MFMP Provides Update About Me356

Quote from Eric Walker

I don't have time at the moment to double-check zeus46's calculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if a minute amount could generate that kind of activity.

But the MFMP detector isn't that sensitive, so the particle would have to be bigger, probably by several orders of magnitude.
The normal background with my scintillometer is 80-350 CPS, (basalt - granite background, [typical non-organic soil about 180-220 CPS]) whereas the MFMP device has a much lower background. And I am sure mine misses a lot of counts.

Edit: I haven't stuck mine in a Pb cave, though, thinking about it some more.

An only slightly related question — Alan G. linked to this sequence of traces: https://goo.gl/QbeQPf. Upon visual inspection, it seems to me that only trace 7 is interesting, and that the other traces just show evidence of some kind of noise, which is resulting in the jitter. Is this wrong? If it's a good conclusion, what is causing the noise (e.g., some kind of thermal process)? If there's something causing the noise for many of the traces, what rules out a different kind of noise for trace 7, which is something that people have been suggesting?

I see that a NaI Spectrum Techniques UCS30 scintillator was used. I think that's this setup?

Here are the specs for the setup above. They mention that the spectrometer has a "Bkgd Buffer" that is "Used to store background spectrum for time normalized background subtraction." Was this feature used? What did it say?

Here is a nice video introducing this spectrometer (if I have the right one):

One thing I did not see in the video was the 1/eV peak on the left side of the spectrum. This may have been due simply to the spectrometer having been operating in a different mode than in the GS5.2 test, or due to the use of a different probe. At 5:42 m. the presenter discusses a port on the back that enables compensation for temperature, which I gather is important for this and similar devices.

Quote from Eric Walker

One thing I did not see in the video was the 1/eV peak on the left side of the spectrum. This may have been due simply to the spectrometer having been operating in a different mode than in the GS5.2 test, or due to the use of a different probe. At 5:42 m. the presenter discusses a port on the back that enables compensation for temperature, which I gather is important for this and similar devices.

The GS5.2 spectra are long integrations, so they show considerable x-ray signature from the lead cave. I think this is secondary emission from the effect of cosmic rays on the lead. It's a clear peak at ~78 keV in all the spectra except #7.

In spectrum 7 the lead peak is swamped by whatever broadband emission (or system defect) caused the signal. The peak that appears in #7 is around 23 keV. This is almost certainly a false peak resulting from the high-pass filter cutoff of the MCA software, and the real 1/e slope continues below 23 keV.

Regarding the temperature compensation, the video also mentions that it is not yet available for this unit. Using a 137Cs calibration source and thermocouple inside the cave with the unit, I measured the scintillator drift to be close to the published thermal coefficient for NaI / PM output voltage.

Quote from Eric Walker

They mention that the spectrometer has a "Bkgd Buffer" that is "Used to store background spectrum for time normalized background subtraction."

The way this feature is used is to integrate a long null spectrum and save it as background. Then you can enable the UCS-30 to automatically subtract it. This was not used and should not have been used. There was energy scale drift (due to small temperature drift) that needed to be compensated in the photometric reduction before subtraction was valid. The background was created from a photometrically scaled Spectrum-01 and Spectrum-24 after all of the raw data had been collected.

Quote from magicsound

In spectrum 7 the lead peak is swamped by whatever broadband emission (or system defect) caused the signal.

The correct term here is visually dominated in the log scale graph. There was no saturation and little dead time. The photometric subtraction of the background took out the constant lead response (which would not have occurred if it had saturated its count).

Quote from BobHiggins

The correct term here is visually dominated in the log scale graph

Thanks Bob. Yes, swamped has a specific meaning especially in analog RF. ( …. .. …. ..)

Quote from magicsound

Regarding the temperature compensation, the video also mentions that it is not yet available for this unit. Using a 137Cs calibration source and thermocouple inside the cave with the unit, I measured the scintillator drift to be close to the published thermal coefficient for NaI / PM output voltage.

One question I have is whether thermal effects created the jitter in many of the traces (excluding trace 7). Apart from any drift that temperature compensation would address, I wonder whether scintillators begin to show jitter when they get hot. I vaguely recall reading something about scintillators and heat in a textbook sometime back, but I do not recall the conclusions.

Quote from Eric Walker

One question I have is whether thermal effects created the jitter in many of the traces (excluding trace 7). Apart from any drift that temperature compensation would address, I wonder whether scintillators begin to show jitter when they get hot. I vaguely recall reading something about scintillators and heat in a textbook sometime back, but I do not recall the conclusions.

I don't think it's jitter. The traces are of different integration lengths, and in the sequential GIF, they have been normalized for equal reference level, for ease of visual comparison. I think the 40K peak at 1460 keV was used for both thermal compensation and amplitude normalization. However, this processing does not effect the scatter of individual channel counts, which is a factor of the length of integration and is amplified visually by the logarithmic scale.

Quote from Eric Walker

I wonder whether scintillators begin to show jitter when they get hot.

The scintillator didn't get "hot" - it had a slight temperature rise, likely a few degrees C. I have never noticed my scintillator being noticeably warm to the touch. All that is in there is the photomultiplier tube with its bias resistors. Total power drain is less than 1W and that is at the back end, away from the crystal. Alan, can you confirm?

At 14:10 min. in this video, the presenter confirms my suspicion that betas in a lead cave would be something to worry about due to the bremsstrahlung (perhaps something you guys anticipated as well?). For this reason he protects the probe within the cave with a plastic disc, and also has aluminum and copper (?) plates on the inside.

