MFMP Provides Update About Me356

Yes, nice find. One could easily see from the spectrum you show that the MFMP signal could be interpreted either as a simple beta signal or, with more difficulty, as bremsstrahlung.

Quote from gameover

Since 90Sr sources are commonly available to the public for test purposes (if I am correct the manufacturer of the spectrometer used by MFMP also sells them) this similarity should be a reason of concern. A pseudoskeptic could argue that one of such sources was inadvertently left around or played with during the test.

One need not be a pseudoskeptic to wonder about that. It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the resemblance with the 90Sr bremsstrahlung spectrum. The truth is what we're after, not protecting an MFMP conclusion.

But note: if an experimental finding is liable to multiple interpretations, that means the experiment needs to be tightened up before much can be concluded from it, even if what is going on under the hood is the process of one's preference. One might be able to argue in this instance that strontium lying around, either as a standard or as contamination, is improbable; that's not something I have enough knowledge to weigh in on.

My kit of check sources does not include 90Sr, and the entire kit was removed from the lab prior to the experiment.

I think this line of speculation is far-fetched for the simple reason that none of us present during the experiment showed the injuries that would have resulted from trying to insert anything into the lead cave spectrometer aperture with the Glowstick at 1000°C in the way. You can't even look at it, let alone put your hand near it.

I subtracted all traces of the background, based on total elimination of the K40 bump, by multiple consecutive background removals.
(The dip in the pattern is due to the heavy-handed background reduction, and demonstrates how many counts were still left).
It looked like this:

Researchers have been looking for this behaviour for a while now. It marks the generation of superconductivity at extremely high temperatures and confirms the new theory of how superconductivity actually works. The force that moves the electrons to extreme speed is the Meissner effect. This observation also confirms the TAO effect.

Source of the gamma rays found in segment 7 as follows:

When "Hole" superconductivity is formed during the beginning of the metallization of a hydride, electons in orbit around the hydride atoms are expelled from the center (aka core) of the hydride and pushed to the surface by the meissner effect. During this process, a positively charged core is formed in the center of the crystal and the negatively charged electrons and photons are pushed to the outside of the crystal.

When this process of charge separation occurs, electrons produce Bremsstrahlung on their path to the outside of the metalized hydride crystal. Metalization of the hydride marks the beginning of the LENR process when a monopole magnetic field is produced in the spin wave that has formed on the surface of the metalized hydride.

When the LENR reaction is completed and metalization of the hydride is breaking down, a similar process of Bremsstrahlung radiation generation will occur when the electrons and photons on the exterior of the metalized hydride falls back to the positively charged center of the hydride.

See

Ionizing radiation from superconductors in the theory of hole superconductivity

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.0876v2.pdf

Quote

"(Los Alamos), J. Phys. Condens. Matter 19 125217 (2007).We point out that large superconducting bodies described by the theory of hole superconductivity will emit ionizing radiation in non-equilibrium situations. This remarkable prediction, involving an energy scale a factor of 10e12 larger than the low energy scale usually associated with superconductivity, is unique to the theory of hole superconductivity. The phenomenon is a consequence of the macroscopic inhomogeneous charge distribution predicted to exist in superconducting bodies, and the resulting intrinsic macroscopic spin currents in the superconducting state in the absence of applied fields. For superconducting bodies of sufficiently large size, the speed of the spin current carriers approaches the speed of light, and in addition real electron positron pair production is expected to occur in the interior. When the superconducting state is destroyed, electromagnetic radiation with frequencies up to 0.511MeV/\hbar should arise from bremsstrahlung and electron-positron annihilation. In support of this rather unconventional theory we point out that it is the only existing theory that proposes explanations for two fundamental universal effects associated with superconductivity: the Meissner effect and the Tao effect."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015APS..MARY25011C

Quote

AbstractIn 2007, Hirsch reported that the hole theory of superconductivity predicts the emission of ionizing radiation from superconductors as they transition (quench) from the superconducting to the normal state (J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19, 125217 (2007)). An experiment has been constructed to test this prediction. A Pb sample is quenched to its normal state by a pulsed magnetic field with a magnitude everywhere greater than Hc, while a NaI scintillator is used to detect the ionizing photons. We will present the experimental design, and its limitations; report the experimental results, and discuss their implications.

Note inner or internal bremstrahlung is more related to beta decays and electron capture and is often especially in the case of EC smooth and missing the structure artifacts associated with the thermal bremsstrahlung or bremsstrahlung due to beta interaction with other atoms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik…_and_outer_bremsstrahlung

The following link about hard X-Ray inner Bremsstrahlung emission associated with Beta decay of Neutrons in the solar halo is interesting: see in particular Section 2 and the associated Figure 1.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/…8-06/aa6328-06.right.html

i was wondering if the signal produced in SGR that looks a bit like signal 7 that i mentioned in an earlier post could be a more intense signal from magnetars but from a similar neutron decay source.

