Posts by Paradigmnoia

    @Thomas Clarke
    The site does not lose integrity by banning someone that agrees to the terms of use, then disrespects those terms. The site loses integrity by not enforcing the terms of use that are explicit.
    Posters that agree to the terms of use, them immediately disobey them, demonstrate their own lack of integrity.

    Both of us have posted things here that might not be in agreement with the general readership. But we have been civil enough to avoid censure for the most part. I think we both have also had posts removed when we crossed a line. For the most part, when that had happened, we were able to see what the infraction was, and have adjusted our responses accordingly.

    Freedom of speech is almost never really free. We are not allowed to say whatever we want, whenever we want. In forums or in public. There are social rules, legal limits, and limits imposed by specific outlets for speech. If one is too arrogant or, too ignorant to follow the neccesary level of decorum and social standards when speaking, then there will be conflict. There are rules for dealing with that.

    I notice that MY was just re-instated after a ban on ECN. So even there, the bounds were passed, and action taken. I don't know about the details that lead to a ban there. But why does this one person have such a predilection for censure from so many places, and yet so many other posters with unpleasant points seem to be able to stay within acceptable posting practices? Is it a complete lack of ability to recognize social clues and stay within civil bounds of discourse, or is the content?
    Is it something else?

    I don't know where folks get the idea that the forums are democratic.
    They were created by people that wanted to discuss various things, and who have no desire for too much of other things.
    ECW was created with the proviso that LENR and the Rossi Effect is real. That is an intentional bubble of like-minded people. Perhaps ECN moderates more than most, but that is solely at the discretion of the moderator there.
    This forum is a bit more general, but has specfic rules of conduct. Obey them, read only, or take a hike. Those are essentially the choices, and can be enforced at the discretion of the moderators, as is their perrogative.
    ECN is a bit wilder, and rarely moderated, but certain things like excess vulgarity and impersonation are not tolerated. To some extent, that forum is a bit of an Ostraocracy.

    If anyone does not like the rules of the presently available forums, they can make their own forum.
    If they think that is too much hassle, then deal with the rules at the existing forums.
    Is it really that hard to figure that out?

    Making non-nuclear radiation is easy.

    The XRF sitting beside me right now has a 4W tube using only 200 µA and makes just over 1 million Counts Per Second of 50 keV peak Bremsstrahlung.
    The x-ray tube itself is about the size of half a finger, plus a fatter Peltier cooling part about two fingers wide.
    It does require high voltage, but that is stepped up from a 9.6V Lithium Ion battery the size of a chocolate bar that runs the device for 4 hours almost continuously. Most of that power is consumed running the cooler and the included Windows-based software and interface.

    How radiation might get made in the Glowstick is a bit more difficult to figure out.

    "I have recently been able to consult the pdf memo Technical Characteristics and Performance of the Defkalion’s Hyperion pre-industrial product [sic!], authored by John Hadjichristos, Menelaos Koulouris, and Aris Chatzichristos, and I cannot but make (albeit reluctantly!…) several remarks on this document.My first and emotionally spontaneous comment is Biblical: …τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν [See here Matthew 7.6: «(Do not give) what is holy to dogs»].Because of the obtuseness and frivolity of the very top figures of the Greek political scene, I was unfortunate enough to meet these characters about one year and a half ago.I instructed them in and made them part of my work on cold fusion (… at the time they were ignorant of the very existence of this topic); later, I collaborated, together with Andrea Rossi, towards the (failed) development of the E-Cat in Greece.This (theatrical?) troupe of characters belongs to «Defkalion Green Technologies Global, Greece-Canada-Swiss», a firm which notoriously deceived (with Levantine wiles…) Rossi for eight months.To be more specific: John Hadjichristos holds a degree in Mathematics — he was an atypical entrepreneur in the construction business together with A. Xanthoulis; Menelaos Koulouris’ previous venture was the (probably not too successful) vending of sandwiches, pizzas, beverages, etc., in the center of Athens (I believe he might have graduated in Physics); as for Aris Chatzichristos, son of the above-mentioned John of the same name, he is a student — and I wonder what right he has to sign and associate his name with the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Greece…I will not deal with the scientific contents of this amateurish report, which is quite destitute of all GALILEAN ethos; in the ancient language of my country one could proverbially describe it as λίθοι καί κέραμοι ἀτάκτως ἐρριμμένοι [See: Xenophon, Memorabilia, 3.1.7…], that is to say: «rocks and tiles untidily tossed about”…Rather, and with a touch of malice, I wonder where Xanthoulis and the «Defkalionites» get their money from. Especially after proving themselves quite incapable of honoring (even symbolically) the financial commitments they had agreed to with ROSSI!To what end is this megalomaniac media charade? It has been polluting the Web for months with nothing tangible to show for it.These are questions which, in my opinion, must be asked by anyone who sincerely believes in the hope of new energy era … in the face of those who, whether for economic gain or «cultural» interests linked to a false concept of prestige, are attempting to discredit with (bankrolled?) fabricated stories the very advanced and tangible state of E-Cat technology.
    Christos Stremmenos
    Professor, University of Bologna (ret.).Former Ambassador of Greece to Italy.”

    [Christos Stremmenos
    - JoNP August 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM]

    The plot I posted has the X axis in channels, rather than keV. So that was the remains of the K40 hump at 1461 keV, and related scatter, and partly my misalignment.
    The plot reverts to channels after subtracting the backgrounds.

    There are probably far better ways to clean off the background than the way I did it.
    I was mostly interested in what the Signal looked at when as much normal background was removed as possible.

