The church of SM physics

I have questions about the 'New Path to Nucleosynthesis' posting on Research Gate.

First, from a very general perspective, is this work intended to be reproducible? Empirical findings should be reported in a way that an interested party could reproduce them if desired. I don't think that this work qualifies as it stands. Most acutely, the recipe for producing the pellets showing gamma activity is unspecified, and since all reported results follow from this they are all cast under suspicion.

Second, I have problems matching the observations described in the text and in Figure 3 with the data shown in Figures 1 and 2 ... and my task here is not helped by the poor quality of the figures themselves (labels are blurry, scales are unlabeled, etc). I suppose that Table 3 is supposed to show lines actually detected in spectra such as shown in Figure 1a and 1b, but in many cases I cannot detect any such lines (such as for the first 9 lines reported in Figure 3) or the match between reported lines and the data in Figure 1 is not clear. On the other hand, some of what I would have thought are the most prominent lines to be explained in the background subtracted spectra of Figure 1 (for instance near 71 keV) do not occur in the table depicted in Figure 3. Is this because they are not predicted? Or not sufficiently active to be listed in Figure 3? The one at 71 keV certainly seems highly active.

I even have trouble locating, in Figure 2, the features Wyttenbach and George, report as present in the lab background spectrum. In Section 2, (titled "Results of Spectroscopy") they say that "The most active discrete lines we see in the background are ... 63.3, 92.4, 92.8 keV" as well as others at 109.16 and 185.7 keV. I dont see any of these in Figure 2.

Overall, I think it would be a very good idea for the authors to show arrows on their spectra pointing to some of the features claimed to exist.

Finally, here is a comment that falls into the category of 'I'm not a spectroscopist but' .... Why are the down-pointing features in Figure 1 so much pointier and sharper that the up-pointing ones that are supposed to be discrete lines? I would have expected the opposite.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Reading the text below the figure (1) shows its a delta spectrum.

I understand that Figure 1 shows background-subtracted spectra. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In the text it is stated that you must look into the histogram file = 4000 (energy, value) pairs.

Where is the histogram file you speak of? Is it somewhere in your Research Gate post? How would the information in that file differ from what is displayed in Figure 1? Aren't the spectra in Figure 1 basically just visual displays of the histogram file?

Let's focus on some particular lines that your text suggests should appear in Figures 1 and 2. First let's look at the background spectrum shown in Figure 2. Your text indicates that at 63.3 keV I should see one of the "most active discrete" lines in the background spectrum. I don't see any particular discrete line at this position. What am I missing here? Next, let's look at the 380C spectrum in the bottom of Figure 1. I don't see any peaks below 25 keV and yet according to your text and the list in Figure 3 I should be seeing 6 peaks in this region. Not just that, but whereas the counts in the background-subtracted spectrum are all low (near zero?) the background counts in this region are all above 4 cps, so any identified peak would have to be at 12 cps of above and I definitely don't see that.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You never will get it. Make once your first gamma spectrum then we can start to discuss again.

I am asking questions about discrepancies I see between the results you describe and the figures contained in your Research Gate posting. I don't see the point of not answering. I expect that anyone seeing our conversation and then looking at the evidence you present would have the same questions. They are reasonable ones.

It is also a puzzle to me that the structure of the active spectra in your Figure 1 are so similar to background. Is this what is expected? Below I show (top) the 380 degree C trace from Figure 1 and (bottom) the background spectrum from Figure 2. I have attempted to fit both to the same horizontal scale and have made them both comparable in height to aid comparison. Their peaks are virtually the same.

" about discrepancies I see "

Bruce-H... I don't see any discrepancies.. but it required quite a bit of close reading..

I think that there may be a revision or two of the text somewhere in 2022..

This rock breaking research probably merits a few revisions to make it accessible

both to the elite and the dilettante hoipolloi

at the moment I am eliciting some feedback ( see @,) from a more eclectic group than the select elite on LF but this may take some time as I am busy executing a Tesla, an estate and ministering to some warring siblings who I feel like executing.I may even ask Iwamura San ...tachi .they have a gammaspectrometer... surely they have it up and running after 2-3 years..and Samarium is dirt cheap

I bought mine for about $5 ..as compared to Pd.

Rome wasn't built in a day but the halflife of Samarium 146 has come down to only 68 million years since 2012. (see@@ )below.

