Strong evidence for a new kind of radiation.

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    No problem ... Take the glass jar. Hang a match under the lid of the jar ... At a distance of 15-20 cm, place a plastic ruler, which you pre-rub with paper so that your fingers begin to feel the heat that comes from the ruler ... The match begins to behave like a magnet ... But the tree does not is a magnet and does not have pronounced magnetic properties ...


    Physichemistry of the microworld, Experiments proving that there is no electrostatics in nature, part 2 -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    The fresh match does not quite act like a magnet, and is unlikely to be attracted to one (or the ruler to a real magnet).


    Now light a wood match, just enough to get the rapid ignition of the tip complete, put it out, and hang it from a string. A magnet will now attract it. But only when quite close. A very powerful magnet may attract it from many cm away, but probably not >15 cm away.

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    The fresh match does not quite act like a magnet, and is unlikely to be attracted to one (or the ruler to a real magnet).


    Now light a wood match, just enough to get the rapid ignition of the tip complete, put it out, and hang it from a string. A magnet will now attract it. But only when quite close. A very powerful magnet may attract it from many cm away, but probably not >15 cm away.

    Exactly a year ago, I wrote my article on this subject -

    Fire of a match from a laser beam - https://drive.google.com/file/…HCzQoLNg/view?usp=sharing

    Fire of a match from a laser beam - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/37Dh/461FtPnfW

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What else do you expect??Pure Carbon is magnetic!

    The match consists of a head and a straw. The head is a suspension of powdered substances in a glue solution. The number of powdery substances includes oxidizing agents - Berthollet's salt and potassium chromium peak, which release oxygen at high temperatures, this temperature is somewhat reduced by the addition of a catalyst - pyrolusite (MnO2) [1]. The sulfur contained in the head is oxidized by the oxygen given off by the oxidants, as well as by the oxygen in the air, while sulphurous gas is released, which gives the match a characteristic odor [9], the glue and phosphorus sulfide (P4S3) contained in the head also participate as a fuel [10], during combustion the head forms a slag with pores, similar to glass. A short flash of the head would not be enough to ignite the straw. But the paraffin under the head boils when it burns, its vapors ignite, and this fire is transferred to the match straw [11]. To control the burning rate, ground glass, zinc white, and red lead are introduced into the number of powdered substances [1].


    Match sticks in Russian and earlier Soviet matches are most often an aspen stick. To avoid its smoldering, it is impregnated with a 1.5% solution of Н3РО4.


    A spread of a matchbox, which is rubbed with a match when it is lit, is also a suspension of powdered substances in a glue solution. But the composition of powdery substances is somewhat different. These include antimony (III) sulfide and red phosphorus, which, when the head rub against the spread, turns into white phosphorus, which instantly flares up on contact with air and sets fire to the head. To prevent the entire spreading from burning up during ignition, the particles of red phosphorus are separated by poorly burning substances - iron red lead, kaolin, gypsum, ground glass [1].


    The percentage of the head of the match and the spread ("grater") of the box [12]:


    Match head composition

    Berthollet's salt KClO3 46.5%

    ground glass SiO2 17.2%

    lead red lead Pb3O4 15.3%

    bone glue - 11.5%

    sulfur S 4.2%

    white zinc ZnO 3.8%

    potassium dichromate K2Cr2O7 1.5%

    The composition of the spread ("grater")

    antimonite Sb2S3 41.8%

    phosphorus (red) P 30.8%

    red lead iron Fe2O3 12.8%

    bone glue - 6.7%

    ground glass SiO2 3.8%

    chalk CaCO3 2.6%

    white zinc ZnO 1.5%

    What remains in the head of a match after burning?

    Here is one of the answer options - https://zen.yandex.ru/media/en…-60426c269e9a5735c1c80cf7

    Pure iron remains ... But this is not all the information, from my point of view ... More thorough research should be done!

    Although the more precise answers are impure, disordered varieties of carbon can be ferromagnetic, pure carbon is generally not magnetic, and magnetite is a magnetic product of combustion of a common strike anywhere matchstick tip, these facts are beside the point.
    The subject of this thread was Strong Evidence for a new kind of radiation.


    The ‘strong evidence’ seems not so strong.

    Conjecture over the magnetism or not of a matchstick just show how weak this strong evidence is, it seems to me.

    • Official Post

    I think that our fellow Cherepanov2020 is trying to imply that there’s no radiation at all. Is hard to distill anything of substance from his bulky posts but at some point he has clearly stated that he disagrees entirely with Parkhomov’s N-radiation idea.


