MFMP:LFH - LION2 100% Replication well beyond LION1

  • I'm not expert, but if electronic device detect radiation, a good cross check could be to use a non electronic detector, like x-ray dental film, or maybe cheaper argentic High ISO/ASA film. I imagine this have been done (JP Biberian used dental film, as many others... never heard of photographic Ag film, so maybe is it stupid).

    Another more recent idea could be to use a CMOS or CCD photodetector... ie a good digital camera.

    If not evidence it can gives hints, since it will produce an image.

  • AlainCo


    I have X-ray film coming. Not used here, since nothing much was expected to happen. It will be deployed later.


    can


    Inside the fuel tube the atmosphere consists of some ambient air and D20 vapour. When the temperature rises, so does pressure with the formation of superheated D2O steam. At 800C we can only estimate the pressure, but it could be as high at 90Bar, or as low as 10Bar. Quite a lot, either way.

  • As mentioned above- most interesting thing here is the rising trend in radiation count (Netto Geiger with SBM-20 detector tube) which was positioned 60 mm away from the 'hot tube'. Thermo 1 is the control port, Thermo 0 is the diamond dummy port.

         


    Because the counter tube was quite close (60mm) from the hot tube can it be that the counter tube was heated (by IR radiation eg) to some degree as well and that is the reason for the rising trend in ur radiation count?

  • An easy way to see if the temperature of the detector tube and the radiation count are correlated would be to attach a cheap thermocouple to the SBM-20.

    If you still have one to spare.

    I was trying to find some information about the temperature dependency of the SBM-20 online but since its russian origin and I cant read cyrillic it's a bit hard ;)


    edit: I didnt find anything about the temperature dependence of the SBM-20 yet but somebody made a quite comprehensive characterization of it.

    Maybe it comes in handy for you.

    http://uvicrec.blogspot.de/201…0-geiger-muller-tube.html

  • As mentioned above- most interesting thing here is the rising trend in radiation count (Netto Geiger with SBM-20 detector tube) which was positioned 60 mm away from the 'hot tube'. Thermo 1 is the control port, Thermo 0 is the diamond dummy port.

         


    There is an early region of temperature stability roughly between time points 1500 and 4700. I note that the end of this period of temperature stability coincides with a stepwise increase in the radiation count.


    If the reason for the temperature behaviour is known then perhaps this also explains the change in rad count.

  • There is an early region of temperature stability roughly between time points 1500 and 4700.


    I think that coincided with me having lunch and not being there to tweak up the reactor temperature.


    An easy way to see if the temperature of the detector tube and the radiation count are correlated would be to attach a cheap thermocouple to the SBM-20.

    If you still have one to spare.


    That would have to be done in the context of a control experiment of course. And all previous control experiments have given me a flat line - no trend up or down. But under the current regime, I thank you for your suggestion and will see what happens when you toast the tube a little.

  • I don't know if it is a practical suggestion, but if there appears to be something worth pursuing in these tests, would placing the diamond disks in frozen D2O encourage better D absorption due to increased pressure.

  • @H-G. I have known and worked as technician for (in the 60's) survivors of both the Slotin 'demon core' and Y-12 incidents. The Y-12 guy btw insisted that the actual incident* bore only a slight resemblance to what really happened.


    * ETA -as reported.

  • As mentioned above- most interesting thing here is the rising trend in radiation count (Netto Geiger with SBM-20 detector tube) which was positioned 60 mm away from the 'hot tube'. Thermo 1 is the control port, Thermo 0 is the diamond dummy port.

         


    Alan,


    I applaud your sterling work here. However, as I understand it you are obtaining a trend line from a segment of noisy data and saying the positive gradient is interesting.


    That is only true if the trend increase is statistically significant. Eyeballing that noisy line, and the very small increase, I'd say it was not significant at all. rather like AGW doubters drawing trend lines on short segments of temperature data and discovering a cooling world. However, if you performed a statistical trend analysis giving say the 20% confidence bounds for a linear fit (it would be unhelpful given the high noise to introduce extra degrees of freedom) you could perhaps convince me. Without such an analysis, eyeballing a noisy graph and finding small changes in fitted line significant is psychology not science.


    Tamino is a good resource for understanding the perils of linear curve overfitting (and nonlinear curve is worse).


    Best wishes, Tom

  • A human can be a part of a reactor, or at least a part of a nuclear chain reaction, see first entry in the table listing criticality accidents:

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

    I didn't mean a human as a fuel. More like a catalyst. Could it be say Rossi's body temp goes few degrees down when reactor temp goes up.

    This is a joke of course but JH seems to claim it. It may also explain poor reproduceability. Maybe F&P had to hold hands , cross fingers or dance that type of thing.

  • I applaud your sterling work here. However, as I understand it you are obtaining a trend line from a segment of noisy data and saying the positive gradient is interesting.


    Yes- and 'interesting' was all I said. No claims that it is deeply significant, or even meaningful. I like my results to be beyond interesting before I get excited. But thank you for your cool and objective comment.

  • A brief hiatus in our programme unfortunately. Due to move into our new lab during today/ tomorrow, but last night the property manager phones me and said 'because of the snow the painters are late' so they are painting over the weekend and now we move in on Monday 13th. So I've had to delay the furniture installation (due this week) and my current lab and some of my house are stuffed with boxed equipment ready to go. We might just be operation by the 15th, but it's going to be a lot of work -and dependent on the electrician who is elusive as they often are.

  • So, if you don't mind asking. What's the prospects of developing this as a commercial or DIY device we could parts from you and assemble it ourselves?


    No I don't mid you asking at all. But let me ask you a question in return - I think the answer will be illuminating. What would my personal liability be for 'knowingly'selling devices capable of emitting gamma radiation in an uncontrolled or partially controlled manner?

  • Deny, deny, deny. And lots of shielding.

    Or the most obvious answer...

    He does not have a working reactor!


    There was no shielding at the "Stockholm" event that I can see. However, your four word report on attending the event "it was a demo" does not tell us anything.


    Does his QuarkX look anything remotely like your reactors? Are yours "LED"... I mean plasma based?


    Do you not think IH would have checked for gammas over the years? How about the Lugano profs? Or do you believe IH is the evil entity in this drama and covering up?


    There is SO much evidence (much circumstantial but valid none the less) to condemn Rossi and so very, very little to support him. It truly takes one of great faith to believe in him for sure, because I sure as heck have not seen any positive facts.


    I must admit Alan, one day one of us is going to be embarrassed. Either I for calling Rossi a scammer or you for continuing to believe in him. It is beyond me.

    (But then again, many things are!)


    Wait... he has already been proven a liar/scammer, so at least I know I am partially right already! :)

  • I must admit Alan, one day one of us is going to be embarrassed. Either I for calling Rossi a scammer or you for continuing to believe in him. It is beyond me.

    (But then again, many things are!)

    I am not going to be embarrassed if I am wrong about Rossi and his technology.

    I am going to put it as an interesting experience.Never thought I could follow

    such an interesting subject (LENR) and

    interact with the people who follow it.