Continuing to discuss the data plots in Russ George's "Atom Ecology" blog. This time ... synchrony.
George claims that, at times, the activity in a fuel pellet in a particular reactor can fall into synchrony with activity from another fuel pellet in a separate reactor. The figure below is displayed as evidence of this (or at least that is my best guess). I also include the original caption (ltalics)
The behaviour of two cold fusion reactors thermal atomic ‘clocks’, started 02 May 2018 and faithfully still performing and displaying this behaviour like a pair of fine ‘Dutch’ clocks. They are electronically separated though perched on the same lab bench like Huygens clocks, and are repeatedly and randomly started and stopped, yet they always become synchronized. Sychronicity of anomalous heat production (cold fusion) is displayed in the fine structure in red while the black trace shows one ‘reactors’ gamma signature synchronizing with the disparate yet synchronous feedback heat signals of the twin reactors. Keep in mind that the gamma signal is on average 1 million times less prominent than the heat signal.
Synchrony is mentioned in the caption but I see no direct evidence for it in the figure itself. In the absence of labels on the vertical axis I will assume the red trace is reactor temperature (although in the caption it is said to represent "synchronicity" and in the red-lettered label under the plot it seems to be rate of excess heat production). I would now normally expect to see a similar trace from a different reactor so that we can compare the two and examine them for signs of synchrony. But no. There is no other heat-related trace visible. The red trace certainly looks like something I know, it looks like the time course of a state variable from a system consisting of 2 linear oscillators with weak coupling. In such coupling, this state variable would be antisynchronized with a sate variable the oscillator. I am puzzled , though, that this all looks so linear. It looks exactly like the superposition of 2 sine waves and this is untypical of nonlinear systems (both the superposition part and the sine wave part). This is a problem because I take the Atom Ecology fuel to constitute a nonlinear system both because of its bursty behaviour and because of its apparently nonlinear dependence of reaction rate on temperature. Perhaps what is happening is that the temperature oscillations are tiny compared with the nonlinearities in the system and so they act almost linearly.
In any case ... there no direct evidence of synchrony of heat generation shown here.
There is another synchrony mentioned here. The caption mentions that "the black trace shows one ‘reactors’ gamma signature synchronizing with the disparate yet synchronous feedback heat signals of the twin reactors". I am not sure what this means. I don't know what the "feedback heat signals" means exactly. What I do know is that there is no evidence in the figure of the black trace synchronizing with anything. The black trace (gamma counts?) is strongly periodic at about 4 cycles per 10 minutes. The red trace is strongly periodic with periods of about 6 cycles per 10 minutes and a "beat" amplitude modulation with a period of about 1 cycle per 20 minutes of so. But I don't see how the black trace synchronizes with the red trace in any way. Perhaps what is meant is that these gamma oscillations and the heat oscillations sometimes appear and sometimes go away and that they both arrive at once when they do show themselves.
In any case ... no direct evidence of synchrony between gamma emission and heat generation is shown here.
So there is not direct graphical evidence of synchrony of anything presented in this particular blog post (Huygens synchronicity observed in Atom-Ecology and cold fusion, July, 9 2018). I realize that Mr George's blog posts are intended to be ruminations rather than scientific productions. But considering that this is supposed to be one of the most incredible discoveries of the past half century, one that will save the world from hunger and global warming, I think it valuable to point out just where there is actual evidence of something or other and where there is not. In this blog post ... mostly not.