    I started this thread based on my knowledge of Parkhomov’s work mainly through reading his book Space.Earth.Human.

    One can disagree with him and probably many people may never forgive him for writing chapter 4, I found it interesting anyway.


    He may employ simple and - certainly there are people that may perceive his as rudimentary- methods, but as I have said before, these are the kind of classic methods of late XIX and early XX century when many advances were achieved by similar means.


    Remember he derived his work from analysis of nuclear decay rate variation associated with astronomic alignments, and from classic knowledge he attempted to build an explanation.


    I know that, at the end of the day, replication of published results is what matters, and as his work exposing a solution of KNO3 to a lightbulb where he observed significant changes in the elemental proportions of the elements compared to the untreated solution, seems simple enough for me to try and will propose it to my colleague when we are done with our current task list.

    Theory and testing is great.

    I hope you do a good test, and may you find success.


    However, a short list of LENR/ZPE/XH researchers have an atypical amount of ‘strong’ success with several different approaches (each, over a relatively short period of time). Parkhomov, Rossi, Me356, Mizuno, Lion, for example. And yet independent replications of their work almost always fail to reproduce the claimed original results, and even the replications that are claimed to work are generally much, much weaker than the original work, are even more questionable in terms of quality of work, or are so weakly described that they cannot be relied on.


    The strong evidence of macroscopic effects seems to be lacking, regardless of many claims of success and the subsequent pronouncements of the impending to imminent demise of the hydrocarbon fuel age.

    • Official Post

    Paradigmnoia , as you well know doing experiments is never really simple, and when you attempt to test things that go against the grain, you need to be even more careful than in normal circumstances. If I get to the stage when a replication is possible, it will be done with rigor to control all sources of error and with an experimental design to rule out randomness.

    Quote from Curbina

    Paradigmnoia , as you well know doing experiments is never really simple, and when you attempt to test things that go against the grain, you need to be even more careful than in normal circumstances. If I get to the stage when a replication is possible, it will be done with rigor to control all sources of error and with an experimental design to rule out randomness.

    I have experienced two episodes of Insufficient Heat that are hard-to-impossible to duplicate.

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Just as a remainder. 13-C P, 39-K 33-S etc.. are magnetic.


    The good question is: How do the magnetons align during burning down a match.

    That's just the point - the nucleus of carbon-12 and the nucleus of carbon-13 are two huge differences!



    Sulfur-33 has pronounced magnetic properties due to the fact that two protons and, accordingly, two electrons "hang" on the axis of the nucleus on the right and left.



    Sulfur-33 has pronounced magnetic properties due to the fact that two protons and, accordingly, two electrons "hang" on the axis of the nucleus on the right and left.

    Both potassium-39 and potassium-41 are inferior in magnetic properties to sulfur, since on the axis of the nucleus they have only a proton and its electron on the left.



    I think a methodical error has crept into the potassium-41 model - maybe the carbon-12 nuclei should have two neutrons on the left, and one neutron on the right, since there is a proton on the left on the axis of the nucleus ...

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Theory and testing is great.

    I hope you do a good test, and may you find success.


    However, a short list of LENR/ZPE/XH researchers have an atypical amount of ‘strong’ success with several different approaches (each, over a relatively short period of time). Parkhomov, Rossi, Me356, Mizuno, Lion, for example. And yet independent replications of their work almost always fail to reproduce the claimed original results, and even the replications that are claimed to work are generally much, much weaker than the original work, are even more questionable in terms of quality of work, or are so weakly described that they cannot be relied on.


    The strong evidence of macroscopic effects seems to be lacking, regardless of many claims of success and the subsequent pronouncements of the impending to imminent demise of the hydrocarbon fuel age.

    This was discussed on October 31, 2019 at a seminar at RUDN University -

    10/31/2019 Cherepanov A.I. about cavitation (hydro-wave) technology and the mechanism of HTY based on ether -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    And after - November 6, 2019, I wrote my article - read from page 33 -

    In the wake of N.V. Samsonenko at a seminar at RUDN University on October 31, 2019 ..., 11/6/2019 russ. - https://drive.google.com/file/…38RBCMMl/view?usp=sharing


    In the wake of N.V. Samsonenko at a seminar at RUDN University on October 31, 2019 ..., 11/6/2019 russ. -

    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4tsu/25DN1iuaE

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.