Much later in the video (29:10) the background for a six-hour integration period for a sample observed within the lead cave is shown, and it did not have the 1/e shape, confirming the conclusion that the 1/e shape is something unusual and that goes back to the "signal" (if that were not apparent for other reasons).

Quote from BobHiggins

The scintillator didn't get "hot" - it had a slight temperature rise, likely a few degrees C. I have never noticed my scintillator being noticeably warm to the touch. All that is in there is the photomultiplier tube with its bias resistors. Total power drain is less than 1W and that is at the back end, away from the crystal. Alan, can you confirm?

The entire lead cave gets hot from long-term exposure to the IR of the Glowstick. This is quite slow, but the experiments are long. By the end of GS5.3, the temp next to the scintillator was about 17°C above ambient.

Alan or Bob, what is the typical gross CPS of the background measured with that spectrometer, when not in the Pb cave?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Alan or Bob, what is the typical gross CPS of the background measured with that spectrometer, when not in the Pb cave?

The earliest file I have is from GS3, dated May 20 2015. I don't entirely trust the date, but I'm pretty sure there was no lead in the room yet. The integration is 876 seconds, gross count 2202. So less than 3 CPS

Thanks, Alan. I'm just trying to get a feel for how sensitive your system is.

That seems low, if around 17 out of 25 CPS in signal 7 was caused by the signal (My estimate; it was a while ago, and I'm working from memory.)
However I came up with that, it suggests that about 8 CPS would be the background.

Perhaps I should start over on that calculation when I have some more time...

At about 19:30 bob starts the discussion about the segment 7 signal.

Bob mentioned the DGT gamma emission of 300 KeV. This is due to the continual destruction of the Hole superconductivity that is reestablished after each spark discharge. After the spark discharge, energy from LENR takes the form of gamma and not heat because Bose condensation has been destroyed which thermalizes the gamma. The DGT spark produces the Bremsstrahlung emissions upon each spark discharge.

In Rossi's first systems, the 300 KeV signal is produced in a second at reaction startup.

The segment 7 discharge happened in 4.4 seconds according to Ecco. Bob showed a spike in detector dropouts which implies a sharp spike in emissions that produced the dropouts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theory

Regarding: "Why the electrons should be "expelled from center of conductor", "

Hole Superconductivity is an alternative theory to Conventional BCS theory that seeks to explain "High Temperature" superconductivity.

See

http://sdphln.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

This theory covers superconductivity seen in high pressure physics.

See

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.3912.pdf

Quote

Kinetic energy driven superconductivity, the origin of the Meissner effect, and the reductionist frontier

A person good at numbers can calculate how fast electrons are pushed out of the center of a material when it becomes superconducting. This can predict the x-rays generated by those electrons on their way out of the material to the surface of the material. The equations start at section 7.

http://sdphln.ucsd.edu/~jorge/abstracts/chargeexp.html

Quote

"Charge expulsion and electric field in superconductorscond-mat/0308604 (Los Alamos) , Phys.Rev.B 68, 184502 (2003).The theory of hole superconductivity predicts that when a metal goes superconducting negative charge is expelled from its interior towards the surface. As a consequence the superconductor in its ground state is predicted to have a nonhomogeneous charge distribution and an outward pointing electric field in its interior. Here we propose equations to describe the behavior of the charge density and electric field in superconductors, and solve them for a spherical geometry. The magnitude of the predicted interior electric field depends on superconducting parameters such as the condensation energy and the London penetration depth and is found to be of order 10e6 V/cm. A physical interpretation of the result is given. It is predicted that for small superconducting bodies (compared to the penetration depth) an electric field outside the superconductor should result from this physics. This may explain a recent experimental observation in Nb metal clusters."

X-rays are produced at the instant that the Superconductive state is established or terminated when electrons are on the move.

I would like to say that I do not know enough about scintillators to fill a post card BUT I have seen them often, and talked to researchers and technicians, and this I do know: they are incredibly sensitive, and trouble-prone. You look at them cross-eyed and they register a signal. You sneeze, or a truck goes by outside, or in Japan you have a minor earthquake that a person would not notice, and they register a signal.

Without a replication I would not believe any anomaly from one of these machines. I wouldn't ignore it, but I wouldn't believe it.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Thanks, Alan. I'm just trying to get a feel for how sensitive your system is.

That seems low, if around 17 out of 25 CPS in signal 7 was caused by the signal (My estimate; it was a while ago, and I'm working from memory.)
However I came up with that, it suggests that about 8 CPS would be the background.

I think ~2.5 CPS is pretty close. My pancake GMC covers roughly half the spectral range and typically shows 40-50 CPM background.
https://drive.google.com/open?…xJkjesxe4kaFlnc2xUaGJWYlE

Quote from magicsound

The entire lead cave gets hot from long-term exposure to the IR of the Glowstick. This is quite slow, but the experiments are long. By the end of GS5.3, the temp next to the scintillator was about 17°C above ambient.

Do you have a time series of temperatures for the inside of the lead cave? (I suspect the answer will be no, but I'll ask anyway, just in case.)

Quote from Eric Walker

Do you have a time series of temperatures for the inside of the lead cave? (I suspect the answer will be no, but I'll ask anyway, just in case.)

Short answer, No.

Remember it's ~200 kg of metal, 100 mm thick in all directions from the cavity. So the thermal time constant is many days for equilibrium. Probably pretty easy to model in Spice but not worth the effort IMO.