Does LENR produce plasmoids + harmful radiations?

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

The plastic cover on the film is highly permeable to hydrogen.

No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that. Solid state detectors and other devices are also not susceptible to such problems.

Quote from JedRothwell

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?

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Really? What proof of that do you have?

Do your own homework. You will never acknowledge anything from me, or read anything I point to, so I will give you nothing.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that.

Sometimes...if they know to look.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that. Solid state detectors and other devices are also not susceptible to such problems.

Might be true, might not. Got a reference to where they were used and where they were checked for interferences from the experiment?

BTW, for those folks who think I make this stuff up...

Quote from kirkshanahan

something that he has been corrected on multiple times here and elsewhere

Validity of LENR Science...[split]

The Playground

I also pointed this out back on spf years ago...

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.

@IO

It falls under the category of "doing what I say others should do..."

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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

Quote from kirkshanahan

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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...

Quote from JedRothwell

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

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

I should mention there are some studies with x-ray film outside the cell, such as:

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

Quote from kirkshanahan

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.