Commercial radiation detectors have extensive backgrounds of engineering, testing, and routine use in a wide array of situations.
What precisely do you mean by Commercial radiation detectors ?
Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop
-
-
My question is why don't other devices acting on the same or related principles measure the same thing?
Most people try to prevent hydrogen from being adsorbed into metals - because it has been known to cause problems for over a hundred years. (Hydrogen embrittlement has been the bane of a lot of my working life!)
However, despite what the textbooks say - it isn't just "interstitial hydrogen atoms in a metal lattice". If you dig a little deeper, you find that it is another one of those topics that is "still not fully understood". So you get hydrogen in, and weird stuff happens.
For instance, the textbooks say that absorbed hydrogen can be "baked out" again - but although a lot of it can, there are often permanent changes to the host metal which can cause problems later. Hence, it is usually better to avoid getting in there in the first place - as it makes life a lot easier.
-
What precisely do you mean by Commercial radiation detectors ?
I meant a gas-filled ion-chamber device available for purchase. Something that works on the same principles that the LEC is supposed to be working (except for the hydrogen-loaded electrode part). Something that, because it is available commercially, has standardized and well-known behavioural characteristics.
-
BTW- 304 S/Steel seems reluctant to accept much hydrogen, at least at the temperature level in the tank. I know you can hot gas load it, but electrolysis only yields around 10mV. Mild steel is better, though I have no reliable data to hand.
I made some tests to electrolytically load mild steel and hard steel rods (no co-dep), but I get no "vital signs", so my conclusion (that I reported also at ICCF24) was that hydrogen loading alone was not sufficient to get the effect. Actually you have demonstrated that this is not true: it depends on the specific metal. This is, by the way, coherent to what Rout and Srinivasan wrote.
My question is why don't other devices acting on the same or related principles measure the same thing?
I'm not aware of other devices that are built on the same principle of the LEC. There are many kind of radiation detectors, and some are even mechanically similar, but normally they are not subjected to electrochemical co-deposition or hydrogen loading.
-
A kind of radiation that is not previously known and hence we don’t have proper tools to detect it quantitatively, just qualitatively.
I don't understand what importance the qualitative vs quantitative distinction has for you here. My point is that well-characterized detectors operating along the same lines as the LEC is thought to work should get comparable results as the LEC whether they are quantitative or qualitative.
-
Most people try to prevent hydrogen from being adsorbed into metals - because it has been known to cause problems for over a hundred years. (Hydrogen embrittlement has been the bane of a lot of my working life!)
However, despite what the textbooks say - it isn't just "interstitial hydrogen atoms in a metal lattice". If you dig a little deeper, you find that it is another one of those topics that is "still not fully understood". So you get hydrogen in, and weird stuff happens.
For instance, the textbooks say that absorbed hydrogen can be "baked out" again - but although a lot of it can, there are often permanent changes to the host metal which can cause problems later. Hence, it is usually better to avoid getting in there in the first place - as it makes life a lot easier.
I recall a rather famous case that was found to be the cause of the catastrophic failure of an automatic drive from either Toyota or Nissan, it failed consistently after a number of hours, and ir was found that the lubricant released H and it caused the embrittlement that led to the breaking of the parts.
-
I'm not aware of other devices that are built on the same principle of the LEC. There are many kind of radiation detectors, and some are even mechanically similar, but normally they are not subjected to electrochemical co-deposition or hydrogen loading.
By hypothesis, the hydrogen-loaded metal in the LEC is supposed to be spewing out ionizing radiation. Aside from this, the electrode and counter electrode in the LEC act like the detector apparatus in a traditional ion chamber.
So if you take a piece of hydrogen-loaded metal, wouldn't you expect a traditional gas-filled ion chamber of the type used for radiation detection to also be able to measure the ionization from it?
-
By hypothesis, the hydrogen-loaded metal in the LEC is supposed to be spewing out ionizing radiation. Aside from this, the electrode and counter electrode in the LEC act like the detector apparatus in a traditional ion chamber.
So if you take a piece of hydrogen-loaded metal, wouldn't you expect a traditional gas-filled ion chamber of the type used for radiation detection to also be able to measure the ionization from it?
This is the kind of post that amazes me because it means you haven’t been paying attention. It has been repeatedly said that the emission is weak enough to be stopped by even a sheet of plastic, a detector of the kind you are talking about wouldn’t be able to detect anything. The attempts done at the LANL used a high energy photon detector through a window in the LEC, and this window seems to be enough to block it.
The initial work of Rout et al at BARC detected the fogging effect and attempted to put a boundary to the energy of the radiation, I don’t recall it but due to the sensitivity of the X ray emulsion it was on the KeV range. -
So if you take a piece of hydrogen-loaded metal, wouldn't you expect a traditional gas-filled ion chamber of the type used for radiation detection to also be able to measure the ionization from it?
