On the issue of possible recombination, this discussion on Pages 3,4 and 5 explains the present understanding very well I believe.
Does not consider ATER.
They did check the levels of recombination and found very smal percentage possible.
Yes but they were assuming only electrochemically driven recombination with dissolved oxygen was possible. That's one of the points about ATER. I assume bubbles can reach the other electrode, which negates the relevance of the electrochemical problem.
Although the Optris has a lens, so figures?
Agreed. But most of the xray film reports have the film positioned in the electrolyte right next to the electrode, so that leaves little room for dispersion over distance.
Not hydrogen contamination, although one source of heat would be recombination of slowly released hydrogen, which is a characteristic of 'good' cold fusion Pd.
The 'hypering' is a chemical sensitization of the light detecting materials in the film emulsion, usually silver nitrate. All films had exposure-density curves, where the density I am speaking of is the density of the 'pixels' (nitrate crystals actually) in the exposed and developed image. The curves are usually a rough sigmoidal shape. The lower exposure end required more exposure per unit density response. The hypering technique shortens or removes that portion of the curve, so one gets immediate strong response to low level exposure by light. Since the films are heat sensitive too, low level heat would have the same effect.
And as I pointed out, heat can produce very sharp images. Just look at the Optris stuff. The only question is was there enough to 'expose' the hypered film.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that from my earliest involvement with the CF field, I have never claimed any expertise w.r.t. problems with radiation measuring instruments, so I have little to say on that aspect of the problem, which Jed now retreats to to support his beliefs. But I still think one should try to determine if such problems exist as opposed to just accepting (without any critical thinking) something that rewrites textbooks.
What has this to do with DC or the US DoS?
Edit: Oh wait, I get it...
Foggy Bottom was also the name of a line of beer by the Olde Heurich Brewing Company,
But doesn't that go over in the FP's Experiment thread?
BTW, what do you think a Optris camera is. Recall the 'dogbone' images? Film, which fogs with heat, would do the same thing. We're just digital these days.
Also, they made IR sensitive film. Gave really cool images...
Overheated X-ray film only shows fogging and never in my experience a clear image of anything.
Back in 2001 or 2 when I first looked into this I took a Type 55 Polaroid film, which contains a positive and negative, and touched a hot soldering iron to it for 5, 10 and 20 seconds. The 5 second exposure did not show any image. The 10 and 20 sec exposure showed an oval exposed area. The 20 sec one was slightly bigger. Point is, it wasn't a 'fog', it was a clearly defined shape mimicing the iron tip.
So, in your experience, did you attempt to control the shape of the exposure?
Edit: BTW, most of the published images are exactly as you indicated. The exceptions are the Szpak stuff and the one BARC image that showed what look to me like diffraction spots.
Let me add that McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein wrote reviews organizing dozens of papers -- reviews featured at LENR-CANR.org. I indexed and organized the papers to a fare-thee-well and put all of the abstracts in a single file.
Try looking up "x-ray detector," "autoradiograph," "NaI" or any other relevant search term.
A quick perusal of these refs/links using the search function for the terms suggested, plus a couple more:
#1) 'film' 0 hits, 'x-ray' 0, 'xray' 0, 'radiation' 2 (both generic comments, no details), 'detector' 0, 'autorad' 0, 'NaI' 0
This is a 15 page summary paper by McKubre.
#2) 'film' 11 hits (only 2 relate to x-ray film), 'x-ray' 23, 'x-rad' 2, 'xray' 0, 'radiation 87, 'detector' 15 , 'autorad' 1 (related to T), 'NaI' 1
This reference is a 52 page 'tutorial' by Ed Storms and as such doesn't give details that would develop confidence in and of themselves, the references must be consulted.
'detector' included: CR-39, T. n. beta. as well as a couple for xrays, 3 of the refs were in titles of referenced papers.
