How large is this crystal?
The size of the crystal is based on the type of hydride formed. LeClair has photographed this "water crystal" so that crystal is micron sized. Search for the term "water crystal" on this site to see a photo and molecular diagram of that crystal.
Also see
Thanks for your expression of trust Eric. However, it's important to emphasize that what counts is data and procedure, not faith and trust. In the case of the broad-band gamma spectrum we detected, our data was intensely scrutinized and discussed here and on QuantumHeat. We tested every proposed artifact mechanism and found no correlation that would explain our data.
I agree with you Alan, about procedure and data. There was no consensus at all on this forum at the time that what was detected was genuine bremsstrahlung or excess heat. MFMP don't need to take the views expressed on this forum into consideration in the announcements they make, obviously. But if the discussion here was anything to go by, that particular run was suggestive at best, and possibly artifact. Do you disagree with this assessment? Note that the announcement that was made at the time sounded very different than this summary.
that particular run was suggestive at best, and possibly artifact. Do you disagree with this assessment? Note that the announcement that was made at the time sounded very different than this summary.
BobG is sometimes overly enthusiastic, as befits his role of "chief facilitator". After the post-investigations I described, I now think the data is more than suggestive. No plausible mechanism for a measurement error or artifact has been found, though it's still possible. That is why I encourage ongoing informed questions, and will add suggested tests as time and facilities allow.
This is fine if you use multiple isothermal barriers and an interbarrier insulator with known (absolute) thermal conductivity. Vacuum here, or any air-gap, is problematic because the precise surface physical and chemical structure may change over time in the experiment and can then alter emissivity.
Fleischmann warned against vacuum gaps. He designed a half-silvered Dewar with a well-defined heat transfer window. The window is always below the water level of the electrolyte. The water level goes up and down because he used open cells.
Miles used a sheet of copper around the cell to transfer the heat. He measured the temperature at the copper, outside the cell.
Weren't the characteristic x-rays missing, which one would guess would have been overlaid on top of the possible bremsstrahlung curve as narrow peaks? And also the fact that no coincidence measurements were made at the time, because the GM counter wasn't working?
I'm not saying it wasn't bremsstrahlung. I'm just saying there weren't enough cross checks at the time to eliminate possible doubt about that conclusion.
Weren't the characteristic x-rays missing, which one would guess would have been overlaid on top of the possible bremsstrahlung curve as narrow peaks? And also the fact that no coincidence measurements were made at the time, because the GM counter wasn't working
Any narrow x-ray peaks would have come from, and could have identified specific nuclear reaction paths. But if such peaks were there (and we did look), they were hidden in the broad-band emission, not overlaid on top of it. So the only conclusion we might reach is that any such peaks were of substantially lower amplitude than the braking radiation, which was broad band and free of detectable peaks.
Regarding the absence of correlated GMC signal, here's an excerpt from our formal paper (currently under peer review):
No radiation signal above background was detected by the GMC320+ Geiger-Muller counter during this time. It should be noted that this is an inexpensive instrument with poor sensitivity, especially to low-energy (<100 keV) gamma radiation. Post experiment testing of the GMC320+ and modeling with the spectrum detected by the scintillator suggested the GMC320+ should only have seen a small number of counts above background. Depending upon the unknown time spread of the scintillator detected signal (up to 4 hours), this may not have been discernible above the background counts in the GMC320+.
Further details of the analysis can be found at http://goo.gl/DOiXYe
Further details of the analysis can be found at goo.gl/DOiXYe
Yes, I recall this analysis. Suppose for the sake of argument that that was bremsstrahlung resulting from the interaction of energetic decay betas with heavy nuclides in the setup, an experimental finding I am very sympathetic to being true. Not yet shown (and I wonder whether it's possible to show with the data available from the experiment) is that (1) the signal arose from something under the control of you and Mark, or (2) that the signal came from the live cell. Do you disagree?
Engineers will say these concerns are pedantic and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Scientists will have many more concerns in addition to these.
to show with the data available from the experiment) is that (1) the signal arose from something under the control of you and Mark, or (2) that the signal came from the live cell.
I think the first is unknowable from the available data. The second is a matter of probability. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the cell seems the most likely origin of the signal. There was certainly nothing else in the room capable of generating such a broad and energetic spectrum.
Weren't the characteristic x-rays missing,
Eric, the characteristic x-rays you asked about would not have been seen by the instruments present at the time. The characteristic x-rays for the heaviest material (Ni) would have been below the detectable energy of the scintillator. More instruments were present in the later attempt to replicate, but the signal was not repeated.
