My efforts were in part also encouraged by the possibility of logging experimental data from simple measuring instruments without the need for a data acquisition box or other modifications, which means a webcam could also work, although it would of course be far from ideal. In this case, the webcam was a youtube video stream and the data was already being properly logged (although not directly made available in real time), but it could have been any other video feed.
-
-
A good first bash at this system!
Everything I see right now is compatible with there being either no lenr effect or one of very small amplitude. But I understand that all data so far have been generated using LiOH rather than LiOD. Is that right?
-
No one has commented on my previous posts about electrostatic fields, so here goes one more try.
These are very valid points to my reasoning. One of the problems with experiments, is that 100 people can come up with 100 "possible" artifacts.
It is a tough task for sure.
So one very important method in my book is the concurrent dummy or control run. Magicsound, I cannot remember if you are running a concurrent control run or not? If not, would this be possible?
Hard to argue the fact when two units, sitting in close proximity, one shows 160% elevated radiation counts and the other does not. On the other hand, if they both go up, it is time to start looking for external sources.
Thanks again for your public information!
-
Hi magicsound,
Great reporting!
I think it would be helpful to identify the most plausible A/B test for differential counts and try it with minimum other system change and long enough times to be statistically significant. You could interleave A and B as ABBA or (if you don't like their music) BAAB which would give some protection against long-term drift. One option would be a shield of lead covered with expanded polystyrene vs a shield of expanded polystyrene. Similar thermal characteristics.
The most obvious extraneous factor is varying GC temperature, which perhaps you can monitor and/or reduce. But as you point out there are many others at this level.
PS - once you add long-term memory (activation) of arbitrary things into your hypothesis space it becomes a lot more difficult to control for anything and therefore come to any conclusions. So let us hope this is not needed.
-
Everything I see right now is compatible with there being either no lenr effect or one of very small amplitude.
Can you expand on your reasoning of "no lenr" effect? I would agree that this is a long, long ways from being proof positive for sure. However, 160% increase in unknown radiation counts is hardly a datum for no lenr. I realize your statement is "compatible with no" but is it not also "compatible with" an unknown low energy nuclear source? (emphasis mine)
The fact is that there is indeed an unknown anomaly, This anomaly is outside the common expectations of what we know about the rather simple setup. While that does not prove nuclear it also does not preclude it either. I would ask if you would agree with the following logic path and if not, where I am going wrong.
1: The tester is above reproach, being open, honest and willing to participate in valid critique. Both historically and current.
2. The test setup is following a protocol of the original investigator. It is meant to be a replication not an investigation.
3. Following the same protocol, (as closely as we know) both parties, completely independent, reported "interesting" and "anomalous" results. While not exact, they are within reason, to date, similar.
4. The results are not what one would expect, regarding the measurement of radiation, which can only be released by a nuclear reaction. (At least under current theory)
5.The tester is qualified and is using appropriate equipment. There is no obvious artifact as of yet. (Again, this is replication not investigation)
6. In conclusion, the measured results should be taken as data that encourages further investigation of the anomalous radiation release, with the theory it is of unknown origin. Either of the test cell reaction or of external artefact. However, with now truly independent replication, the likely hood of external artifact is considerably small. (Such as radon dust, local airport radar, etc. etc.) This does not preclude some understood process that is taking place in a manner that has escaped detection yet.
However, to state the test is compatible with no lenr, is a bit biased toward non-investigation. (In investigation, a current control cell would be most helpful.)
Perhaps a matter of semantics, but I would be inclined to state the test was positive towards the further investigation of LENR versus compatible with no LENR.
I truly would welcome your thoughts on the logic progression. (As I have been accused elsewhere on the forum of having no logic!
) -
Display More
Hi magicsound,
Great reporting!
I think it would be helpful to identify the most plausible A/B test for differential counts and try it with minimum other system change and long enough times to be statistically significant. You could interleave A and B as ABBA or (if you don't like their music) BAAB which would give some protection against long-term drift. One option would be a shield of lead covered with expanded polystyrene vs a shield of expanded polystyrene. Similar thermal characteristics.
The most obvious extraneous factor is varying GC temperature, which perhaps you can monitor and/or reduce. But as you point out there are many others at this level.
PS - once you add long-term memory (activation) of arbitrary things into your hypothesis space it becomes a lot more difficult to control for anything and therefore come to any conclusions. So let us hope this is not needed.
As often, valid points.
However, I would like your thoughts on replication versus investigation.
