Now I will add the steel piece over the NI.
-
-
As a final step for this test, in a few minutes, I will move the paper back to the cell in its original orientation (flipped). I'll leave the Ni and steel in place on the horizontal pancake detector, for a null check.
-
Interesting! When I removed the paper and put the metal foils directly on the pancake detector, the count went back up to the initial elevated level. Activation?
-
You can hope so. Keep at it, and think about light-water controls - though I bet you have already.
-
Try connecting the foils to earth ground and re-measuring. Depending on the shielding of your pancake detector, an external charge on the plate (or paper) could elevate the counts.
-
Here's a graph of LND7317 and 6Li ocr'd data from the live stream video. I guess 6Li data is not useful in this instance.
-
The metal foils are now removed, and the count remained somewhat elevated. I think this might result from the changed orientation of the pancake detector, facing up away from the lead shield around the cell. In a few minutes I'll rotate it back to face the cell.
-
Here's a log of the test steps. Times are approximate but should be close enough to label the graph:
J5-1 radiation test:
21:00 GMC rotated, paper moved and Ni cover placed
21:05 Stainless steel cover
21:10 Indium cover
21:13 Lead cover
21:15 Al. Cover
21:17 Ni cover
21:18 Ni +steel cover
21:30 Paper removed, Ni+SS in place
21:40 Metal foils removed
Note that these times are UTC, while the lab computer is set to CET (UTC+1)
Your graph seems to cover almost four hours. The peak at 21:20 is interesting - I have no explanation for it.
Can you graph the data from 22:00 to 22:50 CET for the tests just done?
Thanks!
-
The timestamps in my graph are CEST.
I don't have all the setup for nice automated graphs in place at the moment but I tried adding the annotations manually with a different program. The placement might not be always 100% accurate but it can be tweaked.
-
The radiation anticipates the materials... strange indeed.
-
The radiation anticipates the materials... strange indeed.
My log times and the graph annotations are approximate.
There seems to be a statistically significant effect shown here, but not enough to convince skeptics.
I will be repeating the experiment with LiOD electrolyte, where a stronger effect can apparently be expected.
Better controls are also needed, because a skeptic would say "it's just radioactive environmental dust that settled on the paper and was held there by higher humidity escaping from the cell." Etc....
I'm sure Kirk and others can come up with many such objections. It's better to hear them now, so they can be systematically eliminated in the next run.
AlanG
-
Will blowing air chaotically around the cell location cause an increase in LND3717 counts?
-
Will blowing air chaotically around the cell location cause an increase in LND3717 counts?
I put a small fan in place about 15 cm from the cell, drawing air away from it rather than blowing directly on it. Let's see if anything changes.
A smoke test shows turbulent air flow across the cell at roughly 30 cm/sec.
An obvious way to eliminate dust contamination is simply to cover the test paper with something, to prevent dust from settling on it during the long "cooking" phase.
-
The situation does not seem to have changed much.
By the way: what type of stainless steel was used during the previous test?
What about the CD?
The cell still hasn't shown all the changes suggested by J5, so perhaps it can give larger results later on before using LiOD.
-
The situation does not seem to have changed much.
By the way: what type of stainless steel was used during the previous test?
What about the CD
The cell still hasn't shown all the changes suggested by J5, so perhaps it can give larger results later on before using LiOD.No change in CPM with the fan. The stainless steel is a piece of .002 in. (0.05 mm) shim stock, alloy unknown but probably 302 or 304.
I'll leave the cell running for a couple of days more, but probably won't monitor it as closely. I'll keep the stream going though.
-
There seems to be a statistically significant effect shown here, but not enough to convince skeptics.
I will be repeating the experiment with LiOD electrolyte, where a stronger effect can apparently be expected.Hey, this is a good start! A replication attempt and the very first run shows promise. As you say, not bullet proof, but that is really ok. At least it provides enough to keep seriously looking into. How many other LENR type "truly" independent replications were this apparent positive on the first run! I bet not many if any at all!
