StephenC Member
  • Member since Apr 2nd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by StephenC

    Hi magicsound


    (Sorry edited for the right Alan)


    Actually much of my post I was meant for Johny Five. I was thinking pictures from one of his successful runs could be a good reference.


    Alan what you’ve done with this live honest and thorough test is already amazing and already a lot of work. And I only have thanks for that.


    But point taken.... It’s easy to sit on a back seat and make requests when someone is doing the hard work and that’s true for my request to Johny too.


    It’s really great what you are doing. Really intriguing results too.

    JohnyFive


    Yup I’m curious too.


    On another point I wonder if next time you make a test run if you could do something that while not technical might help replicators with their tests. And help them check if they are on track or making early mistakes.


    I can appreciate providing technical data can be difficult and also maybe brings things too much into focus or could be distracting to proper independent replication.


    But something more empirical might help a lot.


    I’m wondering if next time you run your test if you could take pictures of the contents of your beaker. Once every hour or so or if that’s too frequent once every few hours? And then maybe provide them in a time line.? This could be useful to “see” if the evolution of the materials. The electrodes and fluid are behaving in similar ways in the different replications to the tests you perform. If something is wrong early on in the test or weaker or stronger in its results it might also provide interesting empirical reference data. And good thing about pictures is they may show something we did not think to look for or measure in the data.

    I have to say this 2m effect does remind me of some of the observations made by Holmlid regarding Kaon decay from UDH.


    Probably it is worth taking careful precautions close to a he cell until it is better understood. I appreciate that the radiation level is low though.


    I wonder if it would be possible to determine if the effect is due to a “gas” decaying at a distance. Or particles.


    I suppose you could get this from a TOF measurement.


    Maybe a crude way to do this could be to Move the paper or device some where new more than 2m way and then see how long it takes to get counts at 2m.


    A. If it is almos instantaneous particles could be implied.


    B. If it is taking some seconds the may be a “gas” like substance that later decays is implicated


    From the TOF and/or distance one may be able to estimate the half life of what ever effect is going on I guess.

    Although I’m intrigued by the possibility of a Li p process some how occurring in the paper.


    I agree that it would likely require something pretty exotic to bring it there and stabilize it and enable later reactions.


    I think the resulting alpha energies a few MeV are similar magnitude with those of AM-241 though.


    But I should say that Da Phys mentioned to me on Ecat world that we should expect some alpha on the surface from UDD as well as the volatile compounds he mentioned. I’m not sure if UDH would be associated with alpha as well.


    I think this is an important point. Is your test with alpha detection with Deuterium sourced materials or Hydrogen? If Deuterium could you check for alpha also with Hydrogen?


    Regarding your measurements of radiation at 2m.


    This could be interesting. Are you seeing a 1/r^2 drop of at 2m compared to 1m?


    A. 1/r^2 might imply something that is radiating but not interacting much with air. Maybe muons? (Although half life would need to be considered) or something more stable such as beta?


    B. More attenuation than this might indicate something interacting with the air such as alpha or protons? Of something that decays such as muons of mesons. Maybe we could distinguish which from the attenuation rate?


    C. Less attenuation than 1/r^2 would be the most interesting. This might imply neutral particles decaying after a certain TOF in to charged particles. This could be pretty consistent with Holmlid work with neutral Kaons and Pions Being generated from UDH.


    If you are seeing alpha as well as radiation from the pancake following a rule other than B above I really wouldn’t know What to make if that. If C it would imply something decaying to alpha at distances from the paper. That would be strange indeed.

    Very good test and thanks for checking this.


    I was curious about the Li +p approach would give something too. It would have bee be at least close to a normally accepted solution but it never really explained heavier element transmutations.


    If you can prove UDH with this simple experiment it will be really amazing


    Da Phys in Ecat forum suggested using the detector the other side of the foil. And also the other side of several sheets of foil.


    Apparently with penetrating emissions associated with neutral Kaons from UDH decay this could lead to an increased count at the detector.


    Da Phys appears to me to know about UDH much better than most. He is definitely deep in to understanding it at a proper and respectful scientific level. That should speak to some here. I wonder if it would be worth you contacting him directly for ideas about how to verify the presence of UDH or its meson products.


    He also Mentioned that some volatile compounds can be produced from UDD but not UDH. I’m not sure what compounds they are but I suppose they might explain the smell you had when using Deuterium?


    I guess charged meson or muon tracks in a cloud chamber might be possible if the can be destinguished from beta or protons. Perhaps if branching due to decays were seen it would be conclusive proof.

    Longview.


    Hehe good I will tell my wife that next time.... you know 😀


    Yup I think if we see only lithium

    and hydrogen fusion it’s one thing. understandable in normal terms if hard to explain in energy terms. Even if we would still need to explain how it is sustained after stimulation.