But we know it creates ions. What would the ionisation detector tell us that we don't already know? (except that $38,000 doesn't come in the mail).
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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. -
But we know it creates ions. What would the ionisation detector tell us that we don't already know? (except that $38,000 doesn't come in the mail).
You hypothesize that it generates gas-phase ions.
Commercial devices have a pedigree of engineering, standardization, and extensive, reliable use. Your lab-built measurement system cannot equal that. Worse, because the working electrode of the LEC is also part of the measurement system, you alter the measurement system every time you change the electrode.
-
You hypothesize that it generates gas-phase ions.
This hypothesis has been consistent with observations and experimental interventions. You are most welcome to propose a new hypothesis, and even better, to perform experiments to prove it.
-
The attempts done at the LANL used a high energy photon detector through a window in the LEC, and this window seems to be enough to block it.
I don't know the details of the attempts at Los Alamos. Where can I find them?
The initial work of Rout et al at BARC detected the fogging effect and attempted to put a boundary to the energy of the radiation, I don’t recall it but due to the sensitivity of the X ray emulsion it was on the KeV range.
From the first paragraph of the Conclusions section of the 1996 Rout et al paper ...
"The energy of the emissions from palladium hydride appears to be small, as it is able to affect radiographic films (>2 eV) and thermoluminescent dosimeters (>3 eV) but did not ionize (>10 eV, average 30 eV/ion pair) gases."
-
Worse, because the working electrode of the LEC is also part of the measurement system
And it would not be in an ionisation chamber? Your comments are too vague and cryptic to be useful. I don't suppose the dumb clucks who work on the weapons program at LANL would think of doing it though. You got them there!
-
I don't know the details of the attempts at Los Alamos. Where can I find them?
From the first paragraph of the Conclusions section of the 1996 Rout et al paper ...
"The energy of the emissions from palladium hydride appears to be small, as it is able to affect radiographic films (>2 eV) and thermoluminescent dosimeters (>3 eV) but did not ionize (>10 eV, average 30 eV/ion pair) gases."
Good you found that, the fact is that there is an emission, and is enough to cause ionization.
-
Display More
Draft of my paper for IWAHLM.
THE LEC DEVICE – EXPLORING THE PARAMETER SPACE
Alan Smith Net Zero Scientific Ltd, Essex, UK. September 2022. http://www.netzerochem.com
The number of experiments and there control that Alan Smith has conducted and will report at IWAHLM 15 next week is excellent. The abstract and attached draft paper that he will present are available at post #1272 and well worth reading. This will be a great conference.
-
And it would not be in an ionisation chamber?
No, it wouldn't be.
Normally a sample from which you want to detect radiation is not actually built into the detector. I don't understand why this is such a surprising observation.
-
I don't suppose the dumb clucks who work on the weapons program at LANL would think of doing it though. You got them there!
Where can I find a description of what they did?
-
Worse, because the working electrode of the LEC is also part of the measurement system, you alter the measurement system every time you change the electrode.
That is true. It resembles the calorimeter in many cold fusion experiments, in which the experimental device itself -- the cell -- is an integral part of the calorimeter. That has some advantages, but it also causes problems, such as what you describe here. Every time you change the experiment, you change the measurement techniques and you void the calibrations. An external calorimeter such as Seebeck does not have this problem.
Apparently, the insuperable problem with a dedicated detector is the price. We're not going to fix that unless the X-Prize people start handing out suitcases full of money. There is no point to discussing the advantages of an instrument that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
-
Normally a sample from which you want to detect radiation is not actually built into the detector. I don't understand why this is such a surprising observation.
Nio it goes into a sample holder. But then it becomes part of the chamber. You need a working electrode and a counter electrode. The chamber presumably contains the counter electrode. otherwise there would be no detection. As for 'every time you change the electrode you alter the measurement system ' -of course you do. Every time you change your shoes it alters the way you walk, but you cope with it. It's called calibration. in the case of instruments, compensation in the case of shoes.
But I am still unsure what you expect to learn from using such an instrument. THe LEC is an ionisation chamber itself.
-
But I am still unsure what you expect to learn from using such an instrument. THe LEC is an ionisation chamber itself.
If you have a well-characterized radiation detector that does not detect any radiation when a hydrogen-loaded sample is exposed to it, then you might learn that there is no radiation after all.
Supposedly you don't need the counter electrode to produce radiation. You just need a sample metal object that is loaded with hydrogen. And this is supposed to be enough to produce radiation capable of ionizing molecules of gas in its neighbourhood. Why don't we hear of other systems being able to detect the ions so produced?
