Atom-Ecology

  • In the Geiger count data, what is the nature of the first major era of elevated cpm? Why is it such a different shape from the other eras and why does it contain dropouts that actually go below the background cpm?

    Perhaps first you might consider introducing yourself, what are your interests, experience, and intentions in this field of work? Might you provide some links so that readers here can read about you.

  • Perhaps first you might consider introducing yourself, what are your interests, experience, and intentions in this field of work? Might you provide some links so that readers here can read about you.


    No links. I am a neuroscientist and am interested in LENR but am very much outside my field of expertise so prefer to retain anonymity right now. In 2020 I will be emeritus and I intend on reconsidering my status then.


    I don't understand, though, why discussing your data either does or does not conflict with anonymity. Do you intend to somehow keep the features of your discoveries confidential from anonymous online readers but inform those who are not anonymous? How would that work? In particular I have asked about your controls and why some features of your data appear the way they do. Do you think this some sort of trolling? You would have to answer these questions in any case wouldn't you?

  • Perhaps first you might consider introducing yourself, what are your interests, experience, and intentions in this field of work? Might you provide some links so that readers here can read about you.


    This information, although interesting to readers, does not have bearing on the substance of the questions that were raised. The questions stand on their own merits.

  • No links. I am a neuroscientist and am interested in LENR but am very much outside my field of expertise so prefer to retain anonymity right now. In 2020 I will be emeritus and I intend on reconsidering my status then.


    I don't understand, though, why discussing your data either does or does not conflict with anonymity. Do you intend to somehow keep the features of your discoveries confidential from anonymous online readers but inform those who are not anonymous? How would that work? In particular I have asked about your controls and why some features of your data appear the way they do. Do you think this some sort of trolling? You would have to answer these questions in any case wouldn't you?

    I simply find it impossible to grasp whether an anonymous poster is authentic, honest or earnest - or not, clearly many anon posters are trolls and worse. This is not to say that all anon posters are such but in normal society no right minded person would engage in anonymous conversation. Surely such statements such as "I don't understand, though, why discussing your data either does or does not conflict with anonymity" are utter nonsense to anyone most certainly to one claiming to be a "neuroscientist."

    This information, although interesting to readers, does not have bearing on the substance of the questions that were raised. The questions stand on their own merits.

    And just what planet do you live on? I live on a planet where honest and earnest people introduce and explain themselves if they are asking for something.

  • Hi Russ,


    And just what planet do you live on? I live on a planet where honest and earnest people introduce and explain themselves if they are asking for something.


    These are the questions that were raised by Bruce__H :

    • In the Geiger count data, what is the nature of the first major era of elevated cpm?
    • Why is it such a different shape from the other eras and why does it contain dropouts that actually go below the background cpm?

    These are good questions regardless of who Bruce__H is. Can you provide any information in response to them? If you are unwilling, perhaps you'll be willing to let Alan Smith speak on your behalf?

  • Russ,


    If you find that a question is not worth answering, then don't.


    When an anonymous neuroscientist asks a relevant question about your experiment and you respond with an equally relevant answer it will be available to all readers of this thread, anonymous or not. I think this is a good thing as well as a fair deal.

  • Meanwhile, on Russ George's blog, this extended graph got posted (although raw data in csv format would be even more interesting).


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-08-1.png


    Quote

    The peaks showing here are perfectly reproducible. The apparent background is in fact a bit elevated above the lab background (note those few deep spikes) so the reaction doesn’t seem to want to shut down, just settles down. The apparent radiation dose, in human terms, is less than that one might receive in a dental x-ray. Most important here are the bits without the higher level gamma radiation! This is data from one of three Geigers being used to monitor the experiment(s).

  • Hi Russ,



    These are the questions that were raised by Bruce__H :

    • In the Geiger count data, what is the nature of the first major era of elevated cpm?
    • Why is it such a different shape from the other eras and why does it contain dropouts that actually go below the background cpm?