I do not think the J5 findings have been fully replicated yet. Until that is done and confirmed, then changing parameters would be hazardous to even confirming if there ever was some type of anomalous effect. Is it not possible that one reason LENR has had much problem in replication is that no one actually replicates. They start adding this or that, taking away this or that and to some point may alter the conditions enough that the effect does not appear.
So the final result is that "the LENR effect was not seen" so it must not be real. However, that is a null result and cannot truly be definitive. I vote to strive to replicate the process and method as closely as possible, independent of the originator. Never mind if people think the results valid or not. Once the reaction can be repeatedly created, then investigate to see if it has a mundane source. If a non-exotic source is found, have the original researcher conduct the same parameter changes. If his results match, one can definitively state it is not LENR but source XYZ. Otherwise, it remains in the realm of the Twilight Zone.
My leaning is to concentrate on :
1) J5 has reported very repeatable and definitive readings.
2) First step is to replicate those findings using as close a setup as possible. If one cannot create the findings, there is no need to do further investigation. "Investigate what?" At this point, one is not worried about if the "effect" is real or not. One is trying to replicate the effect.
3)Concentrating on accurate and repeatable replication may mean evaluating equipment and environment, but no so much method or material.
4)Running a control run would be very helpful with data set comparisons, both current and future.
5)Once replication has been obtained, then start investigation to confirm or resolve the anomalous effect.
Thoughts?
-
Display More
My leaning is to concentrate on :
1) J5 has reported very repeatable and definitive readings.
2) First step is to replicate those findings using as close a setup as possible. If one cannot create the findings, there is no need to do further investigation. "Investigate what?" At this point, one is not worried about if the "effect" is real or not. One is trying to replicate the effect.
3)Concentrating on accurate and repeatable replication may mean evaluating equipment and environment, but no so much method or material.
4)Running a control run would be very helpful with data set comparisons, both current and future.
5)Once replication has been obtained, then start investigation to confirm or resolve the anomalous effect.
Thoughts?
I agree that if the reports are of clear findings it is good first to replicate as closely as possible, but if possible with better instrumentation, more runs, whatever to get higher signal/noise. then, if still interesting, start to eliminate causes.
If however what is reported cannot be replicated we have a null result. In this case unless i'm missing something the results are well in the noise but claimed as maybe significant so something to increase SNR is a good idea. Or you could just say this is a null replication (because the original which a much larger signal). i'm not quite sure which of these is true.
More generally until you have something that is controllable and definite there is no replication. The history of amateur LENR is of reports of significant results that when carefully replicated cannot be found.
All this just my take FWIW
Best wishes, THH
-
Everyone.
I don't think we have seen a J5 replication yet. Without being sure, I think that J5 used exclusively LiOD and so far Magicsound's experiment has used LiOH. I think that Magicsound intends to run LiOD in the very near future.
Maybe I am wrong. If someone can clear this up it would be great.
-
@Bob
In the plot that Can put up, the anomaly beginning at 2300h CEST seems to me the sort of thing that you see in experimental rigs when you start moving things around and wriggling the wires. Such adjustments are almost inevitable on a firs run through.
-
Some suggestions.
- Don't bother with moving the detector. Just use it in a single orientation even if that means not measuring counts early on when the paper is still on top of the electrolysis chamber.
- I like THH's ABBA approach ... although I would do ABAB. I assume that B is the piece of paper that has been left exposed on top of the electrolysis unit and A is a similar sheet of unexposed paper (which perhaps is changed with every new measurement). From what I gather from JohnyFive, the electolysis-exposed paper can be put back on the electolysis chamber to get recharged. So you could do ABABABAB... and so on by shuffling the exposed paper on and then off the detector with unexposed sheets (and fluid cleaning?) between them.
-
Thanks for the votes of confidence…
That being said I want to make my position clear. I have been looking at the CF field since 1995, resulting in 4 published journal articles and 1 whitepaper in the 2000-2012 timeframe. I have been paying less attention recently than in prior days, but I have not seen anything (at all!) that seems to be convincing evidence for CF or LENR or whatever you want to call it. What I do see is a bunch of researchers who have pre-concluded that LENR is the cause and who then force fit all results to that foregone conclusion. There have been a few half-hearted (I probably should have used another body part for a better description) attempts at addressing possible ‘mundane chemical’ causes of the observations, but none that are truly exclusive of chemical explanations. I also see lots of theories being developed with the pre-assumption that LENR is real. As such I ignore them because theories developed from bad data are bad theories.
Also, I do not have expertise in radiation monitoring, just basic knowledge, thus I have never commented on details of radiation measurements.
