X-rays and sticky tape...

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I have the real ScotchTM tape too. I was reticent to immediately waste it.
    Same lack of scintillometer effect for me.
    I have wide packing tape…

    I don't know what country you are in, but in the UK 3M sell a variety of different tape types under the "Scotch" brand - so there might be some difference between their behaviour when peeling (both in the adhesive and in the way the tape flexes or stretches at the peel boundary).


    Even amongst the "ordinary" tapes, they have Transparent tape, Crystal tape, and "Magic" tape.


    Edit: Looking at the wikipedia page for pressure-sensitive adhesive tape another thing that might be relevant is that some tapes have a release agent on the non-sticky side of the backing material, to aid in unpeeling from the roll. This would certainly affect the severity of bond-breakage - and might reduce any electrical effects (also reducing static build-up on the tape - which can be a nuisance when handling). I don't know whether the old characteristic "tearing" noise that you got from unpeeling Sellotape (the main brand in the UK, at one time) is still the same with modern tapes. According to the 3M web site, the Scotch brand tapes use either a polypropylene or an acetate backing, with a type of acrylic adhesive. Release agents aren't mentioned, but being a "premium brand" they are likely to be there.


    Maybe that means that cheaper (unbranded) tape would perform better for these tests - as they might not bother with a release agent.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

    On the video at the start of this thread, the guy uses the phrase "scotch tape" - but then shows the static generated in unpeeling (see below). Since he is American he will probably be using "scotch tape" generically, just as we tend to say "Sellotape" in the UK, regardless of who makes it. Furthermore, there is no sign of branding on the inside of the reels of tape on the video. So maybe he is using cheap unbranded tape - with a minimum of ingredients.


    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 most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Like 2

    Back on your thread :) Does it exist also some papers relating the X rays release both with few neutrons detection ?

    Quote from Cydonia

    Does it exist also some papers relating the X rays release both with few neutrons detection ?

    I have not seen any papers that claim neutron release - but I haven't searched for a while.


    The thread below includes Jed saying that Ed told him that sticky tape could also produce neutrons. But, despite looking, I couldn't find anything published about that, last time I tried.


    Post
    RE: USEFUL PAPERS THREAD
    Neutrons from Ti at low temperature

    I often say cold fusion does not produce neutrons. Not many, anyway. Ed thinks they may have a prosaic origin. There is one kind of experiment that produces them fairly reliably. Titanium chips are cooled down and loaded with D2 gas. As they warm up, they often produce neutrons. I cannot judge whether this is cold fusion, or whether it has some conventional explanation, similar to the way neutrons are generated with scotch tape.


    Anyway, there are several papers…
    JedRothwell

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Thanks 1

    Apparently only insulating materials not metals.


    I found this former exchange interesting.

    fracto_fusion, crack fusion, cold fusion, cmns, neutrons

    Quote from Frogfall

    I have not seen any papers that claim neutron release - but I haven't searched for a while.


    The thread below includes Jed saying that Ed told him that sticky tape could also produce neutrons. But, despite looking, I couldn't find anything published about that, last time I tried.


    Post
    RE: USEFUL PAPERS THREAD
    Neutrons from Ti at low temperature

    I often say cold fusion does not produce neutrons. Not many, anyway. Ed thinks they may have a prosaic origin. There is one kind of experiment that produces them fairly reliably. Titanium chips are cooled down and loaded with D2 gas. As they warm up, they often produce neutrons. I cannot judge whether this is cold fusion, or whether it has some conventional explanation, similar to the way neutrons are generated with scotch tape.


    Anyway, there are several papers…
    JedRothwell
    Quote

    I think electrons are a bit like lice. They gather in cracks and holes.

    Faraday would say free electrons avoid holes and cavities instead, but it's a matter of perspective...

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Faraday would say free electrons avoid holes and cavities instead, but it's a matter of perspective...

    Faraday wouldn't say anything about electrons - as he died long before they were discovered.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Faraday would say free electrons avoid holes and cavities instead, but it's a matter of perspective...

    It;'s a matter of experimental observation. If you read any of the countless books and papers published on cathode emitter metallurgy published in the tays of radio you will see endless references to methods of modifying surfaces by roughening or partial oxidation to lower work function.

    • New

    Thanks to Kerrowman979 for reminding me of this thread. His quite comprehensive, and well written, paper is well worth reading.


    On page 8, in the section on triboelectric effects, there is a reference to this paper, which is the one that generated the Nature article linked further up in this thread (via the Useful Papers Thread ). The Nature article is now paywalled, but the actual paper is available via ResearchGate.


    Note that this paper describes the x-rays as coming directly from the tape. The authors identify the x-rays as being bremsstrahlung - but claim that it arises from electrons being decelerated by hitting the tape itself. They have even included a helpful illustration in the paper

    .


    This illustration would suggest that the x-ray detector was placed inside the vacuum chamber. However, as we have seen with other tests referenced in this thread - this is not usually how the demonstrations (I hesitate to call them experiments) are normally done. And, judging by this short video (below) it might not have been how the paper's authors did it either.


    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.


