One more year of raw data from tritium decay experiment now available

Thanks for the experiment and data.

hanson wrote: Jan, maybe there is. I picked data pairs for light1 where column 3 changes its value, and then stayed the same till the next change in 3 occurred. So, investigate now: Are all these data pair value ranges (of whatever col 3 refers to) of the same "duration" apart and equally long?

If they are then it indicates that the D-decay is "normal". If not then I suggest for you to stretch the graph coordinates for columns 1 & 3 into d(log vs. d(log-log) scales that may yield a graph for you that does produce distinct kinks (hokey sticks) which indicates that the mode or speed of decay has changed. Good luck, hanson

------ Data pairs for ligh1 from [A] ------

0 light1 888 ref 784 light2 911 temp 479 1 light1 889 ref 783 light2 912 temp 479 2 light1 889 ref 784 light2 912 temp 479 3 light1 889 ref 783 light2 913 temp 479 4 light1 890 ref 783 light2 913 temp 479 5 light1 890 ref 783 light2 913 temp 479 6 light1 890 ref 783 light2 913 temp 479 7 light1 890 ref 783 light2 914 temp 479 8 light1 890 ref 783 light2 914 temp 479 9 light1 890 ref 783 light2 914 temp 480 10 light1 891 ref 783 light2 914 temp 479 211 light1 891 ref 783 light2 913 temp 479 212 light1 890 ref 783 light2 913 temp 480 392 light1 890 ref 783 light2 912 temp 480 393 light1 889 ref 784 light2 912 temp 479 527 light1 889 ref 783 light2 911 temp 480 528 light1 888 ref 782 light2 911 temp 479 670 light1 888 ref 783 light2 910 temp 479 671 light1 887 ref 783 light2 910 temp 480 813 light1 887 ref 782 light2 909 temp 479 814 light1 886 ref 783 light2 909 temp 480 934 light1 886 ref 784 light2 908 temp 479 935 light1 885 ref 783 light2 908 temp 480 1083 light1 885 ref 783 light2 907 temp 480 1084 light1 884 ref 782 light2 907 temp 479 1243 light1 884 ref 783 light2 905 temp 479 1244 light1 883 ref 783 light2 905 temp 479 1368 light1 883 ref 783 light2 905 temp 480 1369 light1 882 ref 783 light2 904 temp 480 1463 light1 882 ref 783 light2 904 temp 480 1464 light1 881 ref 784 light2 904 temp 479 1609 light1 881 ref 783 light2 902 temp 479 1610 light1 880 ref 783 light2 902 temp 480 1703 light1 880 ref 784 light2 901 temp 479 1704 light1 879 ref 783 light2 901 temp 480 1825 light1 879 ref 783 light2 901 temp 479 1826 light1 878 ref 783 light2 900 temp 479 1988 light1 878 ref 783 light2 900 temp 479 1989 light1 877 ref 782 light2 900 temp 479 2157 light1 877 ref 784 light2 899 temp 479 2158 light1 876 ref 784 light2 898 temp 480 2278 light1 876 ref 784 light2 897 temp 480 2279 light1 875 ref 783 light2 897 temp 479 2421 light1 875 ref 783 light2 897 temp 479 2422 light1 874 ref 783 light2 897 temp 479 2588 light1 874 ref 783 light2 896 temp 479 2589 light1 874 ref 783 light2 896 temp 479 2710 light1 873 ref 783 light2 895 temp 479 2711 light1 872 ref 784 light2 894 temp 479 2877 light1 872 ref 784 light2 894 temp 479 2878 light1 871 ref 783 light2 893 temp 480 3043 light1 871 ref 783 light2 892 temp 480 3044 light1 871 ref 783 light2 892 temp 480 3124 light1 870 ref 783 light2 892 temp 479 3125 light1 869 ref 782 light2 892 temp 479 3356 light1 869 ref 782 light2 891 temp 480 3357 light1 868 ref 783 light2 890 temp 479 3455 light1 868 ref 783 light2 889 temp 479 3456 light1 867 ref 783 light2 889 temp 479 3649 light1 867 ref 783 