MacGyver (aka JohnyFive) LENR experiment

Quote from THHuxleynew

I remember we had a guy here getting really HIGH radiation readings

I remember a time here when I had to 'heat my heels' (as opposed to cooling them) in our Rad Con office because I had picked up radon daughters from walking through rain puddles. I had set off our radiation detectors. There were several other people sitting in the office with me with our heels pointed towards a space heater. It took about 30-45 minutes to drive off the radioactive material such that i could pass the detectors. We have a high level of trace radioactivity in the ground here.

kirkshanahan "We have a high level of trace radioactivity in the ground here"

"Radium is a naturally occurring material that is prevalent in this area of South Carolina."

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/…verSiteFinalPHA121707.pdf

Also, for U and Th in North America, see

Terrestrial Radioactivity and Gamma-ray Exposure in the United States and Canada

By Joseph S. Duval, John M. Carson, Peter B. Holman, and Arthur G. Darnley

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1413/index.htm

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1413/maps.htm

It is also interesting to note that kaolin mining is big in Georgia/S. Carolina

For our European friends: https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu…tlas-of-Natural-Radiation

Quote from Bob

Since the early initial run showed an interesting result, do you think you will re-run that phase to see if the phenomena reappears?

Yes, as I threatened previously, I will run the test with LiOD electrolyte made from D₂O (heavy water) starting next week. Streaming as before (through Youtube) will be announced here.

AlanG

@JohnyFive

Before you push ahead with other things ... any idea why Magicsound did not get the same results as you?

When replication fails it is always possible that the replicator is not doing things properly.

Also it is possible that the original results were due to some (not replicated) mistake.

The beauty of replication, and why science likes it, is that you can work out which of these is true by comparing the two experiments and trying to work out what has caused the difference.

That is one reason why I think Alan's current investigations need as yet to be taken with a pinch of salt. They are not replicated independently, and until this happens artifacts induced by the apparatus can quite innocently be confused with real signals. Alan will say that he (or the many other people he has brought in) is clever enough to detect this. In reality I doubt any number of people would necessarily be able to tell. The whole point about artifacts is they can be subtle and difficult to detect. That is why you need independent replication without any common assumptions or equipment, once you have an (apparently) reliable replicable positive using the same equipment.

Rossi's Lugano-style tests, all sitting with IH giving apparently positive results, when in fact it was an experimental setup that did this, are a good though rather extreme example.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is one reason why I think Alan's current investigations need as yet to be taken with a pinch of salt. They are not replicated independently, and until this happens artifacts induced by the apparatus can quite innocently be confused with real signals. Alan will say that he (or the many other people he has brought in) is clever enough to detect this.

THH, the point of your comment is unclear. Are you suggesting that my null finding was due to artifacts? And in what way was it not an "independent replication"?

Regarding J5's comments, it isn't possible to tell if his, or my Ti sponge had an oxide coating prior to the experiment. But since he has not disclosed his source of his material, or details of its storage and handling, I doubt it was oxide-free.

Regarding his objection to my use of a protective screen on the GM detector, if direct contact is needed between the test paper and the mica membrane of the pancake tube, the probability of false detection from static effects or physical excitation is greatly increased. I'm willing to risk the integrity of a $220 LND7317 tube if underwritten by donations. That way two otherwise identical detectors could be used to directly measure any effect of the protective screen. If anyone wants to underwrite such a test, let me know privately using the "conversations" function of this forum.

Quote from JohnyFive

If I am not wrong I disclosed that my Titanium Sponge was from Alfa Aeasar and that I am storing it in Argon

Thank you for reminding me of that. We discussed at length my difficulty of buying the Ti from Alfa Aesar and similar sources. So the possible oxide contamination is a relevant issue.

However, titanium has an enormous affinity for oxygen. This results in a thin film of titanium oxide being produced almost instantaneously on the surface of the titanium when exposed to the atmosphere. So handling in air while installing in the cell will allow some surface oxidation. There will also be substantial dissolved oxygen in the solution, especially after electrolysis is started.

Quote from magicsound

THH, the point of your comment is unclear. Are you suggesting that my null finding was due to artifacts? And in what way was it not an "independent replication"?

I think that THH's mention of "Alan" above is directed at Alan Smith, not you.

Quote from Bruce__H

I think that THH's mention of "Alan" above is directed at Alan Smith, not you.

magicsound

Yes. I think you misunderstood my post. My point was that everyone can misinterpret results, and that replication is good because when it does not reach the same results as the original, both experiments can be A/B compared and the reasons worked out. That can, in principle, be either the replication going wrong in some way, or the original going wrong in some way.

I was not comparing your experimental merits with those of others, nor making any assumptions.

I've already said (obviously true) that I like your careful experimental technique and comprehensive reporting - which allows public good to come from your experimental work. And - more contentious here - contrast that with fragmentary reporting which may be in the interests of those actually doing the work, and is everyone's right, but does not contribute to public good in the same way.

THHuxleynew

Thank you for clarifying that.

I am not anonymous here, nor do I want to be. I've tried to avoid confusion by always referring to Alan Smith as "AlanS", and signing some of my posts "AlanG".

I started my small business as "Magic Sound" almost 40 years ago, and have used "magicsound" as my electronic handle since before the internet existed. So maybe it would be best if I simply forgot my forename is Alan, to avoid confusion here.

Alan Goldwater aka Magicsound

autoposidoxicant

https://www.google.com/search?…id=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Quote from magicsound

autoposidoxicant

(proposed noun) Someone who voluntarily self-doxes, disclosing their own real name in an online forum.

magicsound

I have left you a message via the "conversations" function.

magicsound

Do you have or can you provide/prepare radiation data from your pancake Geiger counter(s) placed outside of the lead brick wall and facing up, over a span of at least 1.5-2 days?

There is a daily long term variation which appears to be correlated with the solar X-ray flux; it's barely visible on the averaged graph below from one of your previous JohnyFive replication runs. I'm curious to compare that with data from my unshielded Geiger counter using a Russian SBM-20 tube on a completely different location, where I'm getting a daily 50% change in count rate that could be almost totally attributable to that.

Quote from can

magicsound

Do you have or can you provide/prepare radiation data from your pancake Geiger counter(s) placed outside of the lead brick wall and facing up, over a span of at least 1.5-2 days?

There is a daily long term variation which appears to be correlated with the solar X-ray flux; it's barely visible on the averaged graph below from one of your previous JohnyFive replication runs. I'm curious to compare that with data from my unshielded Geiger counter using a Russian SBM-20 tube on a completely different location, where I'm getting a daily 50% change in count rate that could be almost totally attributable to that.

Yes, I have some long background files and will post them tomorrow (28 Sept.)