How about this scenario? A component of the detector was bought second-hand and had previously been present during a calibration by its previous owner with a strontium check source (or another beta emitter with a similar activity), at which point a small amount of contamination from the check source (which was not the kind that is encased in plastic) was left somewhere on/in the component. The airflow in the room or the heat of the experiment or some other perturbation moved the particle into view of either the crystal or the PMT, during which time its activity was picked up, despite its being below the level of the background. And then the air or something someone did caused the particle to move out of view again several integration periods later.

Possible? I don't know. Let's give it a 1 percent chance. It seems to me that that's still 10 times better than the 0.1 percent chance that LENR in a nickel/hydrogen system setup gave rise to bremsstrahlung by interacting with the nickel which then escaped the reactor and was picked up by the detector. And I'm actually sympathetic to the NiH account. I just think we need stronger evidence.

Quote from Eric Walker

How about this scenario? A component of the detector was bought second-hand and had previously been present during a calibration by its previous owner with a strontium check source (or another beta emitter with a similar activity), at which point a small amount of contamination from the check source (which was not the kind that is encased in plastic) was left somewhere on/in the component. The airflow in the room or the heat of the experiment or some other perturbation moved the particle into view of either the crystal or the PMT, during which time its activity was picked up, despite its being below the level of the background. And then the air or something someone did caused the particle to move out of view again several integration periods later.

Possible? I don't know. Let's give it a 1 percent chance. It seems to me that that's still 10 times better than the 0.1 percent chance that LENR in a nickel/hydrogen system setup gave rise to bremsstrahlung by interacting with the nickel which then escaped the reactor and was picked up by the detector.

The radiation signature of Hole superconductivity establishment does hot imply anything about the ignition of a LENR reaction.

Quote from Mary Yugo

<b> Charlie Tapp
... because it does little good to count chickens until they're hatched (from an old English proverb).
</b>

I agree Mary. Have a thumbs up from me. A big thumbs up.

Quote from Eric Walker

How about this scenario?

Some unknown person (whose initials could be E.W.) sneaked into the lab wearing an invisibility cloak (without opening the door of course). Then he compromised the experiment by touching the lead in front of the spectrometer with a refractory wand containing ⁹⁰Sr, and left, again without opening the door.

Why did he do this? Just for the fun of it, or out of malice maybe. Or perhaps under a compulsion spell from He Who Must Not Be Named...

Quote from Eric Walker

This is a bremsstrahlung spectrum that arises from several beta decays superimposed on one another,

Eric, with all due respect, and thanks to you and others here for making the continued theoretical efforts.... However, you and others here might benefit from reviewing Bremsstrahlung in primary print references. My objection here may be summarized: Bremsstrahlung must always be tied back to its definition..... "braking radiation"....that has little, if anything to do with averaging of characteristic emissions. Characteristic radiations are definitively quantized, Bremsstrahlung is inherently continuum, in appearance, at least. Both may be co-incident to Thomson-Compton scattering, but one (characteristic) is electron dependent, the other (continuum) is only electrostatic field-dependent.

Or so I understand.

Longview

Quote from BobHiggins

Either. Gamma does NOT reflect!

Depending on wavelength (30 to 1300 eV), angle of incidence, and quality of the surface, grazing incidence reflection is always possible. (The basis for much if not all of gamma ray and x-ray imaging in astronomy.)

btw: Thanks for your great efforts, Bob.

Quote from Longview

However, you and others here might benefit from reviewing Bremsstrahlung in primary print references. My objection here may be summarized: Bremsstrahlung must always be tied back to its definition..... "braking radiation"....that has little, if anything to do with averaging of characteristic emissions. Characteristic radiations are definitively quantized, Bremsstrahlung is inherently continuum, in appearance, at least. Both may be co-incident to Thomson-Compton scattering, but one (characteristic) is electron dependent, the other (continuum) is only electrostatic field-dependent.

What you say about bremsstrahlung having a continuum profile is true. But it's not readily apparent how to tie this point back to the previous discussion, which has assumed this all along. Perhaps you're objecting to the use of the word "spectrum". I'm using it only in the sense that you have a multi-channel analyzer that is analyzing the components of a signal into different bins according to energy, creating a spectrum. When you look at the counts, they form a smooth curve across all of the bins, because the radiation is continuum radiation.

Can you clarify the detail you're objecting to? I think you might have tripped up on a word you think I'm using incorrectly.

Characteristic radiation was discussed early on, when the point was brought up that the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 curve is smooth and doesn't show any sharp peaks, which one might expect. Bob then addressed this detail.

Quote from David Fojt

I would like to know your point of view about "probable" muons flux during LENR experimentation ?

