Atom-Ecology

  • Well, if that's the case the RFI is capable of travelling around 15 meters and though an 18 inch thick solid masonry wall to the place where we did the initial calibration. I'm not so sure we are seeing emitted leptons, tau leptons, or muons, in fact I think it highly unlikey. We are sticking with gammas -clear and measurable, there is no need to elaborate on this too much, especially without evidence that the relatively trivial amount of electronic fuzz came from any place other than the usual suspects.

    No cosmic rays from my fuel but there are surely many emmanations some very clearly known and others not so clearly known. There is more than a few lifetimes of discovery awaiting and a world of wonders in atom-ecology. Some of Holmlids work is clearly instructional and I welcome more information on his work, I have not taken the time to read it all carefully. Just having too much fun with the lovely gammas.... dang it I intended this reply to be to Can's comment...

  • RussGeorge

    The main relevant suggestion from Holmlid's work is that both in spontaneous and triggered systems the energy will be mostly emitted in the form of initially neutral particles (as previously pointed out) that eventually decay to muons, which can be detected at considerable distances from the apparatus. Earlier reports seemed to indicate that this emission could also be detected in working LENR experiments using standard Geiger counters and heavy metal foils.


    While according to Holmlid this muon emission could be inherent in LENR experiments (1, 2, and excerpts below), a less obvious observation is that the initially neutral particles from which they are proposed to originate would imply a more or less large loss of energy from the system, as he also observed experimentally in the previously linked case (estimated later on to be in rough terms at least 75% or considerably more under his conditions).


    How should such neutral emission be efficiently captured is not clear yet from his work, but treating the emitted particles as if they were neutrons might be reasonable. Under this assumption, it will be obvious that surrounding reactor materials primarily composed of light elements might work better towards absorbing such energy and/or partially reflecting it back to the reactor; without chasing exotic materials, perhaps even just water could do well for the task.


    Upon further investigation it might even turn out that LENR reactors found to work well for heat production often had thick insulation, were surrounded with a thick water jacket (for cooling, calorimetry, etc), or used good neutron absorber elements. It would be interesting if such correlation was indeed found.




    Below are some excerpts where Holmlid's results have been linked with LENR.


    Neutrons from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Muon-Capture Processes in an Ultradense Hydrogen H(0) Generator (2017-11)




    Leptons from decay of mesons in the laser-induced particle pulse from ultra-dense protium p(0) (2016-09)




    Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0) (2016-08)




    Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0) (2015-06)


     

  • As for the spectrum provided in http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…g-scientific-discoveries/ ...


    Upon closer look (also after downloading the software Theremino MCA) that looks like a background-subtracted spectrum in the 20-800 keV range. If that's the case, plotting the square root of the counts might be showing among other things a beta signal with Q at about 780 keV—although it's hard to tell for sure due to the apparent noise in the spectrum.

  • Some new ideas and information are now on my Atom-Ecology blog... http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…g-scientific-discoveries/


    The ideas that get kicked around here are sometimes helpful and sometimes a distraction. Fortunately the experiments and technology development process is pretty much immune to interference and making great strides on the course I have plotted out for it. Shortly we'll have half a dozen reactors running with hot and cold running fusion and a bit of many things in between.


    Of course there is a constant din from many who would love for me to tell all with many of those wanting to be gifted a shortcut to the world of technology wonders and inventions that are clearly at hand. We are old enough to know about being good 'horse traders' and are engaging with those who are willing to do such fair and honest trading.


    "We are old enough to know about being good 'horse traders' and are engaging with those who are willing to do such fair and honest trading."


    It appears you do not follow Alan's philosophy of being open with the testing and testing results. I can understand that. A person should be rewarded for his hard work. And "fair horse trading" is certainly warranted. I DO understand that and support it!


    With that said, can you give an estimate of when you might have clear confirmation / replication from another appropriate party / lab?


    In absolute opposition to Rossi says, one can easily have confirmation/replications without having their "IP" stolen.!


    For without that, secrets will put you in no better place than LION, ME356, Parkamov, etc. and others..... yes even Rossi.


    True, you owe us nothing. You owe yourself a good reputation though! Good luck in your ventures. :thumbup:

  • Quote

    Ceramic fleece as supplied for Kiln insulation- more Alumina.