I did not search all the 'radiation' hits
#3) 'film' 2 hits, 'x-' 2, 'x-rad' 0, 'rad 4 (Faraday, Faradaic, Colorado, 'Radiat.' as part of a journal title) , 'detector' 0, 'auto' 0, 'NaI' 0
This ref is a list of info supplied to the DOE during the 2004 re-review of CF
#4) did not search - a link to Jed's library search page, non-specific
#5) Jed's complete bibliography of 4512 papers.
'film' 253 hits, 'x-ray' 416, 'x-' 438, 'radiation 2 (both generic comments, no details), 'detector' 236, 'autorad' 21, 'photographic' 7 (4 refs) One was from 2015 by a Fredricks who talks about magnetic monopoles and FTL particles, which leads me to believe this is not relevant to x-ray detection y film. One was by McKubre but discussed photgraphs from ICCF conferences, i.e. not relevant. Another was to the Szpak work. Last one was an ICCF8 paper by Yamada - might look into that.
Net conclusion: JR was as unhelpful as always.
Edit: So I looked at Yamada. Massive issues with the reported work and conclusions. I'm not going to give details unless someone besides trolls wants it.
the same pattern of radiation is seen in multiple x-rays
Actually, if you take all the reports, it isn't. What does show a 'recurring' pattern is the work of Szpak, et al, when they are studying their codeposited Pd on Ni wire mesh cathode. Then, the images show the basic structure of the mesh. This could come from emitted xrays, but
X-ray film is sensitized by exposure to hydrogen (the technique is called 'hypering') and is sensitive to heat.
the mesh is also hot, which would 'expose' the film also. So, once again, two explanations one mundane, one earth-shattering. The 'good' scientist's response is 'we need more definitive data'.
The remaining reports are just smudges on the film (with the one exception of the BARC case I mentioned in my prior referenced posts), and you have to look at the actual method used. Sometimes the film is actually not immersed.
and the anode wires, which are between the x-ray film and the cathode, block the x-rays, in a clear pattern.
...which would also be true for heat exposure by the cathode mesh...
It falls under the category of "doing what I say others should do..."
No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that.
Sometimes...if they know to look.
No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that. Solid state detectors and other devices are also not susceptible to such problems.
Might be true, might not. Got a reference to where they were used and where they were checked for interferences from the experiment?
I could give you a references to peer-reviewed papers from the best labs in the world, but you would deny I gave you anything.
Really? What proof of that do you have?
You would continue to claim that I have made an assertion without evidence. That's how you roll.
If you post the ref here, you would be covered. Unless you wait a year or so and then try to claim I missed something. Then you would again need to cite a ref, which would simply be to the post where you pointed to the paper. Your claims here are ridiculous on the face of it.
The film does not come in contact with bubbles because it is protected. It is intraoral, meaning it is designed to be inserted into your mouth, which is wet. It does not come in contact with solids, either. Other x-ray detectors are also protected, and have been used, as I mentioned.
The plastic cover on the film is highly permeable to hydrogen. The hypering of regular film occurs through the plastic support of the silver nitrate crystals that when developed give the image. The bubbles are either pure of mixed hydrogen, which will adhere to the plastic and diffuse throughout the piece of film.
Now, you started this one. If you want to continue on with it, take it here Mizuno's bucket of water
Actually Jed did by repeating, once again, something that he has been corrected on multiple times here and elsewhere. Further, it has nothing to do with Mizuno's bucket anecdote. But it's a moot issue anyway as I doubt I will continue responding to JR as I know him to be unteachable by those he does not call his heroes. If others need clarification I will respond however.
Also, by the way, if you read the papers * you will see that the film never comes in contact with liquid or gas. It is dental x-ray film, designed that way.
Ummm...what do you think makes up the bubbles? Solids?
Do your own homework.
I will if I so deem it necessary. However, when one makes a claim and offers no support, that is just an assertion and needs not be considered valid. Your choice as to how your suggestions are taken. For my part, I usually try to back up what I say with references (such as the prior one to Wikipedia for those who don't know what 'hypering' is) or I state that my statement is unsupported or a 'belief'.