The church of SM physics

Quote from Bruce__H

I though this would be the case too. But here is the background spectrum Wyttenbach posted.

Remarkably smooth for a spectrum that has not been averaged! And the little wiggles that do appear here are no more than about 0.5 counts from peak to trough whereas the wiggles in the background spectra are about 4 times larger. So I don't think that this background account for features in the background-subtracted spectra.

Another thing I don't see in this background spectrum is the set of "most active discrete lines" that Wyttenbach describes in the text as 63.3, 92.4 and 92.8 keV. Wytttenbach has not provided a good explanation for this disappearance.

Display More

Due to the low counts per second with this system a background spectra takes a while to come into focus.
This is why I was wondering about channels and bins earlier. To get an idea of how much of a average is obtained over 10 minutes. I was also wondering how a more sensitive detector might work for background subtracting, but then normalization of CPS (CPM) becomes a probable point of argument.

Quote from Bruce__H

Are the features indicated by red lines examples of the sort of thing that you would identify as "grapes"? Or do you have something else in mind

?

Exactly.
They (or at least several strong ones) should line up with the usual background gamma energies. So the spectra can still be aligned with calibration energies (using the typical characteristic gammas) to ensure the spectra is not distorted or drifted for some reason, even after averaged background subtraction.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Due to the low counts per second with this system a background spectra takes a while to come into focus.
This is why I was wondering about channels and bins earlier. To get an idea of how much of a average is obtained over 10 minutes. I was also wondering how a more sensitive detector might work for background subtracting, but then normalization of CPS (CPM) becomes a probable point of argument.

It is my understanding that the background spectrum Wyttenbach shows is in raw counts and is not averaged in any way. What is being reported here is supposed to be the number of counts in each bin after 10 minutes.

When I asked Wyttenback a while ago about the absence of the discrete lines that he claims are supposed to be visible in the background, he said that to see them you would have to sample for much longer. To my mind, this does not fit with what is shown in his Fig 2. In that background (replicated again below), very little Poisson noise is evident even though the bin counts are low. A longer sampling period would not bring out lines that are somehow hidden by noise because there is already almost no noise.

Quote from Bruce__H

It is my understanding that the background spectrum Wyttenbach shows is in raw counts and is not averaged in any way. What is being reported here is supposed to be the number of counts in each bin after 10 minutes.

When I asked Wyttenback a while ago about the absence of the discrete lines that he claims are supposed to be visible in the background, he said that to see them you would have to sample for much longer. To my mind, this does not fit with what is shown in his Fig 2. In that background (replicated again below), very little Poisson noise is evident even though the bin counts are low. A longer sampling period would not bring out lines that are somehow hidden by noise because there is already almost no noise.

Oh, well then of course the common background characteristic lines/humps should appear.

They should show up nearly right away, and should fairly quickly resolve to a peak, while the rest of the scatter energies will slowly fill in the remainder of the spectra, sort of randomly.

A background prepared for subtraction would have to be averaged or otherwise normalized, otherwise a 10 minute (for example) background cumulative count would be several times larger or smaller than the experiment count (unless it is the same period, in which case it should nearly erase all of the counts of the experiment spectra as one might generally hope).

Quote from Wyttenbach

You have to join the maxima of many backgrounds.

What does this mean? How do you "join the maxima of many backgrounds"?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Oh, well then of course the common background characteristic lines/humps should appear.

They should show up nearly right away, and should fairly quickly resolve to a peak, while the rest of the scatter energies will slowly fill in the remainder of the spectra, sort of randomly.

Absolutely correct in my view. This is exactly what I would expect. It isn't what Wyttenbach seems to describe, however.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

A background prepared for subtraction would have to be averaged or otherwise normalized, otherwise a 10 minute (for example) background cumulative count would be several times larger or smaller than the experiment count (unless it is the same period, in which case it should nearly erase all of the counts of the experiment spectra as one might generally hope).

Wyttenbach and George say that all samples they analyzed were 10 minutes in duration.

