Woodpecker, proof of concept

Shane D.

It appears I hadn't watched that video yet, thanks for the reference. The normal reaction while it's operating already turns off under the present conditions about 100 times per second, but I guess that leaving the anode out of the jar is a different type of turning off, if anything because the absence of jar walls and water surrounding the anode is going to allow any anomalously emitted nuclear particles (if present) to more easily reach other materials. Getting the active material (I'm assuming it is) out of the reaction environment immediately after using it is not something that has been done often in LENR experiments.

I was simply surprised (and actually somewhat concerned for a short while), when I returned back to the room about 30 minutes later to see significantly higher values than when I left it. I expected to see it start decaying as it did earlier instead, but then in retrospect this is not something that has never been reported before either: perhaps it could be considered a form of "heat after death".

Here are the two runs of yesterday in graphed form. I think it can now be safely ruled out to be the result of random coincidental events.

I've also attached a zipped CSV file with the data. The columns are [UTC timestamp], [total counts since the logger was last reset] and [counts since the last sample].

* * *

EDIT: the next step will be replacing the failing mild steel washer anode electrode tip with one made of nickel silver (60% copper, 20% nickel and 20% zinc) to see if any positive change arises. In the poorly made photos below it can be seen how worn it is. I thought of rotating it to use a less worn portion, but why not try something else instead?

* * *

EDIT #2: Some properties of nickel silver:

• https://fiskalloy.com/product/c752/

Apparently it starts melting at about 1960 °F (1071 °C) which is quite low compared to steel (about 1400 °C). It's possible that it might not work as well because of this, or wear up too quickly.

I'm trying the CuNiZn anode tip, but it doesn't seem to work as well as the steel tip, or at least it seems to build up the reaction (?) slower and to more easily cause welding issues due to its lower melting point (I'm guessing). However after insisting for a while with the usual protocol it seems it is causing similar Geiger count increases. Material doesn't seem to be depositing on it at the same rate as the steel tip did, and erosion seems slower as well.

In this precise moment it's not operating. It's resting outside the jar cooling off; Geiger counts are slowly increasing but I expect it will eventually start decaying.

One interesting thing is that the sparks were now markedly violet-pink, but on camera they look blue.

Preparations

• Using CuNiZn anode tip
  • In the process much of the deposited particles on the anode fell off
• Restored Lego Brick in front of Geiger tube
• Replaced clamp meter batteries

Log

• [2019-07-05 11:59:05] Turned on PSU
• [2019-07-05 12:02:53] Dropped anode into PSU
  • Current 16-19A
• [2019-07-05 12:04:10] Sparks appear violet in color
• [2019-07-05 12:06:27] Changed orientation of anode inside the jar
  • I noticed that it tends to stick and weld
• [2019-07-05 12:10:03] Sparks on camera look blue while in person they look violet
• [2019-07-05 12:10:56] Removed anode from jar
• [2019-07-05 12:12:59] Refilled some distilled water
• [2019-07-05 12:13:41] Dropped anode into jar
  • Current 15-19.5A
  • Sparks look bright violet
• [2019-07-05 12:18:15] Removed anode from jar
  • Geiger counts low
• [2019-07-05 12:21:04] Dropped anode into jar
  • Current 13-15.5A
• [2019-07-05 12:25:31] Removed anode from jar
  • Depositon does not seem to occur as much as before with the steel tip
• [2019-07-05 12:29:06] Dropped anode into jar
  • Earlier, 100 CPM peak
  • Initial current 17a
• [2019-07-05 12:29:55] Changed anode orientation and now it's noisier
• [2019-07-05 12:35:34] Removed anode from jar
  • Still very limited deposition occurring, if any at all
• [2019-07-05 12:38:56] Making the cell cool down a bit
• [2019-07-05 12:39:22] 112 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 12:41:19] Dropped anode into jar
• [2019-07-05 12:42:17] Changed orientation so that current draw would be slightly lower
• [2019-07-05 12:46:06] Removed anode from jar
• [2019-07-05 12:50:11] Dropped anode into jar
• [2019-07-05 12:50:56] 109 CPM peak
  • Water making boiling noise also?
• [2019-07-05 12:55:42] Removed anode from jar
  • I noticed that compared to the steel tip there seem to be less crackling noises in general
• [2019-07-05 13:02:33] Dropped anode into jar
  • 16-18A
• [2019-07-05 13:03:36] 103 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 13:03:59] 107 CPM
• [2019-07-05 13:11:55] Removed anode from jar
  • It seems as if holding it vertically while it's operating so that it doesn't completely rest on its own weight helps making it operate better, with apparently a higher Geiger count while the discharges are occurring. However it overall still seems to perform worse than the steel tip.
  • Very limited deposition occurring
• [2019-07-05 13:14:11] 112 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 13:17:29] Dropped anode into jar
• [2019-07-05 13:23:10] Made the anode swipe the cathode on multiple angles, apparently temporarily causing higher Geiger readings
• [2019-07-05 13:24:08] Removed anode from jar
• [2019-07-05 13:24:32] 114 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 13:28:13] Dropped anode into jar
• [2019-07-05 13:31:46] Removed anode from jar
• [2019-07-05 13:33:31] 106 CPM
• [2019-07-05 13:35:06] 129 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 13:37:07] Dropped anode into jar
  • 18.5A
  • 108 CPM
• [2019-07-05 13:40:48] It's operating intermittently, erratically for some reason
• [2019-07-05 13:42:22] 119 CPM
• [2019-07-05 13:42:49] Water is boiling
  • Probably the reason why it is operating erratically
• [2019-07-05 13:44:28] Removed anode from jar
• [2019-07-05 13:45:48] Allowing it to cool down and rest
• [2019-07-05 13:51:35] 112 CPM peak
• [2019-07-05 14:04:48] 119 CPM peak