    Never say "fleece" around Tom Darden.


    Quote

    Shortly we'll have half a dozen reactors running with hot and cold running fusion and a bit of many things in between

    Is "shortly" the same as "soon"? Or even sooner? (seriously, I wish you the best of luck but specificity gets you more respect)

  • I also believe that the energy that is output from the fuel is proportional to the energy input (Or Pumped) into the fuel until you get to the takeoff point. At that point the system becomes super-critical and melts down.


    On a related note which might be of practical interest for this thread and hopefully not just be background noise, Holmlid did find a non-linearly increasing response with the energy input in materials that appear to absorb ultra-dense hydrogen well. In other words, the stronger and more concentrated the energy impulse, the larger the output would be for small input differences, which might possibly explain his results with his Nd:YAG pulsed nanosecond laser compared to most LENR researchers. However, an immediate or almost immediate response to the input is always suggested here.


    This was reported for example in 2013 in this paper on arXiv when presumably accumulation of larger amounts of hydrogen wasn't specifically attempted yet (also a possible reason why a spontaneous signal wasn't yet observed). The signal in the graph below is from the charged particles produced causing a voltage rise at a metallic "collector" at a 64 cm distance from the target, measured with an oscilloscope. Energies are per laser pulse at 10 Hz (therefore 1W, 1.6W, 2.1W of average effective laser power in the apparatus):




    Quote

    [...] Finally, the variation of the peak measured with negative collector is shown in Fig. 11 as a function of the laser pulse energy. The size and shape of the peak, the position of its maximum and the first signal rise after the trigger are all changed. The peak height varies approximately as (energy)4 [...]


    Given that according to later information (as previously linked) the energy impulse might be essentially any energetic impulse, and that apparently once large enough amounts of ultra-dense hydrogen are accumulated even small impulses can apparently cause an appreciable response as suggested in one paper, perhaps one should just be concerned with applying abrupt impulses for maximum results in his or her own case.


    A "fast rise" quality of the triggering pulse was suggested to be useful by Piantelli in his expired 1995 patent, notably.


    Quote

    Abstract: A process of energy generation and an energy generator by means of anharmonic stimulate fusion of hydrogen isotopes absorbed on metal comprising [...] a startup step wherein a vibrational stress is produced with a rise time less than 0.1 seconds which activates a nuclear fusion of said hydrogen isotopes;

  • So Parkhomov's 4200 megajoules over 225 days is 19,440,000 seconds into 4,200,000,000 joules = 216 joule/seconds, aka watts, avgerage output. Rather consistent with results in hand, but where are Parkamov's lovely gammas? For that matter where are Rossi's lovely gammas? At the birth of the cold fusion age skeptical pundits of physics demanded to see the nuclear smoke from the purported nuclear fire, they stated simply - no nuclear smoke no nuclear energy!!! OK pundits, that is an acceptable rule, are you staying or folding?


    To anyone skilled in the art with real cold fusion/lenr in hand, the gammas are indisputedly and prominently present on demand and nearly perfectly correllated, albeit not commensurate, with the heat. What gives with the pevasive failure to report on those vitally definitive and lovely gammas? The failure to show off the inescapable lovely gammas by those claiming these reactions to be in hand is either misdirection at a minimum, or something more nefarious. OK OK it could be mere freshman level sloppy science, in keeping with my most important rule, 'never assign to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity.' Gentlemen, no more bets or bluffs, put your cards on the table if you're holding anything worthwhile, and while you are at it roll up those sleeves. Spectators standing behind the game might pause to listen and learn if any sighs or insights come out of the players at the table in the game.

  • So Parkhomov's 4200 megajoules over 225 days is 19,440,000 seconds into 4,200,000,000 joules = 216 joule/seconds, aka watts, avgerage output. Rather consistent with results in hand, but where are Parkamov's lovely gammas? For that matter where are Rossi's lovely gammas? At the birth of the cold fusion age skeptical pundits of physics demanded to see the nuclear smoke from the purported nuclear fire, they stated simply - no nuclear smoke no nuclear energy!!! OK pundits, that is an acceptable rule, are you staying or folding?