    These are good questions regardless of who Bruce__H is. Can you provide any information in response to them? If you are unwilling, perhaps you'll be willing to let Alan Smith speak on your behalf?

    So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying? Is there any implied threat of being dissed here for not complying to any and all anonymous demands for such value to be given. Such dissing is not an uncommon feature of this forum. And no of course I would not consent to a work around being to make the same demands on a friend and colleague. As stated this is very preliminary raw data and while it is exciting data it is not ready to be dissected with questions from anonymous unknowable entities. When more information is ready to be shared it will be!

  • So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying?


    You've made a claim about elevated counts in a GM counter on a public forum where questions like this are expected, encouraged and routinely asked. If you are going to make claims without supporting them, perhaps another forum would be better suited to your interests.


    It's fine to suggest that something is proprietary knowledge, but this will not support your claim, of course.


    Is there any implied threat of being dissed here for not complying to any and all anonymous demands for such value to be given. Such dissing is not an uncommon feature of this forum. And no of course I would not consent to a work around being to make the same demands on a friend and colleague.


    We've discussed your case internally, and the agreement is that you'll be handled by Alan, so it's not a threat. I do think Alan will be better suited to responding to reasonable questions that people raise than you.


    As stated this is very preliminary raw data and while it is exciting data it is not ready to be dissected with questions from anonymous unknowable entities. When more information is ready to be shared it will be!


    As I've said, anonymity has no bearing on the merits of the questions. Dissecting the raw data is a service to you, and no harm comes from it. We all get closer to the truth as a result. It is focusing on personalities that obscures the truth.

  • Here's a more learned view of the curse of online anonymity. https://www.edelman.co.uk/maga…f-the-internet-anonymity/

  • So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying? Is there any implied threat of being dissed here for not complying to any and all anonymous demands for such value to be given. Such dissing is not an uncommon feature of this forum. And no of course I would not consent to a work around being to make the same demands on a friend and colleague. As stated this is very preliminary raw data and while it is exciting data it is not ready to be dissected with questions from anonymous unknowable entities. When more information is ready to be shared it will be!

    That's how forums work. If you don't like it. Don't participate.

  • Quote

    And just what planet do you live on? I live on a planet where honest and earnest people introduce and explain themselves if they are asking for something.

    I live on a planet where facts matter, regardless of who provides them. Believing what someone claims simply because they are prestigious is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."


    Quote

    That's how forums work. If you don't like it. Don't participate.

    Indeed

  • Alan Smith wrote:

    Quote

    There are plenty of threads for discussing Rossi. This is not one of them.


    Russ George:

    Quote

    No number of blowhard armchair trolls is worth one iota of real data, so what is your point. Rossi has shown plenty of interesting data that speaks to those skilled in the art.

    I will not reply in deference to our hosts.


    (bites tongue!)

    Commercial Photography

  • There are technologies about on the internet that can create in depth multifaceted profiles of a internet users. Artificial intelligence asps can predict a users behavior and create a plan to change the behavior of that user through the application of appropriate input stimuli. These programs scan the internet for potential terrorists and nut-jobs to preclude mass terror outbreaks. Nation states hack databases for identifying keying information on millions for artificial intelligence asps to form a baseline tool for control of data acquisition from mass media preferences, product preferences, social media sites, customer reply questionnaires, opinion surveys, and opinions expressed on websites. It is prudent to keep your real persona and your internet persona disconnected so that an organization either private, financial, employment, political, or governmental cannot link your internet behavior to your real life as a means to facilitate the determination and control that can be applied to your way of life.

  • So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying?

    That is how academic scientists roll! Some of them, such as Mizuno, try to get patents before they reveal or discuss their findings. If you want intellectual property protection I advise you to apply for a patent before saying anything or revealing any details. No hints even.


    It is difficult to get a patent for a cold fusion related discovery. I believe an application would protect you, but you should consult with David French or some other patent expert to be sure.