The article Alan spoke of is the proceedings publication for Mathieu Valat's RNBE-2016 presentation. This paper will be published in a special RNBE proceedings edition of JofCMNS. It will discuss: a) measurement of the MFMP replica of the Lugano reactor as a control for re-analysis of Lugano results, and b) the Glowstick experiments through GS5.2. The gamma signal is reported as "this is what we did and this is what we measured". Unless we report it, it will be difficult to see a replication/substantiation. The publication of what we measured is likely to stimulate more measurements of radiation during LENR experiments. We are already starting to see this trend.
I'm going to take the discussion here as a proxy for the old thread on this site that it seems TC did not look at.
The question is whether these interesting one-off (at the time) results come from so-called "inner" Bremsstrahlung (IB) generated by the cell or Something Else.
The MFMP argument here is that because no-one can think of Something Else that fits, balance of probability makes this IB.
There are two ways this can be approached.
Point 2. is what we can all agree - and if it happens you will have enough new information to diagnose more precisely what this phenomenon is. Thus far I believe no similar results have been obtained. I'm not sure how many times this or similar experiments have been done with equipment capable of detecting this signal? The number of negatives would be useful evidence in assessing this.
In the absence of more than one detection of this unexpected signal the Something Else hypothesis has merit. Whether a particular mechanism that solves it can be found is not really the issue - such reverse engineering is fiendishly difficult in absence of detailed data. Still, personally, I'm not one to let that stop the speculation.
The data we do have shows a remarkably smooth curve. I'd therefore hypothesise that this might be a software response to an electrical noise signal on the scintillator photo-detector lines. The software generating the spectrum identifies isolated peaks and counts the area underneath them as indicative of the number of photons received coincidentally, and generates a count at an energy proportional to the peak area. All such counts are summed to generate the spectrum. You can see that the data shown looks coincidentally quite similar to what you would expect from peaks coming from noise, where lower area peaks are much more likely than higher area peaks. We have a wide range of types of noise that could cause this, and the matter is further confused by the filtering and peak detection algorithm in the software, so it would be very difficult to rule this out as a cause.
In the absence of further data the "weird noise" suggestion looks to me no worse than the "weird IB" suggestion and considerably better unless you are a priori expecting high energy photon emission from this experiment (as some, including it seems Axil here, may be doing).
This speculation is all quite weak. What strengthens the case (weird noise or weird IB) is the confirmation or lack of it from subsequent similar experiments.
I think the first is unknowable from the available data. The second [that the signal is from the live run] is a matter of probability. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the cell seems the most likely origin of the signal. There was certainly nothing else in the room capable of generating such a broad and energetic spectrum.
I don't disagree that probability is involved in some level. But one control that I would like to see be done is to run a blank for several weeks with the detector on. Do you see this kind of signal from time to time? You're in Santa Cruz, I think. Did some beta-radioactive particles float in on the breeze from Fukushima (March 2011)? Or are there small amounts of beta radioactive radon daughters in the lab? These are just examples. If that signal is not seen at all after an extended blank run whose timespan is large compared to the actual experiment, that would be additional information to take into account in ruling out other possibilities.
At the moment I don't think the probability lies with the live reactor, although it's an interesting possibility. So in all of this my point has been that the run was suggestive but not more than suggestive. Surely you'll agree that this experiment should be followed up on and better understood?
I look forward to the article.
Eric, the characteristic x-rays you asked about would not have been seen by the instruments present at the time. The characteristic x-rays for the heaviest material (Ni) would have been below the detectable energy of the scintillator. More instruments were present in the later attempt to replicate, but the signal was not repeated.
Bremsstrahlung comes from the interaction of electrons with energy ~ 1 MeV or more as they are deflected from their course by positively charged nuclei, usually heavy ones. Have you done the calculation for the bremsstrahlung cross section for nickel? I suspect it's pretty low.
Have you done the calculation for the bremsstrahlung cross section for nickel? I suspect it's pretty low.
The characteristic x-ray emission would have been stimulated by the broadband spectrum just like broadband UV can stimulate visible emission lines of exposed elements. There was simply no instrument present that could resolve these lines in the GS5.2 experiment at the low energy where they occur. For Ni, the heaviest element present in any abundance, the characteristic Kalpha line is at 7.478 keV and its higher Kbeta line is 8.264 keV. The scintillator probe has a 1/f - like noise spectrum in energy and basically is unreliable below about 25keV. So, as I said, these Ni characteristic x-rays would not be seen. You are correct that seeing characteristic x-rays of the reactor materials in the signal would cement the case that the signal had originated in the reactor. Because of this, an x-ray spectrometer (SDD based) was borrowed for the replication attempt, but the signal did not show in that attempt (neither in the x-ray spectrum nor the gamma ray spectrum).