    But heavier elements than beryllium would be pretty hard to explain away. Even with proton fusion. If we are in the realms of lithium fusing with carbon or two carbon atoms fusing then we really have no choice but to look at exotic mechanisms.


    I know I’m stating the obvious here but it would be really cool if we saw proof.


    Oh my goodness is it actually oxygen that’s fusing in my guts? Not just methane after all ;)

    Good questions.


    Also if high energy MeV Alphas can yield Bremsstrahlung from interacting electrons or ions?


    Good it’s not methane... some might get suspicious ;)


    If you find heavier elements like fluorine or Nickel for example in the paper I guess it’s time to call Bob.

    Thanks for those replies JohnyFive.


    I’m also curious about the possibility of Beryllium.


    I wonder if you could describe the smell a bit.


    I understand from some reports that beryllium has a sweet taste. But is toxic so shouldn’t be tried! Good idea to wear a gas mask.


    But compounds of Beryllium could be indicative of some interesting processes. And some of these can generate odours.


    beryllium Carbide I think slowly reacts with water to produce beryllium oxide and methane for example... if you are smelling methane this could have all kinds of implications. Methane on Mars for example.


    Beryllium Carbide is normally produced at high temperatures. But there is carbon in the paper. So perhaps some more reactive beryllium like pregenorator would be implicated. Or something else that catalysis it’s formation.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium_carbide


    Beryllium oxide (BeO) [ whilst not quite an odor ;) ] is soluble in water so that might indicate something about why it is removed when wet.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium_oxide


    This kind of chemical effects could be true of a Beryllium like pregenorator (some kind of exotic compound LiH) or true Be. Obviously the simplest logical assumption using true Be is the best solution. but If Be appears but then diminish over time especially in line with the long 20 minutes half life then perhaps it could indicate something more exotic. Normal Be8 or stimulated Be9* half-life should be much shorter. And Be9 in ground state is stable. (This long half-life to me could imply a pregenorator making Be).


    Beryllium Hydoxide incidentally is only slightly soluble but hydrated on heating to produce soluble BeO and H2O.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium_hydroxide


    I wonder if the BeO would precipitate out in an acid?


    If something exotic is implicated (I admit it’s a big if) . If an exotic LiH compound entity simulating a Be is implicated maybe certain Be compounds such as Be2C or BeOH stabilize the exotic component from a chemical point of view where as others such as BeO do not. So the compound the compound HLi nucleus remains (until it interacts at nucleus level) but in the other less stable ones the compound lithium and hydrogen separate into their individual entities or more classical ionic bound LiH.


    A crazy thought I admit... but I wonder if certain chemical compounds could stabilize an pregenorator entity so it’s nucleus interaction is in hibited too. If so it could form an interesting method of storage.

    Hi JohnyFive .


    Whilst you are waiting for the new detector.


    I had a very interesting exchange on e-Cat world with someone there called Da Phys. He is someone who’s comments and understanding I respect a lot and he has very good insight about UDH. He is of the view the effect you are seening is due to UDH and gave some very good arguments to me to explain. Especially with respect to the foil.


    Perhaps more importantly is his observation if correct could imply neutral penetrating radiation that may be needs consideration.


    May I ask some questions about the test with the foil?


    1. I understand in one test with LOD with silver foil the test was a negative due to moisture in the paper. But in a later test with LOH it with foil when the paper remained dry you saw a doubling of the count. Is that correct?


    2. In the case with the count doubling was the detector on the other side of the foil with respect to the paper? Or between it? Or under the paper?


    3. If it was on the other side of the foil. When the foil was removed did the count drop again with just the paper.


    4. if the foil was replaced did it increase again?


    5. When the foil was removed from the paper was there any counts just from the foil. And if so how did it compare to the counts with the paper?


    6. If you were not able to make these checks before could you make them whilst you are waiting for the alpha sensor?


    I think they could be a good indicator of the validity of the UDH approach.


    Edit:


    From you posts above I think I fact the paper was on top of the detector and the foil was on top of the paper the in the other side . So it does look like the agent is reflected or contained by th foil. But I would still like to confirm that with you before getting back to Da Phys on it.


    It could still be interesting to see if the steps above testing the foil and paper separately after exposure and removing and replacing the foil indicate something.


    Also If that was set up could you also check with the foil. Between the paper and sensor.... if There are mesons from UDH that might indicate something.


    I’m really impressed how versatile this simple test is for potential checking theoretical approaches.

    JohnyFive every thing your doing already is great. If we get replications there will be plenty of chances to experiment.


    Regarding the dental film. If the pancake sensor also detects X-rays it might help to use the film to help identify if the radiation is due to X-Rays or due to particles.


