I have noted, for instance, that the spectra at 280C and 350C shown in Figure 1 are far too similar .
These are not spectra -- delta!! ... When will you learn it??? The background is always the same....And it is a fraction of the total spectrum. As said you are a visitor only...
May be once you should explain us why you are going on asking your questions despite everything is answered in the text?
Perhaps a wellintentioned Bruce-H knows this technology to be so important that he wants
to keep atomecology as top of the pops in LF..
On the other hand a not so clever and not so wellintentioned Bruce-H may not be clever enough to realise that to the
unbiased reader much of his persistent questioning represents badgering.
either way..thanks for answering the questions Wyttenbach
the Bangalore people Ramarao et al never asked any questions
they just read your papers
they took the samarium advice ran with it and are still running with it
next on their list is gadolinium
These are not spectra -- delta!! ... When will you learn it??? The background is always the same....And it is a fraction of the total spectrum. As said you are a visitor only...
I will take another crack at making a technical point that I don't think you have understood. In doing this I will make sure to call the data in Figure 1 "background-subtracted" spectra instead of just spectra.
When I say that the background-subtracted spectra are too similar what I mean is that there should be Poisson noise accompanying both measurements. This is stochastic noise arising from the probabilistic nature of radioactive decay. It has nothing to do with "background" that you see in the full spectra and cannot be removed by background subtraction. For instance, suppose you expect to see 25 event counts in a particular bin (i.e., energy level) of the full spectrum. Because of the probabilistic nature of decay you are unlikely to measure 25 counts every time you take a sample. Instead, in theory, the count will vary around 25 with a standard deviation of sqrt(25) = 5 counts. Now, let's say that the background for this bin is measured at 10 counts over your sampling duration. Background subtraction will now lead to counts varying around 15 in the bin, but with the same standard deviation. The background subtraction has removed a stable background signal (which you have been calling noise) but it has not removed the expected Poisson noise.
Now think about Figure 1 of your ResearchGate manuscript. Let's suppose that the particular bin we are considering was centred on, say, 76.2 keV. And let's further suppose that the nature of your fuel is such that the gamma radiation emitted at this energy is totally unaffected by temperature. Under these ideal circumstances we would still expect to see substantial variation (standard deviation 5 counts) between background-subtracted spectra at the 2 temperatures. I see nothing like this level of variability in your Figure 1. Instead, bin occupancies at almost all energies are much much more similar than this. That is extraordinarily unlikely.
I encourage you to consult someone whose knowledge you trust on the subject of Poisson noise in spectra like these.
This is stochastic noise arising from the probabilistic nature of radioactive decay.
What is the Poisson fluctuation for 2000 signals/second? +- 10, 20? Now check the percentage for the signal source. Then average for 600 seconds
I think you do not like reality...
What is the Poisson fluctuation for 2000 signals/second? +- 10, 20? Now check the percentage for the signal source. Then average for 600 seconds
Why 2000 signals per second? The Poisson noise scales with counts at the detector. In this case it is also to be calculated per bin.
Over 600 seconds it looks like you are recording 10-100 counts per bin so the Poisson noise is expected to be something like 3 -10 counts per bin.
Over 600 seconds it looks like you are recording 10-100 counts per bin so the Poisson noise is expected to be something like 3 -10 counts per bin.
You still don't get it. It's basic math. Noise is a source issue. If you average noise over time then it cancels out...
May be once in your live open a physics book and try to find a table with gamma energies...No noise at all....
I am unable to persuade Wyttenbach on the Poisson noise issue, so I will move on to other concerns I have about his ResearchGate manuscript.
Just eyeballing the background spectrum shown in Figure 1, and the background-subtracted spectra in Figure 2, it appears to me that there are many many energy levels where the counts seem to have a good chance of being significantly above background (as judged by the criteria that Wyttenbach's uses). We are dealing with a very messy spectrum here!
Wyttenbach takes this messy spectrum and goes fishing for spectral lines that his theory predicts should be there. He finds them, and says that this lends empirical support to his theory. But given the messiness of the spectrum, with elevated counts in all sorts of bins, it is natural to wonder about the specificity of this claim. If completely different sets of predicted lines were searched for, wouldn't they also be found? I don't see anywhere in the manuscript where this is considered of even acknowledged as a problem.