light2 889 temp 479 3650 light1 866 ref 784 light2 889 temp 480 3766 light1 866 ref 783 light2 887 temp 479 3767 light1 865 ref 784 light2 887 temp 479 3936 light1 865 ref 783 light2 886 temp 480 3937 light1 864 ref 783 light2 886 temp 480 4076 light1 864 ref 782 light2 885 temp 480 4077 light1 863 ref 783 light2 885 temp 479 4194 light1 863 ref 783 light2 884 temp 479 4195 light1 862 ref 782 light2 884 temp 480 4364 light1 862 ref 783 light2 884 temp 479 4365 light1 861 ref 783 light2 883 temp 480 4528 light1 861 ref 783 light2 882 temp 480 4529 light1 860 ref 783 light2 882 temp 480 4652 light1 860 ref 783 light2 881 temp 479 4653 light1 859 ref 783 light2 881 temp 479 4795 light1 859 ref 783 light2 880 temp 480 4796 light1 858 ref 782 light2 880 temp 480 4915 light1 858 ref 784 light2 879 temp 479 4916 light1 857 ref 783 light2 879 temp 480 5084 light1 857 ref 783 light2 878 temp 479 5085 light1 856 ref 783 light2 878 temp 480 5179 light1 856 ref 782 light2 877 temp 480 5180 light1 855 ref 783 light2 877 temp 480 5308 light1 855 ref 783 light2 876 temp 480 5309 light1 854 ref 784 light2 876 temp 480 5452 light1 854 ref 783 light2 875 temp 480 5453 light1 853 ref 784 light2 875 temp 480 5587 light1 853 ref 784 light2 874 temp 479 5588 light1 852 ref 783 light2 874 temp 480 5635 light1 853 ref 783 light2 874 temp 480 5636 light1 852 ref 783 light2 874 temp 479 5756 light1 852 ref 784 light2 873 temp 479 5757 light1 851 ref 783 light2 873 temp 480 5919 light1 851 ref 783 light2 872 temp 480 5920 light1 850 ref 783 light2 872 temp 480 6044 light1 850 ref 783 light2 871 temp 479 6045 light1 849 ref 783 light2 871 temp 480 6163 light1 849 ref 783 light2 870 temp 479 6164 light1 848 ref 783 light2 870 temp 480 6332 light1 848 ref 784 light2 869 temp 480 6333 light1 847 ref 783 light2 868 temp 480 6498 light1 847 ref 784 light2 868 temp 480 6499 light1 846 ref 783 light2 868 temp 480 6547 light1 846 ref 783 light2 867 temp 479 6548 light1 845 ref 783 light2 867 temp 479 6715 light1 845 ref 783 light2 866 temp 479 6716 light1 844 ref 783 light2 866 temp 480 6881 light1 844 ref 783 light2 865 temp 479 6882 light1 843 ref 782 light2 865 temp 479 7026 light1 843 ref 783 light2 864 temp 480 7027 light1 842 ref 783 light2 864 temp 479 7170 light1 842 ref 783 light2 863 temp 480 7171 light1 842 ref 783 light2 863 temp 479 7362 light1 841 ref 783 light2 862 temp 479 7363 light1 840 ref 783 light2 861 temp 479 7464 light1 840 ref 783 light2 861 temp 480 7465 light1 839 ref 783 light2 861 temp 479 7626 light1 839 ref 783 light2 860 temp 479 7627 light1 838 ref 783 light2 860 temp 480 7769 light1 838 ref 783 light2 859 temp 480 7770 light1 837 ref 783 light2 859 temp 480 7869 light1 837 ref 783 light2 858 temp 480 7870 light1 836 ref 782 light2 857 temp 480 8055 light1 836 ref 784 light2 857 temp 480 8056 light1 835 ref 783 light2 857 temp 479 8131 light1 835 ref 783 light2 856 temp 480 8132 light1 834 ref 783 light2 856 temp 480 8276 light1 834 ref 783 light2 855 temp 480 8277 light1 833 ref 783 light2 855 temp 479 8446 light1 833 ref 784 light2 854 temp 480 8447 light1 832 ref 783 light2 853 temp 479 8563 light1 832 ref 783 light2 853 temp 480 8564 light1 831 ref 784 light2 853 temp 480 8724 light1 831 ref 783 light2 852 temp 479 8725 light1 830 ref 783 light2 852 temp 480 8759 light1 830 ref 783 light2 851 temp 479

