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.
Bruce__H
Member
- Member since Jul 22nd 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Bruce__H
-
-
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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
We are watching an effect that is consistent with other things too. urrent and
Well, this is precisely the big question mark, isn’t it? We are clearly watching an effect that is consistent with ionization of gas, even stronger than what an Americium sample can generate, and yet it has not been possible to detect that radiation as of any kind known. This is the beauty of this, we are on uncharted waters.
No. I am not asking question about uncharted waters. My question is more prosaic.
The LEC is claimed to be operating here as basically a gas-filled ionization chamber. It is said that hydrogen-treated pieces of metal ionize gas molecules and that, as part of its function, the LEC measures this as a current between charged electrodes. My question is why don't other devices acting on the same or related principles measure the same thing?
Commercial radiation detectors have extensive backgrounds of engineering, testing, and routine use in a wide array of situations. They are reliable and well characterized. So what is different? The answer may be completely straightforward but I haven't heard it explained.
-
Did you watch The discussion panel video? There’s discussed at some point by the replicator of the LEC that works there.
I did watch the panel video and had forgotten the discussion of radiation detection. Having re-watched, I think it is fair to say that no one has measured radiation from a treated electrode when using commercial equipment .
I think this is a significant gap. Why have no such results been reported?
-
The LEC has been exposed to several state of the art detectors ibcluding cryo-cooled systems at Los Alamos National Labs by an expert. No conclusive results. Is that commercial enough?
I would like to know more please.
-
Do you mean a cloud chamber? If so I believe that is underway elsewhere.
I meant a commercial gas-filled ionizing radiation detector.
I think that the research so far has been too dominated by made-for-purpose detection systems when well characterized commercial ones could be used instead.
A cloud chamber is a good idea too.
-
According to hypothesis, the LEC works as a type of homemade ion chamber. Has anyone tried using a commercial device on a hydrogen-treated plate to see if it picks up a signal?
-
MagicSound does not see a voltage difference in his LEC circuit that can be attributed to radiation. So the lack of fogging is to be expected. Isn't it?
-
Well, it produces a current when paired with another electrode even when it has been left solo overnight. But since we don't really understand what the mechanism is - beyond 'something' that can ionise gas or vapour very effectively - we don't really know what conditions are required to make the magic happen.
The Rout et al paper (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKreproducib.pdf) claims that samples of treated metal fog radiographic film without the benefit of counter electrodes and so on.
-
Now, finding this emission through IR sensitive images is what it is being discussed here and your idea of thermalizing it is good, but assumes it can be thermalized.
I assume that anything found capable of blocking the radiation is at least a candidate for a thermalizing material. For instance, as per the paper by Rout et al., aluminized polycarbonate.
-
You are mixing different topics, this particular topic was brought up by the latests comments from Stevenson that he took a look with an IR camera and found That the WE was cooler than the surrounding air, then Frank Gordon brought up some older observations in different systems that had detected active spots. The observations of hot spots on electrolytic cells brought by JedRothwell are well known and it comes up in the context of how it has been possible to image and detect active spots in LENR systems rather than if the LEC produces hot spots or not.
Sure. I understand all of that. But my reading of MagicSound's post is that he simply imaged a working electrode that Frank Gordon sent him. I assume that the electrode was just sitting out on some surface at the time and not assembled into a working cell. Maybe I am wrong.
Treated metal is said by Gordon and Whitehouse (in their original video presentation at the beginning of this thread) to be emitting some sort of radiation at a rate corresponding to 10^12 Bq/cm^2. Assembling everything into a cell is just a way to measure the radiation. But I assume that the metal radiates away even if not assembled into a cell. So directly imaging a flat plate of treated metal is a reasonable thing to do. It further seems to me that some sort of thermalizing material placed or painted onto the plate would help in this.
-
So the camera is looking at the inside surface? I guess if the reaction occurred in microscopic sites you might see it briefly before the heat spread out, conducted to the surrounding metal. Conduction happens at the speed of sound so the camera has to be quick.
I was thinking the camera is facing the outside of the cell. By the time the heat reaches the outside surface, it would be spread out far and wide from the point of origin. The hotspots in the video by Pam Boss are visible because the camera is focused on the reacting electrode metal surface. See:
Why do you need a counter electrode involved? Once treated, a flat plate should be emitting radiation even as it just sits in the open air. Is that not right?
-
I haven't been following this thread closely so please forgive me if someone has considered this already.
Could you lay some material on top so as to purposely thermalize whatever radiation is emitted?
-
... I don’t “believe” in things, I research and study them.
RIght. And THH's aim is the same ... which is exactly why he uses the term "non-believer". Do you not see that?
-
You don't say. How about speling mistakes?
"Focused" is a correct spelling.
-
In addition to external review, there is an internal review - author's edits of the text of the article. For example, I constantly return to works that have already been written (and even published). However, external review can be very useful to improve the form and sometimes the content of the article, but it should not be elevated to the absolute. The reviewer does not always manage to understand the author.
One of my PhD supervisors used to tell me that there are 2 sets of experiments carried out for every paper. First the experiments at the bench. Then the experiments trying to get the manuscript past the referees.
It's a big headache, but I know of no better system.