Based on Holmlid's reports, muon flux is certainly a current topic. It has caused me to study muon detection. Storms has reported "strange radiation" as have others. One of the characteristics of this "strange radiation" is its ability to activate stable materials. Could muons do this? I don't know.

Note that muons, as charged particles have a hard time penetrating other materials. The ones that penetrate are really high energy. Cosmogenic muons are really high energy (10MeV-1GeV) and readily penetrate due to their high energy. Muons generated in a LENR experiment will be of much more ordinary nuclear energy - in the 100keV - 5MeV range and will not be as penetrating. They may not be able to make it out of the reactor materials. At the same energy as this, gamma is much more penetrating.

I could build a charged particle detector, but it would probably detect protons and muons with the same efficiency. The $100 muon detector that was posted on the internet is really a muon, proton, and gamma detector with no difference in detection. It only "detected" muons because muons would be the most likely cosmic ray hitting the Earth surface. Detecting charged particles normally requires 2 scintillators and coincidence detection of the particle hit in each of them separated in time by the transit distance between them. Gamma dumps its energy only in the first scintillator. Charged particles leave a trail of excitations along their path and keep going through to the second scintillator. But ... this detection technology also requires a muon/proton of sufficient energy that can make it through the first scintillator and into the second.

Quote from David Fojt

If I have well understood if I didn't detect any gamma ray we should say that slower Muons couldn't be bad for health ?

I am afraid in this sentence that A does not follow B! First, absence of gamma does not preclude the muons. As Gameover wrote, muons may be created first as neutral pions which decay to muons. This could hypothetically allow the particles to escape the reactor as neutral pions and subsequently become muons outside the reactor.

If you are measuring with an NaI(Tl) scintillator, the muons will likely register in this crystal. So, the muon may appear in the detector as a gamma. I am not sure what the efficiency of a pancake GM detector would be for muons.

It does raise the question, could the way that muons interact with the NaI crystal create a continuous spectrum like that seen in the GS5.2 experiment? Charged particles pass through the scintillator crystal bumping into the charged shells of the crystal atoms. The number of photons generated in the crystal is related to the transit path of the muon through the crystal. Short paths through the crystal would generate few photons while long paths through the crystal would generate more photons. In contrast, when a gamma photon interacts in the crystal, a bunch of photons are generated in proportion to the energy of the gamma photon - it doesn't depend too much on where in the crystal it is generated. It would be interesting to simulate the effect of an isotropic muon point source on the NaI scintillation. How would it compare to the detected signal?

Quote from David Fojt

what does that mean " activate "?

"Activation" refers to a stable element being made unstable to decay - usually by insertion of a nucleon. It could become unstable by isotopic promotion or by induced decay to an unstable radioisotope. Neutron flux generally causes activation because the neutrons may become captured in a stable nucleus, promoting it into an unstable isotope.

Quote from magicsound

Some unknown person (whose initials could be E.W.) sneaked into the lab wearing an invisibility cloak (without opening the door of course). Then he compromised the experiment by touching the lead in front of the spectrometer with a refractory wand containing 90Sr, and left, again without opening the door.

Why did he do this? Just for the fun of it, or out of malice maybe. Or perhaps under a compulsion spell from He Who Must Not Be Named...

I did not see this until now. At least you're taking my prodding in stride and have a sense of humor about it.

But more seriously: did you guys purchase any of those components second-hand? And have you run a sensitive GM counter over them?

Quote from BobHiggins

As Gameover wrote, muons may be created first as neutral pions which decay to muons. This could hypothetically allow the particles to escape the reactor as neutral pions and subsequently become muons outside the reactor.

Wikipedia suggests that the main branches for a neutral pion decay are not to muons, but instead to electrons and positrons, and possibly two of each, as well as gammas. So at a minimum you'd get the two 511 keV electron-positron gammas, somewhere in the room.

Muons are hard to detect

http://www.science20.com/quant…/understanding_muon_decay

Quote

The muon, with its 200 times higher mass, is subjected to a 1.6 billion times smaller energy loss by radiation at the same energy. This has important consequences for the detection of electrons and muons: the most visible one is that electrons interact in dense matter by producing a shower of secondaries, as I discussed just a few days ago here; muons, on the contrary, pass almost unhindered through large amounts of material. All particle detectors in collider physics experiments are built the way they are because of this simple difference: dense layers of material are used to detect electrons, while muons may be picked up downstream, where no other particles make it.

Quote from gameover

I wrote that the initially ejected neutral particles are according to Holmlid small fragments of "ultra-dense hydrogen". These fragments decay into kaons, etc.

The column on the far right of the table "Properties of kaons" on the Wikipedia page has the common decay modes for a positive kaon. I suppose you can just fill in the antiparticles to get the decay modes for negative kaons. As you can see, neutral or positive pions feature in most of the branches, even when reversed for negative kaons. That suggests that if there are kaons there would be lots of 511 keV electron-positron annihilation photons.