Quote from Bruce__H

t is my understanding that the background spectrum

Bruce's understanding ,,, please reference from literature

eg

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1071/ASEG2001ab089

not from Brucespeak

Quote from Bruce__H

Wyttenbach and George say that all samples they analyzed were 10 minutes in duration.

Then in that case any two total cumulative count per bin/channel backgrounds should very nearly cancel each out when one is inverted, most of the time. The most ideal sampling period would be where the most cases of any two background spectra are almost completely cancelling each other out as close as possible, within the shortest reasonable time, occur. Maybe it’s 10 minutes, maybe 30 is better with this arrangement. That would have to be experimented with a bit. Too long is a time waster, too short adds uncertainty.

Quote from Bruce__H

It is my understanding that the background spectrum Wyttenbach shows is in raw counts and is not averaged in any way. What is being reported here is supposed to be the number of counts in each bin after 10 minutes.

When I asked Wyttenback a while ago about the absence of the discrete lines that he claims are supposed to be visible in the background, he said that to see them you would have to sample for much longer. To my mind, this does not fit with what is shown in his Fig 2. In that background (replicated again below), very little Poisson noise is evident even though the bin counts are low. A longer sampling period would not bring out lines that are somehow hidden by noise because there is already almost no noise.

If this is the number of counts per bin, and the y axis is counts, then what accounts for the partial (non whole number) counts?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If this is the number of counts per bin, and the y axis is counts, then what accounts for the partial (non whole number) counts?

Yup. Exactly.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You have to inspect the Theremino code if you want to have/understand all drawing details. As usual they try to smooth the curve. Some averaging is done by counting in the previous bucket and the follow up bucket.

No averaging is done unless you ask for it to be done using the Theremino menu*. It doesn't really look to me as though you have used the IIR filter that Theremino offers, but I suppose it could be the true. In any case, all this could be resolved if you make a new plot using what you call the bucket file or histogram. Why not do this for the background you show in Figure 2? Or you could post the actual file. It is trivial to plot it out.

*The same is true for log scaling on the axes ... it isn't done unless you ask for it.

It looks like I would expect it to.
For only about 8000 counts total it looks surprisingly like the right overall shape.

(I’m not looking closely at anything specific.)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It looks like I would expect it to.
For only about 8000 counts total it looks surprisingly like the right overall shape.

(I’m not looking closely at anything specific.)

Do you mean the overall shape of the background? Yes, it is what I would expect too -- except very little noise and no discrete lines.

I also note (as I think you might too have noticed) that the overall integrated number of counts shown is about right for about 10 cps for 10 minutes.

In the atom ecology paper is stated

"

Samarium shows a very interesting behavior, that possibly could be exploited for a stable energy production device. As the starting isotopes are reproduced after 4He spallation one can assume that under ideal conditions only the

2 2H → 4He reaction runs.

4He spallation also explains why rare earth are rare because starting with cerium the build up is slowed down."

"

Could this tendency of spallation cancelling out buildup reactions via 2H also apply to W ,

and heavier actinides such U,Th?

Download relative_abundance_of_chemical_elements.png image from www.periodni.com

Quote from Wyttenbach

As said: We had a classic British clay brick wall with high Thorium/Uranium content. This produces some discrete lines...

Of course we also have 3 hours backgrounds. We do research not wiki-science...

You are not describing your research well. You do not show the data you actually analyze, instead you show blurry figures that you claim are different, in a way you refuse to specify, from anything used to generate your results.

If you don't want to retract this manuscript, then improve it by making a good case for yourself instead of a poor one. Optimally, you should replace Figures 1 and 2 with ones that directly reflect what you call the "bucket" files or "histogram" files. These are the datasets you actually used when finding the spectral lines that you claim match your theories, so theses are the ones you should exhibit. It is trivially easy to do this. And it is important because you need to reassure your readers that your analysis has not resulted in simply assigning a multitude of separate peaks to random noise. Given your low bin counts and your explanations so far, it certainly seems as if this is likely.