Note that the scintillator is located inside a lead cave (100mm thick and hundreds of pounds) with a solid exposure angle of about pi steradians. This limits from where the stimulation could have come. It would have been nice to have noticed the signal as it was occurred because a shield could have been inserted between the reactor and the scintillator to help determine its origin. This may happen in the future with the more sensitive pancake tube added as the additional detector. Hearing its counts rise would be such a signal. There are many ways to alarm on the spectrometer as well - now that we know it is an issue. We are learning from experimentation.
Note that the scintillator is located inside a lead cave (100mm thick and hundreds of pounds) with a solid exposure angle of about pi steradians.
Indeed. My point about the low bremsstrahlung cross section for nickel is that another material, e.g., lead, seems more likely to have been what the beta electrons would have been interacting with.
There are many ways to alarm on the spectrometer as well - now that we know it is an issue. We are learning from experimentation.
The experiments you guys do are some of my favorite to follow, in part because I learn a lot from them myself.
lead, seems more likely to have been what the beta electrons would have been interacting with.
Even MeV electrons would be highly attenuated in escaping the reactor. The few that would have struck the lead (outer surface) and generated the lead characteristic x-ray would have created a weak x-ray at 79 keV which would have been absorbed in the lead. In fact, we do see a 75-80 keV peak in the background due to cosmic ray excitation of the lead. This is stationary in the background and subtracts out. If there were a tiny amount of characteristic x-ray from the lead due to the high energy electrons, it would probably have been lost in the cosmic ray excitation. The cosmic rays (primarily muons) penetrate deeply into the lead and the x-rays seen were generated close to the inner surface of the lead shield near the scintillator.
Unfortunately, even if the characteristic x-rays for lead were detected associated with the signal, it would not localize the signal source to the reactor since the lead is with the detector.
Even MeV electrons would be highly attenuated in escaping the reactor. The few that would have struck the lead (outer surface) and generated the lead characteristic x-ray would have created a weak x-ray at 79 keV which would have been absorbed in the lead. In fact, we do see a 75-80 keV peak in the background due to cosmic ray excitation of the lead.
The live reactor as the source of the electrons is a proposition that we should get to only after ruling out other possibilities. It seems to me that some thought experiments are in order in which the reactor is not the origin of the energetic betas, if only to rule them out, either on the basis of the data already collected, or through further follow-up testing. Two that have been suggested are (1) beta-radioactive dust floating in on the breeze (e.g., from Fukushima) and (2) beta-radioactive radon daughters. Perhaps they approached the wall of the lead cave, on a side in view of the detector. It seems like this general possibility could be tested with a beta source?
It is my opinion that the Signal was caused by the power glitch. I do not expect this to be tested, however. Interrupting the power supply is likely dangerous to the equipment, so testing this idea may be rather expensive, whether this was the cause or not.
Two that have been suggested are (1) beta-radioactive dust floating in on the breeze (e.g., from Fukushima) and (2) beta-radioactive radon daughters.
Radon daughters have a specific spectrum that was compared to the measured Bremsstrahlung spectrum (see attachment 1). The comparison was that the signal spectrum was too smooth to be due to a radon flea/daughters. Since all possible beta emitting radioisotopes have not been examined, I suppose there is the possibility that something like that could have caused the problem. However, for that to have happened just the one time, and never to be measured again is improbable. On the other hand, if such hot particles frequent Alan's air, he is living in a very bad place!
Seems like something to be tested with a beta source and ruled out, by placing the detector in the lead cave and aiming the beta source at a wall that is in view of the detector. Nothing that looks anything like the signal? Possibility ruled out.
Re Santa Cruz, see points 5 and 7 of this page (whose credibility I cannot judge), which talk about 137Cs, which has a beta endpoint of ~ 1.2 MeV: http://www.globalresearch.ca/2…on-from-fukushima/5355280.
The trouble would be finding a beta emitting radioisotope that, in its daughter transitions, did NOT emit a gamma. For example, 137Cs decays by beta to 137Ba* which subsequently emits the 662 keV gamma as the isomer relaxes. If the 137Cs source would have been there emitting beta, it would also show with a strong gamma line. In fact, the 137Cs is a standard calibration source for the gamma spectrometer - the 662 keV gamma is all that shows - no Bremsstrahlung is seen at all.
