Atom-Ecology

  • RussGeorge


    Is the above cryptic statement intended to mean that you still think Rossi has demonstrated LENR? If so, why on Earth would you think it, given all the evidence to the contrary over the past 7+ years?

    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.

  • As a proviso, if this system produces gamma at low reactor temperatures as Alan mentioned awhile back, the appearance of high energy nuclear level radiation at low reactor temperatures complies with my posit of radiation mitigation by a polariton Bose condensate. Disorganized polaritons will produce the LENR reaction, but they will not thermalize the gamma radiation that LENR can produce. When the Bose condensate is pumped to a sufficiently intense level, then gamma radiation emissions will convert gamma radiation to other forms of LENR radiation which includes light, heat, muons and electrons.


    The following article describes some of the radiation channels that polariton condensates will produce as a analog black hole.


    Marrying superconductors, lasers, and Bose-Einstein condensates


    http://phys.org/news/2016-06-s…einstein-condensates.html

  • 'Social media' exchanges take place when people use their real names and exchange valuable ideas, 'anti-social media' where fake names are used offers little but braggadacio and chaos. I welcome all earnest and honest social contact.... as for the other


  • "While it is thrilling for nuclear physicists to be seeing those peaks of gamma rays.

    Far more important is the apparent ability to turn off that potentially bothersome gamma radiation."



    The gammas must be the thorn in the Lion's paw!


    Apart from bed time stories, at the same time each day something is happening that causes a temporary increase in the thorn rate.

    Even though I use my real name it does not appear that RussGeorge is willing to discuss the possible reasons for those peaks.


    From the thread intro: "This is a new thread meant to foster sharing of data and ideas on actual physical experiments being performed."

  • 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/