Does LENR produce plasmoids + harmful radiations?

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.

Jed, there are I'm sure devices not susceptible to hydrogen permeation. But many devices are susceptible for example like standard metal oxide thermocouples which unless properly encapsulated are highly sensitive to reducing atmospheres. Even proper encapsulation is relative. The whole point about H (and to a lesser extent D) is that it can get through pretty well all solids - you need something pretty good like a thick metal container to reduce contamination from exposure for long periods.

Quote from Alan Smith

Overheated X-ray film only shows fogging and never in my experience a clear image of anything.

Back in 2001 or 2 when I first looked into this I took a Type 55 Polaroid film, which contains a positive and negative, and touched a hot soldering iron to it for 5, 10 and 20 seconds. The 5 second exposure did not show any image. The 10 and 20 sec exposure showed an oval exposed area. The 20 sec one was slightly bigger. Point is, it wasn't a 'fog', it was a clearly defined shape mimicing the iron tip.

So, in your experience, did you attempt to control the shape of the exposure?

Edit: BTW, most of the published images are exactly as you indicated. The exceptions are the Szpak stuff and the one BARC image that showed what look to me like diffraction spots.

BTW, what do you think a Optris camera is. Recall the 'dogbone' images? Film, which fogs with heat, would do the same thing. We're just digital these days.

Also, they made IR sensitive film. Gave really cool images...

https://thedarkroom.com/infrared-film-photography/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed, there are I'm sure devices not susceptible to hydrogen permeation. But many devices are susceptible for example like standard metal oxide thermocouples which unless properly encapsulated are highly sensitive to reducing atmospheres.

Since x-rays have been detected with devices external to the cell, and with devices other than x-ray film, this discussion is irrelevant. I believe in most cases the x-ray film was inserted in the electrolyte. (I have not counted the studies so I may be wrong about that.) However, there are enough examples of external detectors to be sure the hydrogen is not a problem. Such as:

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

Furthermore, as I said above, there is no chance hydrogen contamination could produce a sharp image of the anode where it blocks x-rays; or the same image in multiple films. There no chance hydrogen contamination only occurs with Pd-D and excess heat. As you pointed out, heat damage will not produce a sharp image of something like the anode (a shadow) or hot spots (a positive area).

Quote from kirkshanahan

Back in 2001 or 2 when I first looked into this I took a Type 55 Polaroid film, which contains a positive and negative, and touched a hot soldering iron to it for 5, 10 and 20 seconds.

This is irrelevant. The x-ray film never touches the anode or cathode, and they are nowhere near as hot as a soldering iron.

What has this to do with DC or the US DoS?

Edit: Oh wait, I get it...

Foggy Bottom was also the name of a line of beer by the Olde Heurich Brewing Company,

But doesn't that go over in the FP's Experiment thread?

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

It is just a matter of time before Interest Observer comes back kvetching, moaning and crying that I have here given him too much information. It is too much hard worrrrrrkkkk reading all that stuff! I can't understand it! I am not a professional! Make it eeeeeasy for me!

This is his shtick. First he complains that I demand you believe me without evidence, and that I am hiding the papers. Because I do not drop everything and jump to it to provide direct links every time he asks a question. (Never mind that he has never bothered to read any of the papers I pointed to -- it is my fault when I don't point to them immediately.) Then, as soon as I give him a specific paper, or a guide, a list of papers, or a way to find what he is looking for, he swings over to the opposite complaint and says I am giving him too much.

It is always my fault. It is never his job to search for anything, read anything, or think for himself.

Quote from JedRothwell

hydrogen contamination

Not hydrogen contamination, although one source of heat would be recombination of slowly released hydrogen, which is a characteristic of 'good' cold fusion Pd.

The 'hypering' is a chemical sensitization of the light detecting materials in the film emulsion, usually silver nitrate. All films had exposure-density curves, where the density I am speaking of is the density of the 'pixels' (nitrate crystals actually) in the exposed and developed image. The curves are usually a rough sigmoidal shape. The lower exposure end required more exposure per unit density response. The hypering technique shortens or removes that portion of the curve, so one gets immediate strong response to low level exposure by light. Since the films are heat sensitive too, low level heat would have the same effect.

And as I pointed out, heat can produce very sharp images. Just look at the Optris stuff. The only question is was there enough to 'expose' the hypered film.

Also, I'd like to reiterate that from my earliest involvement with the CF field, I have never claimed any expertise w.r.t. problems with radiation measuring instruments, so I have little to say on that aspect of the problem, which Jed now retreats to to support his beliefs. But I still think one should try to determine if such problems exist as opposed to just accepting (without any critical thinking) something that rewrites textbooks.

Quote from kirkshanahan

heat can produce very sharp images. Just look at the Optris stuff.

Although the Optris has a lens, so figures?

Quote from Zeus46

Although the Optris has a lens, so figures?

Agreed. But most of the xray film reports have the film positioned in the electrolyte right next to the electrode, so that leaves little room for dispersion over distance.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Not hydrogen contamination, although one source of heat would be recombination of slowly released hydrogen, which is a characteristic of 'good' cold fusion Pd.