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 May 2014 14:20:03 -0700) it happened "hanson" wrote in :

Good one Hanson, yes, theoretically, but we do not even know if the decay is linear (it is not, halftime etc), there are things like phosphor aging in the light tubes, ADC noise, many things.

Yes, for some other experiment I am working on (not related to radioactivity) I am doing something similar to what you just did, detecting signals that way, seems to work :-) That as alternative to Fourier transform...

I have not sat down and done any in depth investigation, not even of last years data, at this point I prefer to be [just] the experimenter, and when enough data is collected and I feel the inspiration I will have a go.

Martin Brown had a go at it and did send me his conclusion of last years data, and his opinion is that it will never see anything because it needs more resolution. I do disagree with that... And the more data, the better we can get rid of noise, Gravity Probe B was full of systematic errors but a bit of tinkering and math found a signal, I think we have little on systematic errors here, just a new sort of way to measure tritium decay indirectly. The only 'change' in the data could be when I opened the outside box and replaced the backup Duracells, as it gave a battery low alert (and that was some weeks ago, around May 7?), The Duracells lasted almost twice as long as calculated for, were used a few times with main interruptions. So I think the data is OK.

Thanks

On a sunny day (Sat, 17 May 2014 05:47:03 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :

Holy!

Somebody just send me an analysis of the second year data run, and sees a variation, more decay in winter than in summer. I compared it to:

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach, John B. Buncher, John T. Gruenwald, Dennis E. Krause, Joshua J. Mattes

And I am , well, it matches.

For a quick look.

I have asked for permission to put that analysis on my web page. More later.

On a sunny day (Sat, 17 May 2014 05:47:03 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :

OK, that document is now on the site:

Perhaps you need a detector pointed in another direction to reduce background influences?

RL

Hi,

Cool! I think it is the weak field (neutrino's) is stronger closer to the sun and this effects the radioactive decay which is a weak field reaction to begin with so it seems like common sense it would have a

1/r^2 relationship to the weak field source, the sun.

It is a weak interaction of the weak field :) There is no "neutrino" absorption, but it is exactly the same principle as weak interaction with an EM field, where there is no "photon" absorbed, yet the EM field can still effect the matter, ie physically move atoms like in this paper:

I think you are detecting an amplification of the weak field possibly, the amount of extra radiation you are getting from the tritium decay might be larger than the amount of energy you are extracting from the weak field itself. I don't know this for sure but it could be calculated I think. It makes sense considering the seasonal variation is a modulation of the existing radiation decay, but the exact "gain" between the weak field and the extra radiation measured probably will vary with different radiation sources too.

cheers, Jamie

On a sunny day (Thu, 22 May 2014 20:31:36 -0700) it happened Jamie M wrote in :

I was wondering all the time if this effect is real, should we then see a faster decay near a nuclear reactor, as nuclear reactors spit out large amount of neutrinos? Do not have a reactor at home to thest this, some nuclear submarine or some land based site could be used to test that.

Hi,

I'd make one more identical box and send it to a neutrino beam experiment and ask them to put it in the beam line, it would have no noticeable effect on their own experiments, and you could run both at the same time hehe. You could even put a couple boxes at different lengths along the beam line as the neutrino beam is weaker as it travels this could be detected. The beams tend to be far underground, at least for the ones that travel from one location to the detector though.

There are several neutrino beam experiments, I don't know if they are testing them to see if radiation decay varies in the beams.

The different type of neutrino's might cause the decay rate to increase or decrease (just speculating) depending on if they are associated with an increase or decrease in the weak field intensity (more speculation!)

I guess you could try to find neutrino sources with different types of neutrino's and see if they modulate the decay rate differently.

Cool project you have done!

cheers, Jamie

>

On a sunny day (Fri, 23 May 2014 15:49:25 -0700) it happened Jamie M wrote in :

Thank you, see my reply via email.

hanson wrote: Like I posted in my last email, your data has shown the possibility that there appears to be a seasonal/temporal drift in the assumed time constancy of the decay of Tritium, the unstable Hydrogen atom with 2 additional neutrons, which is normally expressed by its Half life, hence making the flux of neutrons NOT to be proportional to T's mass in time.

If you google for [[ seasonal decay variation tritium ]], you'll find mostly lofty & esoteric parotting that assumes T(half-life) to be constant & speculate the resulting variables therefrom.

A very few, like you, take the view that the fixed foundation constancy may lay elsewhere because T (1/2) may NOT be constant.

.... ...

If you are right with your data, and indeed find that the T(1/2) is seasonally variable, for what ever reason, then you have opened a grizzly & gruesome can of worms.... because the safety and effect of NUCLEAR warheads will NOT be as was guaranteed and as was hoped for and advertized... and...

and the weapon designers' loud mouthing that " this (= their assumed) method allows better control of the timing of chain reaction initiation & the yield can be reduced any time before detonation simply by reducing the amount of tritium inserted into the pit during the arming procedure, since most of the fission comes from U-238, and the tritium is manufactured in place during the explosion."... so, they say... but it may NOT be so!