    There is nothing wrong with wanting intellectual property protection! But, as I said, if that is what you want, it is unwise to reveal any details. David French would probably tell you that you shouldn't even be here.


    If you don't want IP protection, then why do you care who asks the questions? Anonymous or well-known to you, why would it matter? The content of the question is the only thing that counts. If it were being asked by an AI bot, that would be fine too.


    It might be a bot! AI bots are beginning to pass the Turing test. See Google assistant:


    https://www.theverge.com/2018/…-call-demo-duplex-io-2018


    https://www.cnet.com/features/…e-ai-voice-assistant-yet/

  • I think some people in this thread are being a bit tough on RussGeorge. He's posted interesting raw data within days of collecting it and you beat him up for not divulging all the details and expect him to speculate on the cause before he's happy to do that.


    If you don't like it I'm sure he could easily keep his data to himself to avoid being pressured into rushing out unconfirmed results. Most of us know how that turned out in the past.

  • https://www.slideshare.net/and…ndrea-rossi-focardi-paper


    Published on Aug 30, 2011


    A new energy source from nuclear fusion (E-cat). Report by Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi.


    For those who are interested in E-Cat history, there is mention of nothing but positrons and gamma rays in this theory paper describing the experiments performed on the Rossi LENR system at the end of the last decade and the beginning of this decade when Sergio Focardi was helping Rossi.


    Reaction changes since then have removed this nuclear based output from the Rossi reactor.

  • We three (Russ, Martin &I) are not members of the 'lookithat' school of science, but very careful workers who double and triple-check everything we do. I took a unilateral decision to post the radiation data in here because in the 'dead time' leading up to ICCF-21 I wished to show something interesting. I have said many times we will reveal everything we know when the experiments are finished and the data fully evaluated. Until them I can only ask that people be patient.

  • That's because until we get the gamma spec operational we can't be sure.


    By the way, what gamma spectrometer did you purchase? From what I'm told, many entry-grade analyzers might not be fast enough to resolve fast pulses that are apparently a characteristic of the "anomalous" emission from these experiments, i.e. might count multiple events as one, affecting the measured spectrum.

  • We three (Russ, Martin &I) are not members of the 'lookithat' school of science, but very careful workers who double and triple-check everything we do. I took a unilateral decision to post the radiation data in here because in the 'dead time' leading up to ICCF-21 I wished to show something interesting. I have said many times we will reveal everything we know when the experiments are finished and the data fully evaluated. Until them I can only ask that people be patient.

    Alan:


    I would like to run an open source experiment to test my theory that chiral spin polarization produces the LENR reaction as follows:


    Place an small crystal of Lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) inside a transparent (to infrared) tube filled with deuterium gas.


    201508505570198.jpg


    Place micron sized nickel powder on the crystal. Monumentally heat the surface of the LiTaO3 with a infrared diode laser or a infrared laser if you have one. A hot wire above the crystal might do as well. heating the entire crystal might do as well. Look for signs of the LENR reaction during heat up or cool down. The type of reaction that might be expected is what you see in the Alan experiment where shielding produces radiation.


    The infrared diode laser is inexpensive. the LiTaO3 crystal is not cheap. If you need money for materials, I will send you a check for the materials or to anyone else willing to do this experiment that are careful workers who double and triple-check everything they do.

  • Since it looks like we have to hunt for information, Russ George posted some more information in a comment crossposted on Vortex-l and ECW.


    Summary on what concerns the experiment(s):

    • Specifically prepared fuel mixes produce gamma signals, while others running in parallel do not.
    • Amount of fuel equivalent to 5-10 grains of rice is used.
    • Fuel is prepared and loaded in air—big hint, apparently.
    • More information about the fuel mixes to be revealed in the coming weeks.
  • Finally a thumbs up to Axil !


    I admit, I do not have a clue as to what his above theory is about, not that it is invalid, but simply "out of my league" so to say!


    However, I applaud this new approach of his ... wanting to test his hypothesis and even offering to providing funding!


    Well done! :thumbup: