MFMP Provides Update About Me356

Quote from zeus46

By that rationale, the theory stated below by Magicsound is just as valid as yours:

I see where you're going with this, but I did not mean to suggest that all criticisms are equally valid and do not need to be vetted. I was just arguing that criticisms that have a vague sense of plausibility have an easier time making it through than primary claims that have a vague sense of plausibility. It seems fine to vet criticisms and throw out the bad ones. But the contamination possibility remains, and if strontium doesn't fit the case, then perhaps another radionuclide will. It's something that needs to be ruled out, and I think that will be hard in the case of an experiment that for whatever reasons wasn't able to take more active measures to demonstrate that the live cell was the source of the purported activity.

Quote from zeus46

When it come to these kind of supposed refutations, I think it is necessary to do more than just "raise the spectre". Otherwise we'd be here all day, slowly descending into a rabbit hole of weirdness.

For instance: Given the "signal" graph, (and knowledge of the scintillator programming) we can calculate the number of counts* received. Then, knowing the length of measurement 7, and the half-life of Strontium, we could calculate the minimum size and weight of this alleged free-floating particle... Which should give an understanding of whether it would actually float around the lab, or just fall to the floor.

It might not be completely conclusive, but at least it demonstrates that we are not just waving our hands and pulling rabbits from hats, as it were.

Yes, I agree that more followup is needed for the strontium question. I'm not even convinced that strontium is the most plausible case. My point was more general: let's put more effort into substantiating claims, and if we can't, let's be ok with something like: "This experiment didn't prove anything, and we weren't able to rule out contamination or cosmic rays, if only because the signal in trace 7 sort of happened to us by surprise, and we weren't able to further investigate it while it was happening. But it was suggestive, and we wonder whether it might have gone back to bremsstrahlung originating in the live cell. We obviously have a lot more work to do to get to this conclusion."

Quote from Bob

So therefore, I encourage Eric to "refocus" his approach slightly. Acknowledge that Magicsound's analysis is logical and not without merit, while still retaining his valid critiques. Guide this interaction on "HOW" to address these questions in future testing versus trying to reduce the validity of the current test. This is constructive and supports Magicsound in future experiments. Especially when someone is so willing to listen as Magicsound has shown.

Although it may seem otherwise, my point has not been to show that primary claim, that there was bremsstrahlung coming from the live cell, can easily be refuted. I don't think it can. If one is not persuaded that LENR is a thing, it might sound a little like an explanation that attributes the GS5.2 signal to gravity waves or to zero point energy. But I actually have reasons to be very optimistic about a beta-like signal coming from the live reactor, as I suspect that LENR can be explained by induced beta decay (and electron capture and alpha decay). So the MFMP conclusion for that experiment actually kind of supports my preferred explanation. My point has been a different one: let's avoid making strong claims about the GS5.2 experiment, and if it is criticized for lacking controls, let's roll with those criticisms and allow that more experiments are needed to rule out other possibilities (e.g., electrical noise, radioactive contamination and cosmic rays, to name three).

Science seldom advances by experiments that provide absolute proof. Experiments provide only evidence. Good evidence is presently evaluated as 5x the experimental sigma. Generally, to move forward we need to stay away from non-Mach-ian possibilities - those things we invent to explain the observation that we have no hope of directly observing or evaluating.

In this case, we need to take the experimental data a evidence, not proof. We need to move on with like-replications, instrumented so as to eliminate many of the possibilities for error that have been brought up in this forum. We need to publish this evidence for others to recall if another similar circumstance should arise.

Those of you that insist upon "absolute proof" (which is fundamentally impossible) to move your view of science forward, are doomed to a very frustrated existence.

While I have the stump ... "Physics" is only a set of models, and always imperfect models, for how nature behaves. We will never have a perfect model for nature because nature is infinitely complex. Believing today's physics models are complete or perfect comprises ignorance of nature.

^ Well said.

Quote from Eric Walker

I was just arguing that criticisms that have a vague sense of plausibility have an easier time making it through than primary claims that have a vague sense of plausibility.

Indeed, that's true. Point taken.

I merely suggest that 'sense of plausibility' is a subjective matter that could often be firmed up to a better, more objective level by the proposer of the counter argument.

Quote from zeus46

is the 'count' axis just arbitrary? Either way, I'm sure you get my wider point.

The Counts data is precise, not at all arbitrary. The numeric data and setup parameters are available at:
http://goo.gl/4QSlsE

The total counts for spectrum 7 were 352839, recorded over 14160 seconds. The averaged count rate was thus 25 counts per second or 1496 counts per minute. This is a substantial radiation flux, and is the minimum that would be needed to generate the signal if it had been constant over the entire interval, as would have been the case for an undisturbed contaminant. So from that data, the minimum size of a hypothetical contaminant particle can be calculated.

Perhaps Eric will take this on as as an exercise in support of his thesis.