No wonder the "insider politicians" make such a big deal about *** non-proliferation***... .... == Go get them, Jan! == .. for your interests have substance and gravitas, and are not just the usual academic Gedanken-farts that permeate this forum. Kudos to you Jan! hanson

PS: Jan, check the thread "The Atomic Vortex Hypothesis" initiated by "Paul Stowe" or the current the TV "beyond the Wormhole" series narrated by actor Morgan Freeman. wherein you can see notions like yours, that are presented in the interviews with/of scientist's experiments that show how Newton's G is NOT constant , as well as neither the assumed fixed half-life decay constancy of nuclei, both of which undergo observed seasonal variations.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

On a sunny day (Sat, 24 May 2014 01:35:22 -0700) it happened "hanson" wrote in :

It think it is common knowledge you can trigger a nuclear reaction remotely if you are close enough to some German nuclear waste sites ;-) Should work for US, and nukes too. But I was always under the impression that that was neutron flux related.

Thank you. Yes, it is curiosity (that killed the cat?, well that is another story, we had a cat that died that way).

It is highly unlikely that any of these parameters is constant. I still struggle understanding huge dinosaurs and flying birds in a gravity as we have today. Either the atmosphere must have been much thicker, or gravity changed (earth hit by some huge metal object, and increased in size, driving the continents apart...?).

It is fun to be proven right, like this morning I did read:

about hat asteroid that landed in Russia, I previously wrote it was a piece of that bigger one, came of after it hit it...

The world needs a shake-up, WW3 would work, else IQ will go down and humanity extinct, too many rules, old women politics, totally schizo and insane. Take for example that fuss about death penalty executions, those people cannot find a quick way to kill, and that in a country where kids over 5 years own guns, just put a bullet in the head of the person to be executed.. He wont have the means and time to feel or think about it.

Old women, millions will die when those nukes go of, the cities.

0bama keeps asking Russia for it so he can declare war, start a draft, and have you work for free to fix the infrastructure, roads, dikes, water, trickety.

:-)

Tritium is synthesized in situ from lithium and neutrons.

Neither this reaction nor fission itself is driven by the weak force.

Please read up on some physics.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

Oxygen. It was higher in the carboniferous period (and others). Higher power density also allowed massive insects, flying and otherwise.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

Hi,

What about this:

"The weak interaction is responsible for both the radioactive decay and nuclear fusion of subatomic particles."

cheers, Jamie

6Li + n => 3T + 4He, or something like that.

Weak is an important part of any fusion process, but it's not the key part. And fission has even less to do with the Strong force as well. The atomic strong force uses pions as virtual force particles, or something like that, and heavy fission is about breaking that, but they're all globby, they kind of want to come apart already.

Weak is more about all the decay going on following the fission products, and for fusion, the excess protons (or alphas) decaying into neutrons, positrons and neutrinos.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

When I saw this part of Jan's post I about fell out of my chair. I am equally surprised at your response, not that you are wrong, but that he speculates the air must have been so much denser that it buoyed the dinosaurs and your seeming indifference to that aspect of his comments.

We have some rather massive animals today. Yes, dinosaurs were larger than elephants, but not so much that they were physically impossible. Some of the larger ones were too large to be mobile on land, but we also have those today, they are called whales.

Are all of the paleontologist so completely inept that they can't determine if these animals were too large to exist without a modification of gravity?

--

Rick

"power density" is the not same as "air density" nor "gravity".

As he says "oxygen" is the key. More O2 per given volume was supposedly the reason why larger insects existed then and not now. They breathe through pores and need oxygen to diffuse into their bloodstream would benefit from a larger partial pressure of O2. A match or a forest fire would have burned hotter 100s of mns of years ago.

But it is interesting to note we're talking 3,6,10% of the age of the iniverse. If there has been some inflation operating after the initial big spurt, then maybe the earth was 10% smaller and density 37% higher and surface gravity 23% higher than now.

1/2 joke.

--
The most likely culprit [for the dieback of Azorella on Macquarie 
Island] would seem is climate change. Having evolved in an environment 
with a remarkably consistent climate -- albeit consistently cold and 
wet -- on a tiny speck of land within the latitudes of the furious 
fifties, Azorella looks to be well suited for constant drizzle and 
howling westerly winds. This climate has become less consistent over 
the last 30 to 40 years, heavy rain is more common; periods of several 
days with no drizzle at all are more common; wind may be getting 
stronger; and sunny days possibly more common. Maybe a threshold has 
been crossed and Azorella is no longer superbly adapted to its 
environment because the environment in which it has evolved over 
thousands of years has changed. 
-- ABC, "Walking the climate tightrope on Macquarie Island", 19 May 2014

Jan has a lot of strange ideas; why encourage that with acknowledgement?

Yes, which would be served by a denser atmosphere of the same composition, or the same density with higher concentration. Higher density, at the same pO2, would even suffice to explain the bugs (extra lift), though not the rest, so does not fit.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com