Bruce__H Member

  • Member since Jul 22nd 2017
  • Last Activity:
Reactions Received
963
Points
7,233
Profile Hits
2,929
  • Bruce__H Reacted with Like to Alan Smith’s post in the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Bruce__H)

    Cosmic Rays. You would be surprised what they can do and how often you might see them
    Reaction (Post)
  • Bruce__H Reacted with Like to Paradigmnoia’s post in the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Bruce__H)

    I'm not sure where it occurs, but the K40 peak is a normal natural background hump at 1460.8 keV. Depending on what one is doing, if after background subtraction there is still a residual lump there, then the background signal is…
    Reaction (Post)
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Alan Smith)

    Fair enough. As a feature that might occur during active runs but is extrinsic, shouldn't this be regarded as a a background feature? Why try to exclude them from the background?
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    I don't understand how this responds to any f the observations I just made. Nor do I understand how it fits with anything you have said earlier.

    I'm not even sure what you mean here by a background peak. Can you point out for me…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    Background averaging is just fine if done properly. The random peaks you mention are exactly the sort of thing that averaging should reduce.

    There is something about how you are taking and processing your backgrounds and your other…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Reacted with Like to THHuxleynew’s post in the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Bruce__H)

    If the Spectra are background-subtracted everything you see may be the effect of a (single) unsmoothed background that will correlate with both. Smoothing the background can of course lead to artifacts from smoothed background…
    Reaction (Post)
  • Bruce__H Reacted with Like to Wyttenbach’s post in the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Bruce__H)

    I know. I will make an appendix with a full representation of a range if people will agree.
    Reaction (Post)
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Dr Richard*)

    Frequency-domain analysis of single-channel patch-clamp data in 1980? That would be right at the forefront of physiological research back then. Respect!
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    The problem is that the data shown in your tables does not allow readers to see how much variation exists between successive spectra.

    Figures 1 and 2 need to be redone anyway -- because they are blurry screen captures with…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    A calibration source is 1000bq but your detector is seeing nothing like this rate of gamma events. The bin counts you report are only on the order of 0-40 counts per 10 minutes and are thus susceptible to Poisson noise.

    For the low…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    We differ on the most fundamental issues of the physics here.

    The radioactive decay processes I know about are probabilistic. To answer your question ... I believe we can measure half-lives as bulk phenomena, but on a microscopic…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    I continue to try and understand some of the results presented by Wyttenbach in his most recent ResearchGate posting (A new experimental path to nucleosynthesis)

    I have had trouble understanding the nature of the gamma spectra displayed in this work. In…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread What is the current state of LENR?.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    You are the one who posted these data. You now need to explain them in a way that others can understand. No one here understands what you have done.
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread What is the current state of LENR?.

    (Quote from Wyttenbach)

    I'm not sure where you are heading here. Are you saying that you currently do not interpret the spike-like features as spectrographic peaks?
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread What is the current state of LENR?.

    magicsound
    I follow most of what you say. But when I said that the spikey things don't seem to be noise what I meant is that I think Wyttenbach is interpreting them as genuine spectroscopic peaks.

    The data are said to have been gathered over the course…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread What is the current state of LENR?.

    (Quote from THHuxleynew)

    All those spikey things don't seem to be traditional noise. This is a 3-hour spectrum (according to Wyttenbach) and I think that the shot noise is low here compared with the signal. Instead, there is this forest of spikes, a few…
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please.

    (Quote from Alan Smith)

    This is a fast-neutron fission reactor. Whereas the Gates-backed reactor project interested observer highlighted is fusion.
    Post
  • Bruce__H Reacted with Like to Wyttenbach’s post in the thread The church of SM physics.

    (Quote from Bruce__H)

    It (300) has been said in the context of the total spectrum....and yes many - from full decay - are overlapping and can only be found if you look at all 10 spectra I did use.
    Reaction (Post)
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    Wyttenbach

    In Section 2 of your ResearchGate manuscript, you say ...

    "We did use a bin resolution of 600 eV for the first 200keV what should be enough to classify the lines of interest. All spectra did run for 10 minutes.


    Here more than 300 lines are
    Post
  • Bruce__H Replied to the thread The church of SM physics.

    I am still trying to puzzle out why the properties of the background spectrum shown in Figure 2 of Wyttenbach's ResearchGate manuscript are so different from those claimed in the text (i.e., claimed peaks are not visible).

    To address this Wyttenbach at…
    Post