    It might also help to see if the radiation is localized in hot spots or distributed uniformly over a surface.


    But I must admit I have no idea how to get hold of dental film either. Would ordinary film in a optically dark envelope be sufficient? I wonder?


    I wonder if a UV sensor would show up anything?


    Maybe someone can help? Im sure it can be checked later sometime anyway.

    I hope this does not sound like not too crazy a suggestion.


    Is there a way to look for UV or X-Rays coming from the paper?


    Both before the paper is removed when the test is active and after when it is removed?


    I’m wondering if some particular signatures of atomic interaction level effects that I’m thinking about are present.


    Would it be possible to use dentil film or something equivalent on top of the paper? First during the test . Then in the time after?

    Thanks JohnyFive for the replies.


    It could be that the relative background could be interesting even if it is a bit contaminated. Actually maybe even more relevant in some ways.


    But I can also understand if you may also be concerned about using that if it relates to other experiments you are running that you prefer to keep close at this time.


    Could be interesting to do your self if you haven’t already . Just in case it gives some clues.


    It’s Interesting that you used LiOD... I wish I had more time to keep up with things. I miss some details like this sometimes even though it’s clearly stated. My Apologies for that.


    Lithium is interesting if it produces two 3.4 MeV alpha. Some times the broad spectrum aspect of these kinds of plots seem to me to look like they correspond to a Q value not far off this. But how that would correspond to the half-life behavior you see on the paper when you remove it.... I have no idea.


    Given your thoughts about gamma... It does seem it could imply beta or alpha are generated in and from the paper. It would be strange for Be8 to continue to be captured or generated there in the paper after the paper is removed though... I suppose activation of carbon etc by bomardment would have similar constraints...


    It’s a good experiment for its simplicity and the questions it raises..


    I’m enjoying following when I can. Good luck with It.

    Hi JohnyFive, it very interesting looking at your alternative approach. Especially given its apparent simplicity.


    would you be able to make couple of calibration checks with your spectrometer?


    There could potentially be some interesting structure in that spectrum.


    I suppose the peaks towards the right side of the curve are a K40 peak? It’s interesting the multi peak structure to it though. And some other hints of structure further into the broader spectrum.


    Does anyone know if this structure at that end looks normal?


    1) It would be interesting to see the spectrum calibrated with a K40 source or something.... I wonder if sea salt or bananas would be sufficient;) (a second kind of radiation source might be good too)


    2) would it be possible to have a background spectrum from inside you lab as well?


    2a) It could be interestingly to have one with out any apparatus and another with dummy not active euipment with the same fuel ingredients if possible.


    3) If 2 and 2a are possible could you make a difference plot between the active run data and these? And maybe post the data as a table? There are some smart people like Can here who can make really interesting analysis of that kind of data.


    The difference plots could be intersting if peaks are seen but even an elevated over all broad spectrum can be interesting... even if in fact it follows the profile of background radiation but at higher level.


    4) A typical background spectrum also has a broad component and some peaks due to Radon fleas and K40. (I suspect Alan mentioned it because of this). So it could be interesting to check against the background:


    4a) if new peaks are seen of course this is fundamentally interesting


    4b) even if Some typical background peaks are elevated relative to the normal background it may give some insights... (what would cause that concentration)


    4c) if the broad part of the spectrum is relatively elevated it might indicate something possibly a Bremsstrahlung like phenomenon... we may even be able to see the Q value... which may point to a source and (possibley indicate both the energy generated and liberated in the source and the energy range of the stimulating radiation it generates)


    4d) if the whole background spectrum is amplified then that is most curious of all what on earth could amplify a whole spectrum?


    Regarding your possible future experiments with Hydrogen... maybe if it doesn’t work it could be interesting to add a twist by adding a bit of lithium. Although I think it may require an element of high keV stimulation. (Perhaps some deuteron would still be needed)



    Good luck with your future testing

    Director I find my self in full agreement with almost everything you say especially concerning the physics. I’ve been trying to think things through independently and logically from both first principles about energy and spin and how it is represented and top down with data from plasmonics and basically in both ways find myself getting to the same concepts in the end. It fits beautifully.


    Very curious now about you and who you are now but it’s a healthy curiosity... I don’t expect you to have to reveal more.


    I think you may well be right about all this. I do think you should meet Bob Greenyer some day though.


    Regarding the technology. If LENR works on this basis once it’s understood it’s natural affinity to the cold plasma generation under EM stimulation and plasmonics and spintronics of micro and nanoscale quarter and half wave resonators and their application individually and collectively in plates will undoubtedly lead to huge advances in my opinion. Currently that technology is already developing very quickly with even RF IR and optical laser stimulation.