    In other words, bremsstrahlung is produced - but it can be due to electrons hitting targets other than the tape (which is possibly too thin, and not dense enough, to create the required rate of deceleration in order to get x-rays). However the chamber wall (steel?), window (thick glass), and internal gadgetry (metals of various types) could easily be dense enough.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Like 2 Thanks 1
    • New
    Quote from Frogfall

    Faraday wouldn't say anything about electrons - as he died long before they were discovered.

    But he noticed that charge concentrates around surface of bodies. The mutually repulsive particles as a charge carriers pf electricity were conjectured from this insight long before actual observation of electrons.

    • New
    Quote from Frogfall

    In other words, bremsstrahlung is produced - but it can be due to electrons hitting targets other than the tape

    This is improbable, as the X-rays are generated from very narrow area of peeling tape, they can also be used for shadow imaging. But it's still a controversy for me, because the ripped off electrons from surface of atoms shouldn't have enough of energy for to generate X-rays.

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    This is improbable, as the X-rays are generated from very narrow area of peeling tape, they can also be used for shadow imaging.

    The x-ray film was placed directly on the finger, so a bone shadow could still be produced from a distributed source.



    This where the authors' assumptions have led them down a particular path without trying out sufficient falsification tests. Placing a dense object on the glass (say a large steel washer with a small hole), and placing the film at a distance above, would have allowed them to verify the x-ray source. A small source (at a distance below), and a steel washer, would create a sharp edged beam - and a sharp dot on the x-ray film that could be traced back, though the hole, to the source.


    But they have simply assumed that the x-rays emerge from the same location as the light. The lack of falsification tests is one of the signs of pathological science.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    • New
    Quote from Frogfall

    But they have simply assumed that the x-rays emerge from the same location as the light. The lack of falsification tests is one of the signs of pathological science.

    I'd say that blue light is mrely the fluorescence of X-rays. Some say it's triboluminiscence effect, but the sticky tape's glue is amorphous material. But the plastics for tapes are often filled with UV-stabilizers like stilbene which are also used as a scintillators for X-and gamma rays in detectors. The easy way how to distinguish it is IMO to observe luminiscence of tape under normal pressure - it shouldn't affect the triboeffect, but it should eliminate the X-ray induced fluorescence.


    TB-0618-p34_fig2.jpg

    • New

    Zephir_AWT have you actually read the thread?


    Of course the glowing glue is a kind of fluorescence/luminescence - but suggesting that it is caused by X-rays, and hence that the X-rays occur first - ahead of other tribo/fracto luminescence effects, can be shown to be nonsense, even from fairly basic evidence (as shown elsewhere in this thread).

    • Flashes from glue can be seen when peeling tape in air, at normal atmospheric pressure - when no x-rays can be detected.
    • When peeled in a vacuum, a scintillation screen, sensitive to free electrons, at a distance from the peeling, will flicker in patterns that suggest particle impact (rather than photon exposure).
    • Such x-ray detectors, that we have seen, have always been located outside of the vacuum chambers.
    • The scintillation and X-ray detection only occurs when a sufficient vacuum has been pulled in the chamber. This all suggests that the effects are due to flying particles - the most likely candidate being electrons.

    The idea that electrons emitted from breaking the bonds in glue can have sufficient energy to strongly impact a scintillator, at a distance, and even create bremsstrahlung (one test showing it is continuous emission, rather than the spectral x-rays characteristic of polymer excitation), is remarkable enough - without suggesting that extra things are happening, that can't be supported by the known evidence.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    • New
    Quote from Frogfall

    Flashes from glue can be seen when peeling tape in air, at normal atmospheric pressure - when no x-rays can be detected.

    But are they as bright as the tape glow in vacuum? The triboluminiscence shouldn't be affected by atmospheric pressure.

    Quote from Frogfall

    When peeled in a vacuum, a scintillation screen, sensitive to free electrons, at a distance from the peeling, will flicker in patterns that suggest particle impact

    This can be explained by releasing electrons in bursts, because as thread of glue breaks a multiple electrons get released at once.

    Quote from Frogfall

    Such x-ray detectors, that we have seen, have always been located outside of the vacuum chambers.

    The scintillation detector capturing the shadow of finger was definitely located outside of vacuum, but I can't see how it support the idea, that X-rays are caused with impact of electrons outside the peeling zone.

    Quote from Frogfall

    The scintillation and X-ray detection only occurs when a sufficient vacuum has been pulled in the chamber

    Again, I don't see how it support the idea, that X-rays are caused with impact of electrons outside the peeling zone.


    Quote from Frogfall

    The idea that electrons emitted from breaking the bonds in glue can have sufficient energy is remarkable enough - without suggesting that extra things are happening, that can't be supported by the known evidence.

    The electron bonds are in ten elektronvolt range - whereas X-rays in range thousand-times higher. I guess some suggestion should still take place here on sciencey forum.


    There is known for example the experiment, how to charge an electroscope (presumably to a voltage in range of hundred volts) just by sieving zinc particles through copper mesh. Due to difference in electronegativity, each zinc particle gets charged in contact with copper to a potential difference of zinc-copper cell - and these tiny voltages just add up collectively. They form a tiny capacitors, the voltage of which increases with separating distance due to decrease of capacitance between copper and zinc particles.

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