Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

  • The film does not come in contact with bubbles because it is protected. It is intraoral, meaning it is designed to be inserted into your mouth, which is wet. It does not come in contact with solids, either. Other x-ray detectors are also protected, and have been used, as I mentioned.



    The plastic cover on the film is highly permeable to hydrogen. The hypering of regular film occurs through the plastic support of the silver nitrate crystals that when developed give the image. The bubbles are either pure of mixed hydrogen, which will adhere to the plastic and diffuse throughout the piece of film.

  • I could give you a references to peer-reviewed papers from the best labs in the world, but you would deny I gave you anything.


    Really? What proof of that do you have?



    You would continue to claim that I have made an assertion without evidence. That's how you roll.


    If you post the ref here, you would be covered. Unless you wait a year or so and then try to claim I missed something. Then you would again need to cite a ref, which would simply be to the post where you pointed to the paper. Your claims here are ridiculous on the face of it.

  • Kirk, you have to remember that providing references to the claims that Jed makes constitutes "spoon-feeding". When he asserts something, you either accept it as gospel or begin a research project to find it somewhere in the literature. That way he never actually has to provide any justification for the things he says but instead blows you off saying you wouldn't read it anyway. Google "passive-aggressive behavior" to learn more about about this.


  • This is Storms ICCF21 video presentation, when he talks about he and Scanlon's strange radiation findings:



    Start at 24:55.

  • The hydrogen contamination hypothesis fails for a number of reasons, which should be obvious to anyone who reads the literature. * For example, the same pattern of radiation is seen in multiple x-rays, and the anode wires, which are between the x-ray film and the cathode, block the x-rays, in a clear pattern.





    * But of course Shanahan and other skeptics never read the literature, and even when I point this out, they will never acknowledge it.

  • you either accept it as gospel or begin a research project to find it somewhere in the literature

    A research project anyone can complete in less than a minute thanks to Google in the search box at the top of LENR-CANR.org. Try looking up "x-ray detector," "autoradiograph," "NaI" or any other relevant search term.


    But you will not do this, and then you will blame me. Even if I tell you exactly what to read and where to go, you will refuse to do it. I know your games. I will not play them.

  • A research project anyone can complete in less than a minute thanks to Google in the search box at the top of LENR-CANR.org. Try looking up "x-ray detector," "autoradiograph," "NaI" or any other relevant search term.

    Let me add that McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein wrote reviews organizing dozens of papers -- reviews featured at LENR-CANR.org. I indexed and organized the papers to a fare-thee-well and put all of the abstracts in a single file.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…_id=455#MaterialSubmitted


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081


    http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm


    Up to a thousand people a day find papers with no trouble, and no help from me. But alas, poor Interested Observer is incapable of reading a review or typing a search term. He is helpless. He can only kvetch, moan and weep that I refuse to help him, and that I keep the information secret.

  • Strange radiation effects are discussed to some degree at ECW. Shishkin as an expert in radiation damage,detection and protection is the most credible source


    https://e-catworld.com/2018/03…-detectors-russian-paper/


    first embedded video is titled "About danger of working with LENR reactors", among other things is the claim that strange radiation can carry an energy in GeV range, to a short distance from the reactor though.


    at least Shishkin was trying to commission a study on rats. What Simon Brink describes as a symptoms are consistent with aging and other than radiation factors. I myself can claim to have experienced all of those symptoms almost every morning, since I turned 45, before I have 2-3 cups of coffee.

  • the same pattern of radiation is seen in multiple x-rays


    Actually, if you take all the reports, it isn't. What does show a 'recurring' pattern is the work of Szpak, et al, when they are studying their codeposited Pd on Ni wire mesh cathode. Then, the images show the basic structure of the mesh. This could come from emitted xrays, but


    X-ray film is sensitized by exposure to hydrogen (the technique is called 'hypering') and is sensitive to heat.


    the mesh is also hot, which would 'expose' the film also. So, once again, two explanations one mundane, one earth-shattering. The 'good' scientist's response is 'we need more definitive data'.


    The remaining reports are just smudges on the film (with the one exception of the BARC case I mentioned in my prior referenced posts), and you have to look at the actual method used. Sometimes the film is actually not immersed.


    and the anode wires, which are between the x-ray film and the cathode, block the x-rays, in a clear pattern.


    ...which would also be true for heat exposure by the cathode mesh...

  • Try looking up "x-ray detector," "autoradiograph," "NaI" or any other relevant search term.


    A quick perusal of these refs/links using the search function for the terms suggested, plus a couple more:


    #1) 'film' 0 hits, 'x-ray' 0, 'xray' 0, 'radiation' 2 (both generic comments, no details), 'detector' 0, 'autorad' 0, 'NaI' 0

    This is a 15 page summary paper by McKubre.


    #2) 'film' 11 hits (only 2 relate to x-ray film), 'x-ray' 23, 'x-rad' 2, 'xray' 0, 'radiation 87, 'detector' 15 , 'autorad' 1 (related to T), 'NaI' 1

    This reference is a 52 page 'tutorial' by Ed Storms and as such doesn't give details that would develop confidence in and of themselves, the references must be consulted.


    'detector' included: CR-39, T. n. beta. as well as a couple for xrays, 3 of the refs were in titles of referenced papers.

    I did not search all the 'radiation' hits


    #3) 'film' 2 hits, 'x-' 2, 'x-rad' 0, 'rad 4 (Faraday, Faradaic, Colorado, 'Radiat.' as part of a journal title) , 'detector' 0, 'auto' 0, 'NaI' 0

    This ref is a list of info supplied to the DOE during the 2004 re-review of CF


    #4) did not search - a link to Jed's library search page, non-specific


    #5) Jed's complete bibliography of 4512 papers.


    'film' 253 hits, 'x-ray' 416, 'x-' 438, 'radiation 2 (both generic comments, no details), 'detector' 236, 'autorad' 21, 'photographic' 7 (4 refs) One was from 2015 by a Fredricks who talks about magnetic monopoles and FTL particles, which leads me to believe this is not relevant to x-ray detection y film. One was by McKubre but discussed photgraphs from ICCF conferences, i.e. not relevant. Another was to the Szpak work. Last one was an ICCF8 paper by Yamada - might look into that.




    Net conclusion: JR was as unhelpful as always.



    Edit: So I looked at Yamada. Massive issues with the reported work and conclusions. I'm not going to give details unless someone besides trolls wants it.

  • the mesh is also hot, which would 'expose' the film also.

    No, that is impossible. A hot mesh cannot cause x-ray film to show sharply delineated shadows (no exposure) where the mesh is. This is impossible for other reasons:


    The x-rays show up on other films inserted into the same cell with the same pattern, and on external x-ray film, and with other x-ray detectors. They show up on two films, one placed behind the other, in the same pattern. (The one behind is attenuated.)


    The x-rays never appear with control tests such as Pt-H or Pd-H. They only appear when there is anomalous excess heat, which is only generated with Pd-D and specific electrochemical conditions. It is not possible this choice of materials and these conditions cause x-ray film to show images in the absence of x-rays.