    To anyone skilled in the art with real cold fusion/lenr in hand, the gammas are indisputedly and prominently present on demand and nearly perfectly correllated, albeit not commensurate, with the heat. What gives with the pevasive failure to report on those vitally definitive and lovely gammas? The failure to show off the inescapable lovely gammas by those claiming these reactions to be in hand is either misdirection at a minimum, or something more nefarious. OK OK it could be mere freshman level sloppy science, in keeping with my most important rule, 'never assign to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity.' Gentlemen, no more bets or bluffs, put your cards on the table if you're holding anything worthwhile, and while you are at it roll up those sleeves. Spectators standing behind the game might pause to listen and learn if any sighs or insights come out of the players at the table in the game.


    The transition between gamma production and heat production results from a change of state.

  • It doesn't seem there's much more information in Parkhomov's report posted on E-Catworld than essentially "we saw excess heat".


    Rossi used to claim that his reaction produced gammas too, which he "thermalized" using shielding of various sorts including water, boron, steel, lead (see colorized diagram from the first patent application); some of these make it sound like he was expecting or make it look like he was expecting neutrons, although both him and Focardi claimed they never saw them.


    What gives with the pervasive failure to report on those vitally definitive and lovely gammas?


    I can of course only guess.


    Putting temporarily aside the possibility of misdirection and fraud and assuming a working reactor, if the observation of those gammas depends on materials surrounding the reactor and/or placed in front of the detector, with no shielding/insulation in place no gammas would be normally seen and this would be mostly a problem for people and objects located far away from it.


    If the gamma emission is due to "pretend-neutrons" that decayed into other particles and if one knew this in advance, perhaps by keeping energies in check they could be handled before their decay, using techniques and materials employed when dealing with actual neutrons.


    At a higher power this emission might become too energetic to be properly detected in the reactor's vicinity and thus might not be the reactor operator's problem anymore, so problem solved again? (in a way)

  • Regarding the missing lovely gammas, of course most practicioners in the fields of atom-ecology have long ago suspended their disbelief of just about everything and cut all manner of slack to their peers. However as the reality of nuclear heat and nuclear smoke becomes omnipresent it behooves the community to fess up with the data so that the collective data can not merely speak to us but form into a major choir. There is the possibility that some naievly imagine that the cold fusion/lenr in their hands migth slip under the radar of various nuclear regulatory commissions if they simply don't mention the lovely gammas, alas that is not a possibility no matter how intense the wishful thinking is. The gammas of cold fusion/lenr are not chimera that are difficult to see, they are so prominent a feature in this cold atom-ecology to be impossible to ignore as they roar into our world every second with every hint of heat.

  • Showing repeatable and reproducible radiation emission in real-time would have been the quickest path to make the various agencies and the mainstream scientific community rapidly acknowledge the phenomenon.


    However, it often occurs that when LENR inventors and researchers who previously claimed having a working device realize that they are seeing gammas or other radiation, they start going "dark" and/or only present heat and transmutation results to their close peers instead of trying to properly replicate the effect and present it more scientifically. Of course, this is assuming they actually had something working to begin with and not just a big artifact.


    It's incredibly puzzling when the same people are later on found to be talking or engaging about widespread commercialization or investments. Wouldn't the matter deserve larger teams of top scientists to be first fully understood? If it's easy to replicate (if one knows how) that should have been top priority, in my opinion.

  • Showing repeatable and reproducible radiation emission in real-time would have been the quickest path to make the various agencies and the mainstream scientific community rapidly acknowledge the phenomenon.


    I could not agree more. No nuclear fire without nuclear smoke. However, it is not commensurate with heat production - an associated phenomenon but the ratio of one to the other is subject to variation, perhaps dependent on the 'matter state' inside the reactor.

  • Quote

    The gammas of cold fusion/lenr are not chimera that are difficult to see, they are so prominent a feature in this cold atom-ecology to be impossible to ignore as they roar into our world every second with every hint of heat.


    Links to literature showing consistent and believable formation of gamma radiation correlated with LENR/cold fusion excess heat please?

  • 1.) From: https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/71632


    "...