With respect to the ongoing experiments of MS then, I can offer chemical insight only. Some I have already done, but there are a couple more points to be made.
- LiOH is NOT a control for LiOD. H is NOT a control for D. There often but not always are significant isotope effects, and chemists expect H to behave differently from D. If you do LiOH/LiOD comparisons, do not neglect to fold in that expectation. (yes, that complicates.)
- Paper is a compounded substance. It has lots of pieces in it. Each comes with its own set of issues. One in particular regarding the observations of radiation signals is that paper uses fillers. Fillers are usually mined minerals, with a set of radioactive contaminants. Different papers, and even different batches of the same papers, can have differing contaminant levels. Manufacturers control what they must only, not everything.
- Water extracts contaminants from materials, and basic (LiOH) solutions can accelerate that. The paper used to cover the cells WILL BE wet, even if not apparent to the eye, since it may be surface absorbed on the paper components. So the paper should be independently tested. Run an experiment with warmed electrolyte in a standard cell, but where no electrolysis is ongoing. I would even push it, and heat the water to 75C or greater to maximize the vapor content. Keep going for as long as you would run an electrolysis run.
And finally, make sure you have no instrument artifacts. As Robert commented these can be significant. I recall Scott Little had a picture up on his Web site for a while where he showed a meter measuring something, and next to it a picture of the same meter after rotating it 90 degrees. It showed a different number. Likewise, I have previously mentioned the problem Ed Storms had with his Pt F&P cells, where he had a negative feedback in his equipment that gave a shift in baseline proportional to applied current. He had to redo his grounding to get rid of it, but his original setup was per manufacturer recommendations. Don’t trust vendor specs.
If I think of more later I will mention it.
-
If I think of more later I will mention it.
Thanks for the input. I hope that with Magicsound's experience, training and abilities.... reasonable input from various sources such as yourself... and some common cooperation that the truth can be found. After all, that is what we need. Not to disprove LENR or prove LENR, but to find the truth. If that means LENR exists, great! If not, then so be it. We must however, not bias our thinking or evaluations based upon preconceived notions, but let the facts speak. I remember reading articles about how many were sure that people would die if they traveled over 50 miles per hour or that powered flight was physically impossible. (Even though birds did it every day!) Bias can be blinding. That does not mean we have to be gullible.
I am neither a radiation expert nor expert chemist. My only input is for current/parallel control runs as early as possible and that we are looking for replication at this point more than investigation. Do not change the process much until it replicable, otherwise it is Twilight Zone time. Always in question.
I encourage others to not only bring up possible issues, but how to avoid them.
-
Thanks all for the constructive comments on this project so far. My thoughts in reply:
1. I think CAN's plot shows a statistically significant signal was detected. Whether it exceeds the "error bars" sufficiently to make any conclusion is less clear. Have a look at the trace showing the long-term (hours) mean count, and note the period of testing the paper showed data entirely above the mean for many minutes. Of course artifacts can be proposed to explain this finding, but as I pointed out to Eric Walker several times, such claims must be subject to the same standard of evaluation as claims of positive results. Mal-intentioned invisible elves carrying in radioactive particles just at the time of measurement is not a rational hypothesis. See also my comment 3 below.
2. JohnyFive used both LiOD and (more recently) LiOH in his reported tests. He stated that a radiation signature was seen in both. My decision to use LiOH in the initial run was to test the experimental apparatus and protocol. Think of it as a beta test. As I said yesterday, a second run with LiOD will follow soon.
3. The possible effect of rotating the GM pancake detector is a valid concern, particularly since the detector used has documented anisotropic sensitivity. For future runs, the detector will be left in position and orientation for the entire test. A dust shield of some kind covering the entire test area will also be added to the setup.
4. Regarding the possible chemical activation of the paper in the presence of moisture, this seems irrelevant to the detection of radiation. In fact if it were relevant it would be at least as important a causative finding as electrolysis. Think of the implications if simply wetting ordinary office paper resulted in emission of detectable radiation!
Note also that the 50 mW power used in this experiment is not enough to heat the electrolyte more than a fraction of °C. The NaI temperature included in the test data showed 19.5±1°C for the entire test period. That thermocouple is about 15 cm from the GM detector, and there is no significant source of local heat near either instrument. The DAQ cold-junction temperature was also measured, shown as "T ambient" in the data set. It also varied less than 1°C during the testing.