* * *

EDIT 13:40 UTC: it's not stopping yet even though it's been a while since I removed the anode from the jar. Geiger counts are also progressing differently than they previously did with the steel anode tip.

Wyttenbach

During the last testing session I did log times at which I dropped/removed the anode from the jar, but they aren't accurate to the second. Up to about 30 seconds could pass before I would add a log entry. Anyway, I tried graphing what you asked. Red=in, Blue=out (EDIT: changed the graph to raw 10-second data).

In any case, the slow-starting CuNiZn-anode tip experiment is still going on strongly even though I haven't touched anything and actually the signal increased. The anode is still lying on the plastic support (screwdriver) that can be seen in the previous photos, with the PSU still on and the fans running, but no current is flowing across the electrodes. I changed graph colors for improved readability.

I'm almost starting to wonder if I should get worried, or think of strategies to disable it ...?

EDIT: here's photo showing CEST time, and [faintly] 144 CPM on the Geiger counter in the background:

Wyttenbach

The rate of increase was what got me thinking. It has since slowed down and scaled back a bit, but as of writing it has started increasing like it previously was. The cell is still turned off except for the fans. I have to point out that light water was used; no deuterium added except for what was naturally present in it.

I can use a seconds-based indexing, but it's inconvenient for me to use as I want to preserve timestamp information, keep data from different sources consistent and making it easier to present/share. Furthermore I need to keep the graph-generating code (Python+Pandas+Matplotlib) maintainable. I invested some time in doing that, so in theory I could switch without loss of information between the two forms.

So, here's your previous graph with elapsed seconds:

The signal keeps increasing in a sort of stepwise fashion. Here are the latest bumps with elapsed seconds and, for more context, almost the entire dataset (the interesting part, at least) with timestamps—also a demonstration of the possibility of relatively quickly switching between the two time indexing methods.

I've made a short video of a CPM peak I happened to see in real-time from the Geiger counter

Still going on strongly, although it didn't keep increasing to very high values through the European night. Of course the cell is still turned off except for the fans.

For what it's worth, at 02:26 UTC I switched Geiger counter USB power to the laptop PC instead of a USB wall charger (losing track of about 10-12 counts in the quick process). That was the only possible obvious artifact source that I could think of. I expected an immediate (step-wise) downward change to the signal if a power supply-caused artifact was present, but none has been observed after doing this.

Attached CSV data.

Alan Smith

Not possible right now; within a few hours that might be possible but I wanted to avoid physically altering the setup. Perhaps I might be able to find a 500W halogen lamp lying around, but I can't guarantee that.

I tried shooting several times the flashlamp of a Nikon E5700 digital photocamera about 10-15 minutes ago (as of writing), but that didn't seem to have any significant effect. I could try a stronger flashlamp, but I'm not sure if it's compatible with this photocamera.

* * *

EDIT #1: I've been asked:

Quote

Could EM ripple or airflow from the fans be stimulating the effect - have you tried not having the fans on?

In previous instances with the steel anode electrode tip I waited for the signal to subside before turning off the PSU (and thus the fans which are connected to it), but that didn't seem to stimulate anything further.

One further thing to point out is that although current isn't flowing through the electrodes, the anode is still at a +12V potential and that could be doing something, but again that didn't seem to produce any extra effect in previous tests.

For this run I wanted to reproduce the same testing conditions as before; once it returns to background and I'll do another, I'll try turning the PSU off completely if the same long-lasting effects will show again.

Quote from Bruce__H

A remote possibility is that the unusual electrical currents you are generating could could be building up potentials at wiring interfaces in the counter. One way to address this is to show that a shield temporarily introduced between the anode and the counter would temporarily reduce the counts.

I tried adding a temporary Al shield at 14:55 UTC. However it's not clear at all that the anode is actually the source of the signal measured by the Geiger counter (i.e. that it's directly emitting gammas measured by the Geiger counter).

Quote from Bruce__H

A bit off topic ... but whatever happened to the diurnal fluctuations in background CPM that you used to have? Did all that stuff ever resolve into a coherent story?