While still early and there could be artifact found, this would be truly fascinating if we were watching history being made! THH should chime in with his usual valid and reasonable thoughts. Kirk should have input since Magicsound has so graciously invited his input before hand. If all still proves successful, having their prior input, what more of a convincing case! Nothing antagonistic, just good logical questions should be welcomed and I believe they will be.
Johnny5, thank you for sharing your information! If this all turns out as replicable LENR, your name may go down in history! Who knows? Magicsound, you should be right next to him!
Of course.... there is still a LONG ways to go but this is truthfully, the first positive and believable LENR news I have heard in a long time. LION and ME356 were just a little too cryptic and elusive. Especially after the MFMP visit. The Androcles is interesting but so much an enigma. One says 10 years and 100 million. The other says a year and 100 people. Neither are giving detailed data as is Magicsound. (I do not criticize their decision. They have every right to protect their work) But as far as public and reliable replicators go, this is the best I have personally seen here!
Keeping fingers crossed, but not holding my breath for too long!
-
The stainless steel is a piece of .002 in. (0.05 mm) shim stock, alloy unknown but probably 302 or 304.
So it's non-magnetic or weakly ferromagnetic? It would be curious if the materials that showed the best results were ferromagnetic; checking with actual magnets could be an idea too. (e.g. perhaps even a flat/thin refrigerator magnet, etc).
-
No one has commented on my previous posts about electrostatic fields, so here goes one more try.
I readily admit that am no expert on radiation measurements, but have seen plenty of examples of lab measurements where the instrument effect on the measurement should not have been ignored. For instance, when measuring high frequencies, the capacitance of the scope probe can have a big effect. When measuring floating high voltages, if you do not use a differential probe, the instrument ground can cause sparks to fly. When measuring AC, the sample rate of the instrument can cause wildly wrong measurements of high frequency or non-sinusoidal waveforms.
It looks like many GM pancake probes have a solid metal back and sides to shield from electrostatic fields, but the face just has a thin mica barrier with no electrical shielding. This is fine as long as you measure at a sufficient distance from the probe, like the 1 cm or greater distance I saw recommended in one of the datasheets. But if you place something with a static charge flat against the mica, that could increase the field inside the probe and increase background counts. The voltage inside is a few hundred volts, while electrostatic charges can be in the KV range.
As I posted earlier, here is a report of someone who discovered that the static charge on new plastic bags was enough to increase the apparent background counts on their 44-9 Geiger-Müller (GM) pancake probe by a factor of >3x background (compared with the 1.6x or so you have seen).
https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10421.html
You might be able to measure before or after discharging, maybe by using an electrostatic spray and grounding plate, but it may be hard to verify that you had successfully discharged it.
Another thought would be do to the counts flat against the detector, then a series of measurements at further distances. If the source is really radiation from the paper, the counts should drop off slowly as the distance increases because the air would have little attenuation and the detector area is small compared to the area of the paper. But if the cause is electrostatic, then the counts should drop off very quickly as the distance to the paper becomes large compared to the distance to the back shield.
-
Thanks for your useful comments. The pancake detector is mounted in an alloy box, with a wire screen in front of it. The screen pitch is around 5 mm and it is grounded to the box. The pancake detector itself is dielectrically isolated from the box and connected to the electronics front-end with an insulated BNC and 20 cm of RG58. The mica diaphragm is thus recessed from the outer box surface by about 4 mm. So I think we can rule out electrostatic effects from the paper into the detector.
It could still be sensitive to microwave, since the electronics are not as well shielded. But the Narda microwave detector you helped us calibrate in 2016 showed nothing of interest during the whole test period. The alarm was set to 1.5 mW/cm2 and never sounded. Background is typically ~750 uW/cm2, from 3 wifi routers in the building.
-
I have to say, that was very exciting. Looking forward to what comes next. Science at it's finest, and in real time no less. Can not get better than this. Keep up the good commentary, good work (Magic), good support (special thanks to Can on that), good input (Kirk) , and good questions by skeptics from both sides of the science.