5. Running a fully simultaneous null with a different electrolyte would require duplicating the experimental setup. A less rigorous simultaneous null could easily be done if the binary parameter is only presence or absence of electrolysis voltage. I will try to set that up for the run with LiOD. The parameter under test will be the detection of radiation from paper covering each cell, after suitable run time. I'll need to find another glass jar identical in dimensions to the one just used.
AlanG
-
Here is the radiation test section with more accurately placed annotations.
EDIT 90 seconds offset added.
-
Here is the radiation test section with more accurately placed annotations.
Are you taking the x-axis time from your local computer clock, or from the time stamp in red on the video stream? The Youtube video latency can be up to several minutes, and the time display embedded in the image is the accurate one.
-
The x-axis time is from my computer clock. Admittedly, I forgot about the video stream latency.
Unfortunately to save space I only saved a cropped area of the video without the timestamp in red, so the only way to be sure that it's actually accurate would be using the raw data.
-
The x-axis time is from my computer clock. Admittedly, I forgot about the video stream latency.
Unfortunately to save space I only saved a cropped area of the video without the timestamp in red, so the only way to be sure that it's actually accurate would be using the raw data.OK. Please offset your red annotations about 1-1/2 minutes, that is 90 seconds to the left (earlier) to compensate for the video latency.
-
Thank you very much for your hard work!
It is very appreciated and look to be promising. I will try to get the easiest and cheapest setup to detect the particles above any doubt. I think that this is the key thing in this experiment.
I really have no idea what it is measuring, sadly, still. But I think we can at least exclude gammas and neutrons.
Finally I have SEM/EDX analysis from the very first run (D2O used) and it is looking very cool!
I hope to share it shortly. I think there might be some transmutations. The most interesting thing is how it is all covered with Lithium. And in really nice way.
There seems to be some transmutations, also traces of Palladium are detected. Nickel is clearly detectable at the Cathode too.
For skeptics - note that I am getting clearly elevated Alpha radiaton level too. This detector is working in a very different way than Pancake. So two different detectors are giving positive results, very clearly above a measurement error. Static charge tests were also performed to exclude false measurement with Pancake.
-
I will try to get the easiest and cheapest setup to detect the particles above any doubt.
Quoting JohnyFive above.
Crux of the biscuit: Demonstrate a least cost unassailable energetic particle rise.
Kudos to magicsound and can.
-
MS replied to several of my comments. Interestingly, I see some groupthink at work… That being said, I have no reason to believe anything I have suggested is correct. They are all speculations.
Re. 1.) Signal above the mean for a period is known as a baseline shift. There are many, many causes for baseline shift that have nothing to do with an actual signal. Then again, maybe it is. Reproduce and control.
Re. 2) LiOH and LiOD are both basic water solutions. They will have similar chemistry, and maybe even very similar. Isotopic differences will not cancel out acid/base-type of considerations. Agreed that you are just starting, much more to do, Reproduce and control.
The primary difference is in the electrolysis I think. The thermoneutral voltages are different for H2O vs. D2O. That means for a fixed current and voltage, you will get different loading levels and extents of ohmic heating. One impacts 'LENR' probabilities supposedly, the other supposedly would impact chemical rates. You might get minor differences in extraction (leaching) rates due to pH not being the same as pD.
Re. 3) This directional sensitivity needs to be worked out long-term as you note. Also, glad you picked up on the ‘Bockris Effect’ as I jokingly call it.
Re. 4) ‘Mined minerals’ as I called them will have contaminants. One common contaminant is U, another is Th. The decay chains produce alpha and beta radiation according to what I see. Wikipedia lists _average_ contamination levels at 2 to 7 ppm. What might be in your paper? Would it be the same as J5’s? Who knows? The water/base that gets to the paper can leach (extract) the contaminants. Now you have to consider self-shielding. Rad contaminants held in filler particles will be highly shielded, reducing the amount of radiation that can be detected externally. Leaching into a thin liquid layer could well change that, allowing the radiation to be more easily seen. (Further in relation to a J5 comment, that liquid can slowly weep down the sides of the container.) Again speculation. If you don’t like what I say, no skin off of my nose, but if you don’t check, shame on you…that would be groupthink especially. Oh, and how often do you think people wet office paper and measure it for radiation? Every day right?... Also, sometimes paper has acid content. Acid can also aid leaching.
Re. 5) The blank run with no electrolysis being run at a different time shouldn’t be a problem if my proposed mechanism is active. I would worry about not getting enough vapor if no electrolysis and no heating. The electrolysis gases will carry the vapor up to the paper, just like in our extended discussion of this in the “F&P Experiments…” thread w.r.t. water loss from open cells.