Significant recombination never happens in an open cell. If it did, it would be readily detected after a few days because there would be more water left in the cell than expected. The amount that does occur produces heat at below milliwatt levels. That is to say, it produces thousands of times less than the heat from electrolysis, or anomalous heat when it occurs. There is no way such low levels of heat could affect x-ray film.

Complete recombination always happens in closed cells. Otherwise, the cells explode. It always happens above the waterline, and it never affects x-ray film. It does not affect x-ray film in the electrolyte, or outside the cell, and it does not affect any other type of x-ray detector. This is easily confirmed in blank runs with Pt-H and with Pd-D runs that fail to produce excess heat.

Quote from kirkshanahan

And as I pointed out, heat can produce very sharp images. Just look at the Optris stuff. The only question is was there enough to 'expose' the hypered film.

If this were a problem, why does it never happen with Pt-H and other control runs? Why does it only happen with Pd-D under certain well-defined electrochemical conditions when anomalous heat occurs? The anomalous heat cannot be the cause of it, because many cells are hotter in control runs with electrolysis heat only. (In other words, tests that do not produce excess power sometimes consume more power overall than the ones that produce excess heat plus input electrolysis power.)

Quote from JedRothwell

If this were a problem, why does it never happen with Pt-H and other control runs? Why does it only happen with Pd-D under certain well-defined electrochemical conditions when anomalous heat occurs? The anomalous heat cannot be the cause of it, because many cells are hotter in control runs with electrolysis heat only. (In other words, tests that do not produce excess power sometimes consume more power overall than the ones that produce excess heat plus input electrolysis power.)

In a 'normal' F&P electrolysis-type cell, there is no ATER. I would speculate that means the measured temperature is good for all parts of the cell, which means in IR space, everything is uniform, i.e., nothing to distinguish the cathode from the electrolyte from anything else in the vicinity. When ATER starts up, this produces a localized extra heat (not excess) that is transmitted through thermal conduction in the metal mesh, making it somewhat hotter than the electrolyte. Now one can distinguish differences in IR (heat) sensitive images. What the extent and duration of the heating is would be dependent on a lot of variables.

Note that a cell running hotter than one that shows anomalous excess heat is still thermally uniform, thus no image formation would result. It might be interesting to compare thermal fogging levels of different temp-time exposure profiles in non-AHE cells.

Quote from JedRothwell

Significant recombination never happens in an open cell.

This is the truism that the CF community holds onto for dear life. It isn't necessarily true. Just think of 'anomalous excess heat' as non-electrochemical recombination, and realize that this is the very issue I bring out with my publications in this field.

Quote from JedRothwell

If it did, it would be readily detected after a few days because there would be more water left in the cell than expected.

That statement has a couple of buried assumptions in it that I have pointed out many times. I believe the assumptions are incorrect. If someone could actually controllably reproduce the effect we might be able to prove that...

Quote from JedRothwell

The amount that does occur produces heat at below milliwatt levels. That is to say, it produces thousands of times less than the heat from electrolysis, or anomalous heat when it occurs. There is no way such low levels of heat could affect x-ray film.

There's that truism again, "It (recomb.) can't go above 2%.". Wrong. The amount of potential recombination heat is easily calculated. It is current in amps times the thermoneutral voltage (1.54V for D, 1.43 for H as I recall). We have been looking at F&P's 1992-3 paper recently in another thread. One common current value there is 0.5A, so that means 0.77 W or 770 mW potential recombination heat. Not "thousands of times less than the heat from electrolysis", that fraction is also easily calculated as the ratio of the thermoneutral voltage to the cell voltage. In the F&P that was in the 5-10V range as I recall, giving a %recomb range of 30-60%.

Quote from JedRothwell

Complete recombination always happens in closed cells. Otherwise, the cells explode.

No, not always. Check McKubre's papers, he reports recombiner failures due to getting electrolyte on them, which is why in the M series calorimeter (and perhaps others he built) he put a little cone-shaped barrier between the liquid level and the recombiner. And yes, when the recombiner stops working, the cells explode in some cases.

Quote from JedRothwell

It always happens above the waterline, and it never affects x-ray film. It does not affect x-ray film in the electrolyte,

No, ATER means 'at-the-electrode-recombination', which is below the waterline, and which certainly could affect film in the vivinity.

Quote from JedRothwell

... or outside the cell, and it does not affect any other type of x-ray detector. This is easily confirmed in blank runs with Pt-H and with Pd-D runs that fail to produce excess heat.

Outside the cell is a different issue, agreed. The Cellucci paper you referenced suggests such happens. I personally doubt their explanation but I don't feel like giving you more info to trash without any thought.

See my prior post above about 'blank' runs. Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

Enough from me on xray film. I haven't found any of it compelling. Others do. So someone solve the issue by closing the loop on a LENR device and brewing a cup of tea with LENR-heated water...

...says every skeptopath...

...says every critic who has beat their head against the CF/LENR wall trying to get a technically defensible response to his/her/its criticism for over 20 years...