    Energetic Particle Detection Using CR-39


    In their review, K&M1 discuss the results of an SRI replication of a Pd/D codeposition
    experiment done using CR-39, a solid state nuclear track detector. In his
    critique, Shanahan implies that little or no control experiments had been done to test
    conventional origins for the tracks observed in the CR-39 detectors used in the
    experiments. He further suggests that the tracks that have been observed in the CR-39
    detectors are due to either O2 attack or ‘shockwaves’ resulting from explosions due to
    D2/O2 recombination on the Pd surface. He also states that the triple track shown in the
    review article is actually overlapping tracks.


    In actuality, SPAWAR had done an exhaustive series of control experiments that
    showed that the tracks were not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components
    nor were they due to mechanical or chemical damage.13,14 The time duration of these
    control experiments were the same as that used in the Pd/D co-deposition experiments.
    Also, the experimental results summarized in Figure 1 rule out both O2 attack and
    shockwaves as the source of the tracks. It was reported that when Pd/D co-deposition was
    done on Ni screen, in the absence of an external electric/magnetic field, no tracks were
    observed on the CR-39 detector.13 Instead the impression of the Ni screen was observed,
    Figure 1a. The observed damage is consistent with X-ray/gamma ray damage.

    ..."



    2.) From: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2007/NET21.shtml


    "...

    A Physicist's Analysis

    Forsley, who is working with the SPAWAR group, presented a rapid-fire download of an array of data that suggested their experiments had shown evidence of gamma ray emission and knock-on tracks from neutral particles. His fourth slide showed results of apparent tracks from "dry" CR-39 experiments, where the CR-39 is physically and chemically isolated from the electrolyte by a thin barrier. The track density is far lower than in "wet" experiments, where the detectors are immersed in the electrolyte.

    ..."

  • The problem is it is seldom reported.

    Gamma radiation is seldom reported because it is seldom observed. Many researchers have set up gamma detectors, but only a handful reported gamma rays exceeding background, and only by a tiny margin. I would say most researchers I know always set up a detector for safety, even though they never see anything.


    I do not know why you and Russ George think that gamma rays are good evidence for cold fusion. As far as I know, they only accompany hot fusion.


    I am not saying you are not observing them, but it is not normal or expected.


    I could not agree more. No nuclear fire without nuclear smoke.

    Cold fusion has been observed thousands of times with sensitive gamma detectors present, yet there is no sign of gamma rays. Perhaps cold fusion always produces some form of "nuclear smoke." I wouldn't know about that. But I am sure it does not always produce gamma rays. Maybe it does sometimes, in some cases. It does not always produce neutrons, either. When it does, Ed Storms thinks those neutrons are probably fracto-fusion (hot fusion). It does not always produce tritium, but sometimes it does. So products can vary, probably depending on what is being fused (hydrogen, deuterium, or a mixture).


    The only thing we know for sure is that it produces anomalous heat, and that Pd-D cold fusion produces helium in the ratio of 24 MeV per helium atom.

  • I am not saying you are not observing them, but it is not normal or expected.


    Agreed....well, not normally. But this is an extraordinary experiment. 40+ days now and still producing surprises. As for the gammas, absolutely zero doubt, we have made determined efforts to shoo them away without success. There may be some heat, but right now I think the calorimetry needs tightening up before we even discuss it. Better calorimetry is a work in progress.

  • Agreed....well, not normally. But this is an extraordinary experiment

    It must be quite different from other cold fusion experiments. That being the case, I suppose it will have to be independently replicated a few times before we can be sure it is real.


    Some experiments are close to others that have been widely replicated. Others are little unusual. Still others are so different, they may not even be cold fusion, and the other experiments give little support for them. They need to be independently replicated. Where you draw the line between a "similar" experiment and a "different" one is a judgement call.