    Thanks for that link.

    Sorry, I misread your post regarding 800 keV, and was thinking 80 keV for some reason.
    Where is the 800 keV cluster? If they are the bump, left of the valley which is left of the K40 hump, then that is a typical background shape. (It might be Bi214 from radon decay, at 1120 keV). If there were more hits hiding in there from something else, I suppose it would be hard to tell unless a large signal was pushing through.

    Below is another handy gamma ray energy list, but it doesn't include the 78 keV peak which is obvious in the MFMP spectra, which is actually from cosmic rays hitting lead ( probably their Pb cave). This is a handy indicator that a cosmic burst probably did not cause the Signal, since this Pb x-ray peak was not greatly enhanced.

    The small dip I am certain is caused by the 78 keV peak getting removed three times, and so is an artifact. I suppose it demonstrates extreme background subtraction.

    I would be pretty surprised if MeV range betas were made, but even low keV betas can be a problem if they hit a high Z object. That is exactly the principle of an X-ray device. The conversion rate to X-rays is pretty low, though. The vast majority of betas or electrons in a beam scrub their energy as heat, which is why rhodium or tungsten (sometimes combined with gold) are used as targets for the electron beam in X-ray devices, rather than lead.
    The ceramic probably deals with almost all betas, at least to some fairly high energy level, but I cannot say that with absolute certainty.
    Air deals with most low energy betas fairly quickly.


    Nice work.
    Do you still have the detector?
    A neat test would be to put the detector facing (not behind) the thick Pb at a small distance and slight angle, and the same side of the Pb facing the sky.
    You might see some increased xray hits at 78 keV from Pb being hit by cosmic gammas.
    Just wondering...

    That's why I was attempting to re-calibrate the spectra files. I could see that the K40 bump was wandering around a bit from file to file.

    Unfortunately the software doesn't seem keep the calibrations locked in by keV if you import them as a background, so I had to look for ones that lined up the Bi 78 and K1461 peaks better.
    I was fiddling with that last night for quite some time to see if I wasn't doing something wrong, or if I had try to find a decent work-around.

    I might be able to mess with the files... but at some point it is best to move on to better things and not mess with the data beyond its usefulness.

    Very little nickel is mined from meteor impact areas as a direct result of impact, with the main exception of Sudbury, Canada area mines, and that is mostly (almost every atom) terrestrial nickel there as well.
    In prehistoric times nickel-iron from small-ish meteors was used, but was still extremely rare overall.
    A minor nickel-iron deposit in northern Chile was from the discovery of an oxidized, reasonably large, ancient meteorite found in the 1950-70's (?) but the meteoric metal was exhausted primarily by hand mining in a just few years.
    Most meteors that would make mining-size footprints are vaporized on impact, as was the Sudbury meteor. The nickel in Sudbury comes from a very large body of molten rock solidifying and differentiating in situ after melting as a result of the impact. The rock was already somewhat nickel-enriched to begin with.
    The nickel in Russia is mostly mined from large hydrothermally overprinted magmatic segregation deposits hosted in Archean to Proterozoic rocks. Analogous occurrences are found in the Canadian arctic, but are not economic due to high North American labour costs and poor infrastructure.

    I was thinking that channel 15 was 50 keV, but it seemed a bit too close to the bismuth peak at 78 keV.
    I was doing a two point, post calibration by using the K40 peak at 1461 keV, and the 78 keV bismuth (Pb?) peak, but thought that maybe doing a three point re-calibration using the filter cut off would help stabilize things in the Signal area.
    Just for messing around, and trying things out.

    Regarding high energy beta shielding, I think the idea is to use a material composed of atoms that will recoil easily if hit, thereby avoiding a strong X-ray emission. Lots of grazing would be good to slow the betas down, so even a dense gas of light elements would be good, or water.
    Alumina is probably OK, but not great as a shield.
    Once (if) the beta energy gets converted to an X-ray photon, blocking it is a lot harder.

    @Thomas Clarke
    (This might not be so clear...) It might be that since these are mostly random background events (although with similar causes), that the chances are as good that adjacent channels will be excited in any one selected file as the channel that records a similar event in any one other file, so that a single background subtraction won't work as well as might be expected. I'll try two consecutive background subtractions from two different similar-period files and see if that gives a better spread of events that makes a better overall background subtraction.

    Edit: Only marginally better. Here is spectra 7 minus sequentially 6, 16 and 22:
    (The little cluster on the high keV end is 45 counts combined)

    @Thomas Clarke
    I thought that I was fairly clear, where you quoted me about time periods.
    I tried a couple different periods ( 6, 16 and 22 ) that were close or slightly longer than 7 to try as background. I also tried some periods that were multiples of the time period of 7. The multiple-long periods give slightly higher overall readings than the similar-time periods in most cases. However, neither type works well at scrubbing the K40 bump when used as as background for subtraction using the software suggested with the spectra files, when subtracted only once. Two consecutive subtractions of the same period used as a background works reasonably well, but the K40 bump is still fairly noticeable. Three consecutive background subtractions leaves an obvious Signal pattern (which looks like the one I posted a few pages back, blue background) every time.

    I have fiddled around with the spectra files, even last night a bunch. The background doesn't remove very neatly at all. I tried time periods that were roughly equal to 7 and ones twice as long as background.
    I selected and compared ROIs between the cut-off and 69 keV, which is the shoulder of the bismuth peak. The extreme number of anomalous counts is pretty clear when in multiple consecutive background removals to wipe out almost all background (just a few dots here and there remain, and the majority of the channels are empty), there are still around 200000 counts left in the signal area.