Vaseline (uranium) glass as neutron detector

I see that you are still twisting the Dragon's tail. I am happy that you are feeling well.

As we had discussed before, muons have a maximum absorption cross section for uranium. You might be seeing induced fission reactions from muon uranium fission.

LERN will react with U238 more than the odd nucleon isotopes like U235.

If you are producing uranium fission byproducts, you might find out what those by products are from determining their half lives and the particles that these decays produce.

See

http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs07libin.pdf

to also see how LENR effect uranium fission:

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

As a side note (whether you're actually observing muons), muon capture can cause neutron emission especially from heavy elements. Here is a table for gold, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.75.045501. The column "total yield" is the likelihood (%) of the listed muon capture reaction.

eros

Unfortunately I don't have tables for lead, but I think a similar outcome should be expected.

Only negative muons can replace an electron in an atom and get captured. Positive muons always decay freely, producing a positron (and an electron neutrino and a muon antineutrino), which should eventually annihilate with an electron, generating two 511 keV gamma photons.

Presumably the captured muon must have more kinetic energy than the binding energy of the neutron, either acquired at birth (e.g., going back to a cosmic ray) or as a result of the muon falling into the potential well of the protons (doubt you could obtain ~ 5-10 MeV this way).

Quote from eros

Foil wrapped SBM20 taped to glass plate 58c/min. (plate have got some fission products. Normal clean readings should be ~20c/min BG).

And on reactor with wet towel 10min average 127c/min.

After test plate give ~60c/min.

Glass plate have low uranium content maybe 0.5-1%.

eros : Muons can be excluded, at least for the main effect. Uranium is a very good gamma shield and the decay of U238 gives a well defined spectrum. In a first step I would measure the energy of the U238 decay reaction, what should give a hint of the induced process.

Because the foil shields most of the radiation, it must be Beta or much less likely alpha. Neutrons will not be significantly shielded with a thin layer of water.

If you produce "strange matter" like H* this would also be shielded by a foil and could be an explanation for activating U238.

Quote from eros

well axil, muons seems react double rate at U235 vs U238

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_fission_in_235U_and_238U

also muons don't stop to 11cm water. Muons may be present. They may do funky things in 1cm lead if are near thermal - neutrons may come from lead fission. Need to test without lead shield. (shield is mainly to reduce BG near reactor)

I found the correct link to the muon fission rate between U235 and U238 here:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.co…rnalCode=cjp#.WZCVQFH5hPY

This info leads us to understand that LENR produces more fission reactants than just muons. The info that Georges Lochak and Leonid Urutskoev supply, means that a long range LENR reaction cause reaches out at a distance to produce fission in heavy elements. This cause or set of causes is more than just muons. Form your last experiment, this fission reaction cause is moderated by water. Muon flux should not be affected very much from water moderation. This fission cause might be a form of magnetism. To see if the LENR cause is some form of EMF, try to shield the reactor with a EMF (magnetic) shield material like an iron sheet to replace the water traction moderator. I would be interested in the results of this experiment.

This is another possibility.

From:

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101089

Urutskoev and Liksonov wonder if the "strange radiation" might be the magnetic monopole, a form of nano ball lightning.

Here is an experiment that shows what LENR exposure does to water over time.

Quote

The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started losing its transparency.

Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.

That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.

The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours.

If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.

Display More

Light water does not shield neutrons, it moderates them...slows them down and this low energy neutrons have a higher cross section for fission when they interact with uranium. The slower that the neutrons become, the greater is there fission cross section.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

This neutron moderation effect is why light water reactors were mostly used in nuclear power production.

What you are finding with regards to water is the oposit of what should be observed if neutrons were being generated by the LENR reaction.

Quote from eros

Why not muons can't explain long range fission/transmutations? I have seen radiation increase from thick iron from ~5m reactor.

eros : Muons do in fact explain the increase in radiation after a shield. But you see a decrease. Muons are stop by light nuclei. Polystyrene > Aluminum> iron > lead. But tables often listen values in densities where lead seems to work better...

Muons pass any metallic foil, beta not. Neutrons pass too if they are not slowed down. Slow H* will be captured by a foil or any material.

Thus please tell us whether you are interested in the bulk of the radiation (you are able to shield) or the remaining part that you cannot shield.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Muons are stop by light nuclei. Polystyrene > Aluminum> iron > lead. But tables often listen values in densities where lead seems to work better...

Any material can slow them down, but hi-Z materials slow them down more (and eventually stop them earlier) for the same thickness according to the same tables. Can you please clarify why/how polystyrene would work better?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Muons pass any metallic foil, beta not. Neutrons pass too if they are not slowed down. Slow H* will be captured by a foil or any material.

What is the energy of the muons we're talking about here? What do you mean exactly with H* in this context?

eros

In the preceding comment I was just implying is that if muons are actually being emitted by the reactor (e.g. like Leif Holmlid suspects are from his' - for newcomers: his studies are where the muon emission suggestion comes from), they probably do not have the same energy of cosmic muons (several GeV), but rather more in the many-MeV range. Relatively thin layers of metal would be enough to stop muons < 20 MeV (EDIT: although if they are stopped they will likely engage in capture processes and activate the surrounding material, unlike electrons). In absence of (long overdue) more details on your experimental set up I'm not sure if I want to speculate more on the subject here.

By the way, electrons up to 35 MeV have a greater range in lead than muons, according to data from the following links which I graphed below:

https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0092640X01908617

lenr-forum.com/attachment/2704/

eros

Regarding muon-induced fission of heavy metals, I don't know, sorry.

As a side note, for clarity: at least from my understanding (which might be incomplete or limited) of Holmlid's results and their interpretation, muons are not emitted directly, but are the end result of a meson decay chain from neutral fragments ejected from the condensed hydrogen material layer inside his reactor(s).

Apparently these fragments have a short lifetime on their own. They can be considered as "virtual neutrons" (Holmlid calls them "quasi-neutrons") and may also penetrate matter deeply before decaying.

Perhaps one might also want to factor this for any anomalous activation/radiation effect observed?

Quantum Mechanics teaches that distance does not matter in entanglement. Two things can be entangled even if separated by billions of kilometers. If an entangled (superconductive) process produces a muon that is still entangled by that process' subsequent reactions then the muon so catalyzed might also be constrained by the peculiarities of the LENR reaction. The energy produced by that subsequent reaction may follow the same path as the first reaction that produced the muon. This could be the reason why reactions produced in lead by the muon does not result in any activation involving radioactive isotopes.

If the experimenter cannot see any radiation or activation coming from muon generated secondary reactions, then it will be difficult to determine what is happening in these LENR experiments. The only evidence that can be counted on is the detection of transmutation in the lead shielding.

One idea that might work is using Xenon to detect transmutation spectroscopy. Xenon is the heaviest stable gas with an atomic weight of 118 that is more likely than most elements to interact with muons. Over time, if transmutation is occurring in the Xenon, then the spectral lines of the transmuted elements will show up in the light from the light produced by the xenon tube.

Furthermore, spectroscopy is very sensitive in the detection of elements.