inspiration), or in other cases also without directly involving water or hydrogen (as for example here) or just with trace amounts of them in the electrodes. These have often been claimed to produce transmutation effects, excess heat or emit unknown difficult to detect and potentially harmful radiation sometimes informally called "strange radiation".

Also performing electrolysis (or more precisely describing the actual processes involved: electrodeposition / electroplating) in a slightly acidic environment with closely spaced electrodes, but without them obviously arcing or entering a kind of resonating regime (as also observed in your tests), will produce continuous low-level detectable RF noise which I guess could be expected to cause a heightened signal in nearby sensitive conventional radiation monitoring devices.

To a large extent this might end up being a matter of interpretation. As mentioned earlier it could even be that trying to get rid of related issues with proper grounding will also get rid of a possible signature of a real anomalous signal, so it could be important to know how to separate the direct RF noise from it.

My initial idea was that a coarse metallic mesh either around the cell or the measuring equipment could do the RF-shielding job while still allowing most unknown particles (if present) to pass through without interference. The mesh would be grounded, but the measuring equipment wouldn't. Whether this would be considered an acceptable arrangement though, I don't know, which is what motivated my question above.

Quote from can

Plugging back to this old thread, does anybody have practical suggestions on how to shield either a reactor or instrumentation from RF in a manner that would prevent reasonable criticisms from pointing out that a positive signal could be due to related emissions leaking out/in?

Some sort of Faraday cage is typically used for this. Designing one isn't too difficult but getting it to work perfectly can be. Especially if you need to get data and heat out. You really need to test it and fix any problems that the testing shows up. That can be quite expensive. In a past life I spent a few weeks down a salt mine trying to stop RF leaking in/out of a bit of electronic equipment. Think expensive radio transmitters and receivers, spectrum analysers, special filtered power supplies, transient generators even motorised turntables. All good fun to play with when someone else is paying. Not sure I would want to do it again.

CWatters

That's not very encouraging, as I hoped that a rough idea of a reasonably well-designed, cost-effective and non-invasive Faraday cage (actually in the form of a mesh or grid material) for general purposes could be had before engaging again into weeks–months of potentially inconclusive tests.

In any case, below is a partial diagram of the supposed situation. For the most part this is just a hypothesis subject to change, at this stage.