Atom-Ecology

  • They are both spontaneous, once a day, and can be produced at will by heat-cycling the reactor. But the heat-cycling Gamma bursts often less pronounced and will eventually stop appearing.


    So you are correct twice. TBH, we only noticed the pattern of daily events after some days had passed. While the magnitude and duration has varied, they have appeared without exception every day the experiment has run. Meanwhile, the Gamma Spec - delivery of which was promised on Friday and again today is still stuck somewhere in the postal system That would certainly answer a few questions.


    Thank you for your response, I do appreciate it.


    Can it be said that the spikes are consistent in their appearance during the heat cycle? I.E. It does not matter when I run the heat cycle, they will appear "X" minutes into it. If they appear 1 hour after a certain temp is reached, I can run the test at 11:30 and see the spike at about 12:30 or I could run it at 7:30 pm and see the spike about 8:30. (Example only)


    Or has the heat cycle always been started about the same time of day and the spikes seen about the same time of day?


    I would think the prior would be a strong indicator of an actual repeatable trigger, while the latter would be less attributable.


    Can you share if the heat cycles have been conducted at significantly different times in the day and does the spikes appear approximately the same time in relation to the start of the heat cycle?


    Thank you again as this is the first time I have read of an experiment where the researchers are willing to openly share and the experiment is seemingly repeatable with a significant signal. Interesting to say the least!


    Have you discussed with Magicsound if he can replicate? Would that be reasonable due to equipment?

  • I also don't understand why at one point it was stated that the non-eruption steady-state cpm was at one point said to be above the laboratory background and then later said to be at the same background level as other detecors in the lab but numerically higher due to a larger collector.


    That's because you either misunderstood, or I mistyped or you are referring to something we thought early in this now 20 day experimental run. The background of the experiment is permanently elevated above both 'lab normal' background and our control reactor. I can't tell you exactly how much as I don't have the data to hand.

  • I agree. In this instance H-G Branzell is acting out the part of a Troll. I suspect he just can't help it.


    There are many different descriptions of the characteristics of an internet Troll, here is the Wikipedia version:


    "Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”


    My primary intent was by no means to provoke readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupt normal on-topic discussion.


    As already stated, my intent was to put a spotlight on person that sells impossible inventions. If that provokes readers into an emotional response, that's fine, but they should not shoot the messenger.

  • When I say 'spontaneous', I mean precisely that. Spontaneous appearance f Gammas without heat cycling. What might be described as 'un-stimulated emission'.

    "Un-stimulated emission". Now I understand your comment about "Very strange". Strange indeed.


    However, if un-stimulated, it would appear there is no specific trigger mechanism. I.E. "reactor sitting on the shelf suddenly starts producing gammas".

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Bob: I seem not to be able to type! I had an "I" instead of a "u" in un-stimulated. ().

  • Quote

    Doesn't that dang gamma spectrometer crate have a tracking number to go with it?

    If it's USPS, it might not help. An important package I mailed about ten days ago to a nearby town (Priority mail with a tracking number and insurance) seems to have been lost. Tracking it only shows it being sent to "a postal facility" three days in a row and then nothing. I instituted a trace but so far nothing. Annoying.

  • The background of the experiment is permanently elevated above both background and our control reactor


    Alan,


    Just a comment. When Ed Storms first did his F&P study that I later used in my paper, his first set of results has a negatively correlated baseline shift in it. When he was alerted to this, he redid his grounding scheme and almost completely eliminated it. His initial grounding set-up was per vendor specs. You might want to fiddle with that a bit to see if you might have a similar problem.

  • How easy is it to replicate this gamma producing experiment? Is deiterating diadisks(loading deuterium into diadisks) required to provide a fuel source to this experiment. Are diadisks used as a fuel source? What makes the gamma producing reactor different from the dummy reactor?

  • Just a comment. When Ed Storms first did his F&P study that I later used in my paper, his first set of results has a negatively correlated baseline shift in it. When he was alerted to this, he redid his grounding scheme and almost completely eliminated it. His initial grounding set-up was per vendor specs. You might want to fiddle with that a bit to see if you might have a similar problem.


    We use NettIO geigers which are independently powered and not grounded at all. Test Reactor, Control Reactor, Lab Background. There are three in use with very classy pancake detectors, We have tried every possible permutation of all parts and get the same result.

  • How easy is it to replicate this gamma producing experiment? Is deiterating diadisks(loading deuterium into diadisks) required to provide a fuel source to this experiment. Are diadisks used as a fuel source? What makes the gamma producing reactor different from the dummy reactor?


    To answer your many questions. I don't know how easy it is to replicate yet, because we have only done it once. No diapads were used. The only difference between the gamma rig and the control rig is that the gamma rig has active fuel, and the control rig does not.

  • Meanwhile, the good news is that the Gamma Girls are still performing a daily dance routine. Since the 2nd of April. Very strange:?:

    From time to time it is suggested that our Gammas are caused by RFI interacting with the Geiger. Nonsense - if anybody insists show them a clip from this video I made a couple of years back about spark-triggering. Forget the original purpose, just watch at 2.30 how unpeturbed the Geiger is while that 40kv (not 400) spark and a heater coil is close and parallel to the tube. And the Geiger - the same kind we are using now-does not deviate from the normal background.



    Thanks for that video and RFI test info. I was thinking of making some RFI tests with my scint, but now I'm not so sure that it would be time well spent.

  • I agree. In this instance H-G Branzell is acting out the part of a Troll. I suspect he just can't help it.


