MacGyver (aka JohnyFive) LENR experiment

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Magicsound,

    Again thanks for the updates and the experiments in general!


    Any word from Johnny 5? I have not seen any posts here recently.


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

    While there is a theory as to what may have happened, it is only a theory. If not too expensive or time consuming, it may be worthwhile

    to attempt a replication. If the event does manifest again, it would lessen the likelihood of radon dust. If the event does not reappear, it

    would tend to confirm it.


    Thoughts?

  • 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

  • I've did many runs and my results are very consistent. So in my case I have no doubt about the source.

    And also it is working with a thick foam. In my opinion this has nothing to do with electrostatic attraction of Radon.


    Anyway, I am building a dry cell with Nickel and Hydrogen to see if I will get a similar results there. Great thing is that since it will be closed cell it can't be contaminated in any way. Immediately after run I will remove exposed material and measure radiation so that it will not take more than 5 minutes.

    I am also trying to focus on a strange radiation measurement with a various plastic sheets and CDs that will be later analyzed.

  • I really don't know but I think that Titanium Sponge could play very important role. So getting it already oxidized prior loading could be bad. Next thing is that Magicsound modified his detector without knowing if unmodified version will work. So as I mentioned earlier I would try it directly at the mica window.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mica windows are surprisingly hard from my experience so I think that it can handle a paper with any detector. Usually the detector has edges above the mica window so placing flat thing will cause that it will not touch it actually.


    If I am not wrong I disclosed that my Titanium Sponge was from Alfa Aeasar and that I am storing it in Argon. I can't find a mark of oxidation on it but of course there will be some oxide layer.

    Alfa Aesar is storing it always in Argon so until opened and removed from the bottle at least some Argon is still there (it is heavier than air).

    It is exactly this product: https://www.alfa.com/en/catalog/010583/


    magicsound You are doing very well and I am very grateful about your replication.


    I will perform replications also in a different areas to completely eliminate possible influence of Radon or other factors. Unfortunately it will take some time..

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.


  • 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.)

  • magicsound

    Looking forward to see that. By the way, the 50% daily change I mentioned apparently was a peak value; in the couple last days it's been progressively lower.


    The background file for J5-1 was taken just before the active run, and previously posted at:

    https://drive.google.com/open?…OWbRdC0cMyAvuf_7QgKYjAVGv
    The csv data has two discontinuous segments, and neither section is long enough to show siderial cycles.


    There's a 25-hour background file from the LION-AG test in May 2018:

    https://drive.google.com/open?…NUEWoC8RmPlsqKht7qR3EL1Rs
    That data was taken during a power calibration run, and there may be RFI artifacts from the power system, though none were noted during this test or previously seen for the GMC.

    Both these tests were done with the detector facing horizontally, separated from the test stand by about 15 cm.


    If you need a longer sample for siderial analysis, try looking at the J5-1 data itself, which ran over 4 days;

    https://drive.google.com/open?…QwIkNTnAHXPPF6kbo2BXMTa3a


    Since the orientation of the detector might affect detection of cosmogenic background, I will do a dedicated long background sample, starting today.

    How long a sample do you think necessary for your analysis? one day, two or many? Is the 10-second sample interval appropriate?

  • magicsound

    I haven't performed any detailed analysis yet, but the 25-hour background at first glance does not seem to visually show a significant influence from the cosmogenic background, although it could have been attenuated by the lead shielding. Here I used a 7200 samples (2 hours assuming equally spaced samples) CPM calculation and scaled the various series on the Y axis so that they're more clumped together:




    The graph I posted in an earlier was indeed from the J5-1 data.


    How long a sample do you think necessary for your analysis? one day, two or many? Is the 10-second sample interval appropriate?


    At least one full day; ideally two days. more is not necessary but would still be interesting.

    A 10-second sample interval would be more than enough as this would only be looking at long term changes.


    Thanks for your time.

  • At least one full day; ideally two days. more is not necessary but would be still be interesting.

    A 10-second sample interval would be more than enough as this would only be looking at long term changes

    OK, It's running. The GMC is facing up and moved away from the lead cave, and added a paper cover over it to mitigate dust settling on the bare mica diaphragm. I'm logging only the GMC counts and my He3 Neutron detector. I'll leave it running for two full days and post the data when done.

  • The last post from Johnny 5 was 10 days ago on this thread. Has he dropped from sight?

    This was an interesting venture and Magicsound a most capable replicator.


    Just because a first attempt was not successful in replication does not mean a project should be dropped.

    As J5 had stated, this was supposedly a very simple and inexpensive test to conduct that was highly repeatable. Just what is needed!

    Why drop it so quickly?


    One has to then ponder if it is dropped so quickly, was it real to start with. Alan Smith does not think so.

    Which will it be?

    One of several "Eureka, I definitely have it" claims (such as ME356, LION and others) that disappear once investigated

    or will the endeavor march on until a clearer understanding of what happened is found?


    J5, are you still convinced with your tests and are working with Magicsound towards a successful replication?


    If J5 disappears, will this leave us with only the "Androcles" project to watch and see how it ends. Like the others mentioned, "big claims

    but no results in the end" or "finally, a repeatable and confirmed LENR reactor"? Unfortunately, neither is very clear at the moment.

  • Don't worry. I am here and I am convinced about my results perfectly.

    Actually I have news about replication with a different Pancake detector from E-Bay.


    I can replicate the results with this one:

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/Great…cAAOSwQcJaMHAZ:rk:16:pf:0


    It is probably the cheapest Pancake detector I found but probably the best one. It is basically on par with my Ludlums Pancake.

    Bias voltage was configured to 400V. But you need to do some soldering.



    I am just quite busy since we are doing a bigger reconstruction in our labs. So my experiments were paused.

  • OK, It's running. The GMC is facing up and moved away from the lead cave, and added a paper cover over it to mitigate dust settling on the bare mica diaphragm. I'm logging only the GMC counts and my He3 Neutron detector. I'll leave it running for two full days and post the data when done.


    What were the results from this run?