They eventually disappeared. In the recent long background Geiger readings, done after a few months of experimental inactivity, I haven't seen that anymore. However, it appears that some sort of periodic fluctuation has appeared again following the recent testing, although on a shorter than diurnal basis for now. I wonder if the one I used to see was part of a residual signal from testing performed before acquiring the Geiger counter.

The fluctuations occurring here after about 2019-07-06 12:00 aren't due to me operating the cell:

The dashed vertical lines are respectively:

• Changed Geiger USB port
• Temporarily removed anode and put it under direct sunlight for 3 minutes
• Temporarily opened room window shutters to let strong indirect light in
• Temporarily added Al shield around anode under suggestion of Bruce__H

Quote from Alan Smith

I am curious to see if direct sunlight affects the count-rate.

I did some related testing with inconclusive results.

• At about 10:26 UTC I disassembled and then exposed the anode (assumed to be emitting nuclear particles of some sort, but it might not necessarily be the case) to direct sunlight for about 3 minutes outdoors, then put it to the exact same orientation and location as before.
  • Some of the deposited particles fell off and coated my fingers, which felt slightly uncomfortable afterwards.
  • No immediate change noted in the logged Geiger counts, which could indicate that the anode isn't the direct origin of the signal recorded by the counter.
  • I wanted to try a stronger flashlamp than one I used earlier from a Nikon E5700 before doing this, but the device didn't work at all; I thought I had a 500W halogen lamp laying around to also try in substitution to sunlight exposure, but I couldn't manage to find it.
• At 13:30 UTC I opened the room's window shutters to let intense diffuse light through frosted glass window panes but it didn't seem to affect significantly the experiment. Direct sunlight exposure cannot be achieved without physically altering the setup.
  • Possibly a slight signal decrease followed afterwards, but it could have been coincidental.
  • The shutters are normally closed in this period to avoid rendering the room a greenhouse.

Quote from Bruce__H

How about shielding the geiger unit itself? I just wonder if the exotic emf environment you are creating is somehow creating potentials that wax and wane inside the electronics of your measurement equipment.

That will be for a future test, I don't want to move or potentially affect parts of the setup that will be difficult to place in the exact same position afterwards. Alan Smith has the same counters and they do not seem to be easily affected by electromagnetic interference. Again I have to point out that no current is being passed through the electrodes, although the anode is at +12V potential right now.

See from minute 1:52 here:

Quote from Bruce__H

P.S. After viewing the results of placing shielding around the anode ... do you now think that the anode is excluded as the source of the signal?

If the anode is emitting neutrons or other penetrating nuclear particles, what the Geiger counter is measuring could be emissions from the activation of nearby materials. In any case, the signal increased after placing the Al shielding at a close distance. Of course, it could be coincidental.

Bruce__H

Actually I eventually did that, in a way. I put the previously used Al foil in an A4-size paper sheet so that it would not conduct electricity and placed it behind/below the Geiger counter and its GM tube without touching nor moving it.

And the result was that counts quickly further increased, reaching their highest values so far:

Last events / dashed vertical lines:

• 2019-07-06 17:33:00 UTC: Removed the Al shielding around the anode, closed room window shutters
• 2019-07-06 18:45:00 UTC: Placed paper-covered Al shielding behind and slightly below the GM tube in the Geiger counter

Wyttenbach

That's what I suspect, actually. I think I have produced what Holmlid interprets as ultra-dense hydrogen and that this I'm observing the spontaneous signal from its decay from nearby muon-activated materials. So it's possible that at the moment I might be seeing mostly the progressively higher activation of Al, and that the signal I was previously seeing was mostly from the steel plate from the computer case behind the Geiger counter. However to be sure I'd need at least another Geiger counter and ideally a gamma spectrometer.

The table below in http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.035504 could be relevant.

As of now the reaction appears to have plateau'd a bit, so I'm considering making a video showing the real-time difference that will occur after removing the Al-containing paper from behind the Geiger counter. I haven't decided yet though.

Short test made for Bob Greenyer.

• At [2019-07-06 23:55:15 UTC] I turned the PSU off
• At [2019-07-07 00:10:33 UTC] I turned the PSU back on (about 15 minutes later)

Turning the PSU off did not appear to affect the signal significantly, but turning it back on seemed to cause an immediate slight step-wise decrease.

With the PSU on under present conditions with the anode besides (outside) the jar, current is not flowing through the electrodes, but the anode still has a +12V voltage applied to it. There is a possibility that this voltage could be affecting hydrogen desorption processes from it, among other things.

With the PSU turned on, two computer fans (140 and 120 mm) are also running at full speed; one of them can be seen in the video. They were intended to cool down the jar and coil during and immediately after high-current spark discharges (12-16A), allowing longer active run times and shorter recovery times, but since I've been getting interesting Geiger data with them turned on all along I didn't want to turn them off just yet.