    Meanwhile, the good news is that the Gamma Girls are still performing a daily dance routine. Since the 2nd of April. Very strange:?:

    From time to time it is suggested that our Gammas are caused by RFI interacting with the Geiger. Nonsense - if anybody insists show them a clip from this video I made a couple of years back about spark-triggering. Forget the original purpose, just watch at 2.30 how unpeturbed the Geiger is while that 40kv (not 400) spark and a heater coil is close and parallel to the tube. And the Geiger - the same kind we are using now-does not deviate from the normal background.



    RFI is funny stuff. I've spent many weeks down salt mines away from unwanted radio waves trying to solve RFI problems.


    It sounds like you know thing or two about how to run an experiment but I wouldnt rely on previous experience using a counter near a high voltage source to rule out some form of interference.


    Im glad I'm retired because sorting RFI problems was pretty frustrating, you can design something by the book applying years of experience and still have problems, then next day someone shows you a bit of kit that's been badly designed without a thought to RFI and it just works. There is no justice.

  • Quote

    RFI is funny stuff. I've spent many weeks down salt mines away from unwanted radio waves trying to solve RFI problems


    Though it didn't involve any mines, I have witnessed RFI causing plenty of problems with low level amplifiers. Quite a lot was able to be accomplished with filtering, using the lowest feasible circuit impedance, and calibrating with sources electrically as close as possible to the actual sensors and signals. On at least one occasion, those approaches were decisive in obtaining a fairly major contract. The opposition chose to mostly ignore RFI and while their equipment worked in an electrically quiet lab, in the real world, with lots of RFI from various devices, their gear was unreliable.

  • Does this mean that efforts are already underway and will get published soon before other people will manage to replicate the experiment or that the latter won't start before this is replicated in academia?


    I haven't had enough tea this morning to entirely disentangle this sentence. But -if it helps- we are working on this experiment every day. Words like 'soon, before' are somewhat premature. The first people who need to replicate this are ourselves. One swallow doesn't make a summer romance.

  • Alan Smith

    Hopefully more clearly put, which of these cases best represents what the previously quoted statement actually meant?

    1. No garage/amateur replications allowed before this is replicated in the academia.
    2. The academia is already working on it and will report before garage experimenters will do.

    I was under the impression that the setup would be easy to replicate/reproduce, or at least Russ George suggested so on E-Cat World.


    RussGeorge wrote:

    Doesn't get any more simple that this. Rossi's myriad obfuscations and misdirections aside this hot dry tube cold fusion ecosystem is very simple for anyone skilled in the art to create. The idea that it is difficult to 'reverse engineer' is preposterous. Mistakes that render it inoperable are also as prevalent as potholes in Potsdam.

  • can


    Russ was talking about the hardware we are using. That is simple - using it is however more difficult - after all, a fencing epée is a simple thing, using it to be a champion fencer is much more difficult. The answers to your other questions are (I thought) encapsulated in the words below

    The first people who need to replicate this are ourselves.

  • Russ was talking about the hardware we are using. That is simple - using it is however more difficult - after all, a fencing epée is a simple thing, using it to be a champion fencer is much more difficult.


    The combination of the experimental hardware and their exact adjustment and the exact chemical composition of the fuel is, in my view, the secret in which so far all those involved in replication have either failed, or ( if it has worked) have not published.


    In contrast to a purely commercial project, complicating the scientific documentation of a replication involves the selection of the measuring methodology, as well as the calibration, adjustment and operation of the measuring instruments, not to mention the documentation of the entire process.


    Although it may seem simple, but in my view, just because it depends on every tiny detail, the whole thing is not something you can do just so! So Alain et.al should be supported rather than constantly criticized in a negative way.

  • Alan Smith

    I don't want to sound needlessly inquisitive, but Russ George previously reported (elsewhere, not in this thread) that one other fuel mix also produced the gamma emission and that more fuel mixes would be planned over the coming weeks, so I assumed that it was not only related to the simplicity of the setup, but also of operation and preparation.


    RussGeorge wrote:

    One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my experiment and its ‘lovely gammas’ coming from an ‘unfueled’ reactor. That is most certainly not the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared ‘fuel mix’ that is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of other fuel mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma signal save one other. I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10 grains of rice, but it is most certainly a cold fusion ‘fuel’ that was chosen with guidance of the atom-ecology of the environment it would be subjected to and create. By the way I also prepare and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a big tip to those skilled in the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes go into the oven(s) over the next few weeks I expect/hope more about the specific characteristics of the atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent will be revealed. [...]


    Besides, hasn't the gamma signal been reported a few comments earlier here to even occur spontaneously without heat cycling or other triggering? Unless this involves something else besides waiting with the apparatus at elevated temperature in a hydrogen atmosphere, it doesn't sound too much complicated.


    I guess the question I made in my previous comment could be reworded as: what are your plans on third-party replications after you replicated in your laboratory the specific fuel mix that has been highlighted in this thread? Will it be academia first, then amateur experimenters?

  • It will be us first, then the most skilled and best equipped replicators we can find. Amateur/academic are not distinctions I find useful, the distinction should be between skilled and unskilled operators, who are found in all walks of life.

  • It is a good sign that they think they are onto something, when they switch from straight talking to parables. And no, one can never be too inquisitive in LENR. If you never ask, you may never know... grasshopper.


    If questions are going to be met with vague, conflicting or convoluted answers 'because reasons', it's pointless to even ask. Furthermore, Mark H summarized well what tends to happen by asking too much.


    If I have to regard this thread like the JONP, that's not a good sign to me.