  • nickec


    Your first quote above is actually from the paper that I refer to as the '10-author' paper. Therein they try to rebutt my 2010 JEM comment article on the prior 2009 Marwan and Krivit article by using a strawman argument that erroneously assigns the moniker "random Shanahan CCSH" to my CCS/ATER proposal. In addition to that they respond in section 2.4 with what you quoted. I just briefly commented on that here: Safety of Undergrads (and others)


    A link to the 10-author paper is this: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    As you can see from the quote you posted, the 10-authors use the term 'shockwaves' (in actual quotes), where the quote marks imply an unusual use of the word shockwave. However as I noted in the 'Safety of...' thread, whether the process involves chemical or nuclear 'mini-explosions' (the term originates from a figure cation in a publication by Szpak, et al), explosions generate shockwaves. Elsewhere (explicitly in the Galileo Project I believe) Scott Little indicated that carrying a CR39 slab in his pocket for a few hours (maybe a 'day') caused pits to develop upon etching, and George Miley has published that spurious pits are common enough that specially trained people should be the ones reading the plates (brings the n-ray case to mind). IOW, CR39 plates are susceptible to mechanical damage, which causes etch pits to appear. Shockwaves carry energy, which can cause mechanical damage. When the mini-explosions are right on the CR39 plate, I simply ask if it isn't a reasonable concern that one might see pits as a result. No one has tested this idea. No controls have been run to test this idea. The 10-authors' objections are incorrect. Just another in a long line of ad hoc explanations that make no sense.


    The second of your quotes is from Forsley, who is the 10th of the 10 authors, and thus is not independent of the first quote. Further, I do not disagree with the idea that IF the codep'd Pd was producing charged particles or other radiation, the CR39 would indicate that. What I am saying is (once again) that there is a 'mundane', simple physical/chemical mechanism to get the pits they observe in CR39. And as I noted in the other thread, this will be very difficult to test, because it would require the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins-Effect) to be active, and we all know how problematic that can be to get.

  • Since someone is sure to challenge me...


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…86.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf


    "Other Damage to CR-39


    As part of our search for possible artifacts, we attempted to make CR-39 tracks
    using various mechanical means. We quickly discovered that mechanical damage
    often leads to round, track-like marks after etching. Any scratch on the surface
    would resolve itself into a chain of circular pits after etching. The following
    photographs in Figure 3 show examples of pits created by various mechanical
    means, including nothing more than the casual handling of the chips."


    Scott Little first posted this to the Internet in pre-published form. The section above was longer there:


    "As part of our search for possible artifacts, we attempted to make CR-39 tracks using various mechanical means. We quickly discovered that mechanical damage often leads to round, track-like marks after etching. Any scratch on the surface would resolve itself into a chain of circular pits after etching. We were able to create various marks with sandpaper, needle points and simply by carrying around a chip in a pocket for a day."


    which is where the 'day' timeframe came from.

  • Understanding the practice of measurement of radiation is a vital necessity in this challenging field of cold fusion. The CR-39 is a method that 'counts' incredible weak emanations and can thus provide very sparse evidence is better than nothing but not by far. Any cold fusion radiation that can only be seen using Cr-39 is so trivail as to be purely of academic interest. It is very clear that 'cold fusion' does NOT produce energetic gammas or neutrons that are commensurate with the heat production but the gammas are very well correllated with the heat. Helium on the other hand is roughly commensurate with the heat production. Cold fusion is NOT a single reaction it is now very clearly identified as a plethora of reactions courtesy of the definitive gammas that each reaction produces. It seems to me that many groups have this evidence in hand but are being ridiculously secretive and wll not share their findings.


    Cold fusion is a wildly complex ecosystem with many if not most atoms present behaving in ways that are mostly not typical within the dogma of conventional nuclear physics. Conventional nuclear physics however does offer an incredibly rich library of known nuclear reactions, some of the reactions in this vast well defined library of reactions are also present in cold fusion. What a joy that is to find some beacons in this wilderness. The benefit of running cold fusion in HOT environments, from a few hundred to a thousand degrees celcius offers a glimpse at the boundary conditions where the world of conventional nuclear reactions and cold fusion find some common ground. Anyone trained in ecology knows that the boundaries are always where the most interesting discoveries are made. To anyone skilled in the art, careful patient exploration and observation with the right tools in this boundary region offers a whole world of wonders. For those who want to impose dogmas on this frontier, that is par for the course in the anals of human history. The gadflies and groupies are always quick to pontificate from their arm chairs, ignore them. But don't forget that some kindred spirits are out there at benches and in arm chairs and from time to time make themselves known and make genuinely useful contributions.