@Dear Dr Paul, Dr Kashiv I read with interest your and others downrevision of the samarium146 half life. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4805.pdf

You might be interested in groundbreaking research by a Swiss researcher, Wyttenbach,which strongly suggests that Samarium and other rare earths are subject to transmutation via exposure to hydrogen and deuterium at mild temperatures.

These transmutations do not require neutron and other kinetic particle bombardment.

Although the main and most significant focus of this research is on energy production from deuterium it does have implications for cosmology and geology, in particular rock dating via isotope clocks in garnets and zircons.
The assumption of no significant nucleosynthesis in Earth rocks may be flawed , especially in zones where H/D derived from water intrusion can reach rocks where anoxic,reduced conditions prevail."

@@ Based on analyses of 146Sm/147Sm alpha-activity and atom ratios, we

determined the half-life of 146Sm to be 68 ± 7 (1σ) million years (Ma), which is

shorter than the currently used value of 103 ± 5 Ma

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

in the case of F&P, Iwamura).

I am sure Iwamura has/will read with interest the groundbreaking text

F&P may have less interest??.

'Double 'layer is probably one of the many possible permutations of nanostructure that remain to be explored with experimental time and money.

Ideas are cheap

but experimental verification is not..

I will ask or attempt to ask Iwamura about it. after 2021..

unless someone else wants to..

also Mizuno.

robert bryant - nice to see you back on the ranch!

Quote from Bruce__H

It is also a puzzle to me that the structure of the active spectra in your Figure 1 are so similar to the background. Is this what is expected? Below I have show the 380 degree C trace in Figure 1 (top) and the background spectrum from Figure 2. I have attempted to fit them to the same horizontal scale and have made them both comparable in height to aid comparison. Their peaks are virtually the same.

FWIW, I used to subtract the background 3 or 4 x successively and see who’s left. Anything real would stick out like a sore thumb. NORM stuff, nothing exotic.

Quote from Alan Smith

nice to see you back on the ranch!

as of today both NZ and Oz are part of the UK FTZ

when I have my samarium reactor ready I may export it to the Cavendish.. not CERN.

Quote from RobertBryant

as of today both NZ and Oz are part of the UK FTZ

when I have my samarium reactor ready I may export it to the Cavendish.. not CERN.

Along with my close confidant, colleague, and fellow LF staffer, I add my sincere welcome to your return.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

FWIW, I used to subtract the background 3 or 4 x successively and see who’s left. Anything real would stick out like a sore thumb. NORM stuff, nothing exotic.

By subtracting backgrounds "successively" I think you mean the same as using a time-averaged background. I have done this too -- many times (but not with radiation). I assume (although it is not well described) that the background spectrum shown in Figure 2 of Wyttenbach and George's Research Gate post is time averaged.

robert bryant

I have a few hundred grams of SmCo magnet powder if you would like some.

Quote from Bruce__H

By subtracting backgrounds "successively" I think you mean the same as using a time-averaged background. I have done this too -- many times (but not with radiation). I assume (although it is not well described) that the background spectrum shown in Figure 2 of Wyttenbach and George's Research Gate post is time averaged.

I used to subtract a time-averaged background spectra, three or four times in a row from the new recorded spectrum. A single subtraction always just left a jagged miniature of the original. So we would do up to 3 more depending on how noisy the data was.

Edit: I thought you meant something else on first reading, so I clarified something that probably didn’t need it.

Quote from RobertBryant

Bruce-H... I don't see any discrepancies.. but it required quite a bit of close reading..

Well that is good then. How about remarking on some of the things I noted? For instance, although Wyttenbach and George say "The most active discrete lines we see in the background are 234Th (from 238U decay) lines at 63.3,92.4,92.8keV" I don't see anything like this in the background displayed in Figure 2. Is this not a discrepancy?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why not trying to read the text?!

I have. But the text is dense, extensive, and not easy to read. Are you saying that there is an explanation as to why the background subtracted spectrum is so similar to the background itself? Where is that part?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Short backgrounds are good to see bursts. That was the reason behind using multiple backgrounds to exclude background peaks as signals!

Why would a short background be particularly good for seeing a burst?

This, together with something you say in your Research Gate post -- i.e., "Long run backgrounds cannot be use to discriminate lines as possible bursts are hidden" -- makes me think that perhaps I haven't understood what you consider background. I would have thought that you would measure a background signal when the sample is not active, or perhaps with the spectrometer pointed in a different direction or otherwise arranged so as to exclude the active signal. How did you actually take your background data? This does not appear to be well explained in your RG post.