One way to respond to my objection would be to use Wyttenbach's line-searching algorithm to go searching for randomly chosen lines. Use a random number generator (instead of Wyttenbach's theories) to generate line predictions and then see how often the algorithm finds a corresponding peak. You could actually build a sort of sampling distribution here the using random prediction as the null hypothesis. If Wyttenbach says he has found 80 lines in his datasets, then generate 80 randomly predicted lines and let the peak finding algorithm work away on them. Keep track of how may peaks are successfully found (out of the 80 predicted). Now repeat that procedure 1000 times (i.e., 1000 sets of 80 predictions followed by 1000 algorithmic searches for the predicted lines). You will end up with a distribution showing the probability of finding x successes in sets of 80 random predictions. The actual results from Wyttenbach's study would have to end up somewhere out in the tail of the distribution in order for his theory to be generating successful predictions by more than chance.
Wyttenbach takes this messy spectrum and goes fishing for spectral lines that his theory predicts should be there.
I think you suffer from some mental problems.
I do not think that these lines must be there because of the theory. These lines have been measured. We had more than a dozen fuels where we just did see the magnetic lines only, that have been predicted as the only possible solution of the magnetic resonant energy transfer.
Here (paper) it is quite different with the majority of lines being non magnetic lines but obviously your skills are to low to follow a physics paper or you are fixed on some weird wish to find some problems you would like to see...
As said first learn that gamma energies (levels) have no Poisson distribution. Only the measurement produces some noise like effects that causes signal broadening. The source process for gamma quanta is random and leads to an exponential distribution or a constant rate for a given set of parameters. Only for a very low number of atoms/processes there is a kind of Poisson distribution - but only in radioactive decay not in stimulated gamma emission. Here, in our case, the event constant typically is fs ..ms and not random at all...
Because we did see about 10W at least you should be able to calculate the number of events to produce 10W.
I would like the moderators to consider removing ad hominem attacks when they crop up here.
. Science is full of passionate weirdos like Wyttenbach
ad hominem attacks
hmm? " passionate wierdo"?
I not sure whether there is an underlying motivation for the persistent questioning??
...and then there are the allegations slipped in with purported scientific curiousity
messy spectrum and goes fishing
"goes fishing"
Perhaps BruceH is " fishing" for a reaction,, perhaps this is vexatious?
Bruce,,, you have Wytt's answer on Poisson...address that
or fish for another poisson?
"
Because we did see about 10W at least you should be able to calculate the number of events to produce 10W.
Because we did see about 10W at least you should be able to calculate the number of events to produce 10W.
Millions?
Millions?
flyby? Has P read one page of the 20 pages yet?
I would like the moderators to consider removing ad hominem attacks when they crop up here.
I would imagine most researchers being questioned on something they have put so much effort into get a little prickly. So IMO it is part of the review process. And really, he has not been all that insulting by his standards.
Plus...you and Wyttenbach have been going back and forth for years now, so I see it more as something for you two to deal with.
he has not been all that insulting by his standards.
"wierdo"????????? Bruce-H (harmony)'s standard?
flyby? Has P read one page of the 20 pages yet?
Fly by this:
A 50 keV hand held XRF fires about 2 million counts per second of x-rays in a columnated beam less than 1 cm in diameter, and causes no noticeable heating over 3 minutes when fired into one location 1 cm away.
There is a lot of nonsense in print, and I only have so much time.
P have you found time to read the paper here?
after that consider this
"
The key to getting the answers you’re looking for is to keep your questions informative and concise. Always keep in mind that Q&A is where you engage with other scientists on a professional level. Here are a few tips to get the best answers:
I do not think that these lines must be there because of the theory. These lines have been measured.
Upon reading your manuscript, it was my understanding that your procedure in these studies was to predict certain reactions based on the makeup of the fuel pellets, and then look in the spectra at corresponding energies to see if those bins were sufficiently above background. Is that wrong?
What was your procedure?
What was your procedure?
Initially we just did look for the lines/excited cascades that must show up. But in this unique experiment more than 50% of the lines had an other origin not yet seen before.
This paper is about new LENR reactions nobody so far could measure and all lines finally had to be confirmed by manual lookup...
Magnetic excited lines are a physical fact that I already reported in Assisi. Many researchers are now aware of this effect.
Initially we just did look for the lines/excited cascades that must show up. But in this unique experiment more than 50% of the lines had an other origin not yet seen before.
This paper is about new LENR reactions nobody so far could measure and all lines finally had to be confirmed by manual lookup
So ... of the new lines you detected, how many could be assigned to LENR reactions? Are the sequences shown in, for instance 5.4.2 of the manuscript exclusively the ones corresponding to these new lines?