Well I calculate 5 picograms of Sr90 would emit 25 Becquerels*... And I'm going to guess a lump that small would easily float around in air.

*But then again, I had to look up the definition of a 'Becquerel', so your mileage may vary.

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.

Quote from magicsound

The Counts data is precise, not at all arbitrary. The numeric data and setup parameters are available at:
http://goo.gl/4QSlsE

The total counts for spectrum 7 were 352839, recorded over 14160 seconds. The averaged count rate was thus 25 counts per second or 1496 counts per minute. This is a substantial radiation flux, and is the minimum that would be needed to generate the signal if it had been constant over the entire interval, as would have been the case for an undisturbed contaminant. So from that data, the minimum size of a hypothetical contaminant particle can be calculated.

Perhaps Eric will take this on as as an exercise in support of his thesis.

Most of those counts were generated in less than a second. Isotope decay does not work that way.

Quote from axil

Most of those counts were generated in less than a second

That maybe, but you can't be certain of that from the data provided.

For purposes of calculating minimum supposed particle size, you have to take the average over the full 14160s

Quote from zeus46

Well I calculate 5 picograms of Sr90 would emit 25 Becquerels*

You also have to include the fact that the 25 disintegrations/s (25 Bq) don't all put their B- particles on the lead. Best case is about 50% with optimum placing of a particle. Then there is the efficiency of converting the particles to Bremsstrahlung photons of about 1%. Then the photons are re-radiated in an isotropic manner and only about 25% will hit the detector (optimum placing). Then there is the detector efficiency of about 40%. Taken together, only about 0.0005 of the disintegrations of an optimally placed particle producing a B- particle could result in a detection in the scintillator. So, you would need, at minimum, a particle 2000x bigger (which is still waftably small). I sure don't want any of these in my house!

Quote from axil

Most of those counts were generated in less than a second.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Spectrum-07 signal occurred over a small period like 1 sec, and some evidence to the contrary. If those counts had been concentrated into a short burst, the GMC320+ detector would have registered. The only way for the GMC320+ to have missed the outburst was if it was long.

Quote from BobHiggins

you would need, at minimum, particle 2000x bigger

Fair enough. I had understood/thought that the spectrum emitted by Sr90 directly mimicked the proposed bremsstrahlung signature, without using that mechanism itself.

And I'm not sure I'd want to be borrowing lead from a lab that had those radioactive particles floating about either! Well, maybe if they delivered it...

But I assume this is the reason your check sources came encased in plastic. I'm sure "open sources" are 'available', but there must be some sort of restrictions on buying them?

Quote from BobHiggins

You also have to include the fact that the 25 disintegrations/s (25 Bq) don't all put their B- particles on the lead. Best case is about 50% with optimum placing of a particle. Then there is the efficiency of converting the particles to Bremsstrahlung photons of about 1%.

I think what the strontium spectra show is that you don't need bremsstrahlung to produce a shape like the one in Spetrum-07. Beta radiation proper rather than bremsstrahlung, e.g., electrons going directly into the PMT or crystal, would not be limited by the low efficiencies of bremsstrahlung production. It looks as though at least some scintillators can record betas directly, although the MFMP one may or may not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillator#Electrons

Hi Eric isn't this spectra due to internal bremsstrahlung from beta decay of the Strontium?

Quote from StephenC

Hi Eric isn't this spectra due to internal bremsstrahlung from beta decay of the Strontium?

Yes — there were several spectra for 90Sr bremsstrahlung (although not inner bremsstrahlung) that were mentioned earlier. But gameover provided a number of normal beta spectra (i.e., not bremsstrahlung), and some of these also had a similar shape to what is seen in Spectrum-07 (although not all of them). But the implication seems to be that the shape of Spectrum-07 might or might not be due to bremsstrahlung.

So it seems possible that a ⁹⁰Sr particle sufficiently small to remain airborne could produce spectrum 7. By the discussion above, between 1 and 10 nanograms of pure ⁹⁰Sr would do it.

How it got in and then out is another issue, more difficult to confirm or refute. But I agree that it's back on the table as a possible artifact.

However, I have to point out that beta particles at the low energy end of the spectrum would not penetrate the Al membrane protecting the front of the NaI crystal. For example a 100 keV beta would penetrate ~62 um in Al. The membrane in front of the scintillator crystal is about 250 um thick, so no betas below 230 keV would be directly detectable.
http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/cal/

Here's their MSDS.

I am glad to see real science on this forum - too bad it is burried in nonsence from other sister threads - keep going with this - LENR is worth it!

Thanks to Alan G et al for giving me a real time, first seat, been there EXPERIENCE of the Glowstick runs. Seing is believing.

That said - anomalies can have unknown origin, the answer is repeat, repeat, repeat. And use other/more measurement methods.

The GS runs have been following that route so I am only telling what I have learned from it.