MFMP Dog Bone Test (‘D B Day’) Live Thread

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Dog Bone Test is now being streamed live on the internet. I thought I would create a new post so we can keep track of this event in one place. It’s getting late in Europe, and it’s likely that the test will be going on for many hours, and it would be helpful if readers here could help other readers by commenting on significant aspects of the testing.

Here is a link to the MFMP’s Evernote feed where they share updates, images and other notes.

https://www.evernote.com/pub/marpooties/projectdogbone#st=p&n=df20c844-ed5b-4d6b-9958-26b2c616154f

This is a link to HUGnetView site where the data stream will be posted:

http://data.hugnetlab.com/

Here’s a link to the MFMP Facebook page where they are also providing updates:

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

Below is the live Youtube stream showing the Dog Bone reactor.

This is live open science, folks — let’s enjoy the show, regardless of how things turn out. I think it’s fair to say that results could be positive or negative.

  • Ged

    Go guys, go! I love listening to you work. Is there a way we can get live or annotated power-in data?

  • Mats

    Hi Bob!

    Nice to see your experiment live! In how long will you start with the “powder”?

    Best regards

    Mats

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are on the last steps of calibrations. Hopefully in an hour or two

    • Bob Greenyer

      Ok – calibration over – we do not want to push it too high!

      Cooling down – this should take about half an hour

  • artefact

    What power steps will you do in the real run?

    • Ged

      Some steps same as calibration for direct compare, I vote.

      • ecatworld

        Ryan is putting the fuel in now.

        • artefact

          Game ON!

          • Ged

            Fuel test is now beginning!

            Whatever we see must last long/high enough to rule out chemical though.

          • ecatworld

            Someone’s playing the Star Trek theme! Sorry: Fanfare for the Common Man by Aaaron Copeland

        • guest2

          Thanks Frank
          Keep updating please!!

      • Ged

        They did the control run which is posted below here in the comments; just compare with that.

      • Mike Henderson

        Is anybody else here hoping this thing runs away and burns a crater in the concrete floor? Live feed. That would be the ultimate “told you so”.

        • Alain Samoun

          Yes as long as the experimenter are safe…

  • NT

    Bob, will they continue with the fueled portion now or will they wait on that until tomorrow in the USA?

  • ecatworld

    I am a little concerned about what Bob G. mentioned earlier: “There was a little sizzle as the bonding agent went in… there is a little water in it. Hopefully there is still some LiAlH4 left intact.”

  • hempenearth

    I predict new fire works around midnight tonight

    • Bob Greenyer

      If only…

      • hempenearth

        Sorry, already 2.53pm on the 31st here. Good luck from Melbourne Australia.

  • artefact

    I cant see data for TypeB TC and Type Int anymore on hugnet?

    • Ged

      I don’t see it either, but they are saving everything to a new list file format they said. Don’t know if that is why.

      • artefact

        Back now.

        • Brandell

          So far not so good?

          • RyuMaster Gorskov

            Hmmm, so far graphs seems almost identical. Ouch.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Such is the reality.

          • Mike Ivanov

            I am sure that Rossi can show you several hundreds of graphs with “no go” results :). This is how the research works, all normal.

          • Ged

            Hopefully the fuel fizzle didn’t destroy the reactor charge and make this run a dead dud :/

          • ecatworld

            That’s what I was wondering

          • Ged

            Should be easy enough to swap in a new core. Got plenty of calibration data.

          • ecatworld

            Yes.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Nothing of real interest so far

          • ivanidso

            Do they need to go hotter to reach the trigger point? Does the temperature vary with powder composition/other variables?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We shall find out

          • Bob Greenyer

            Possibly – but we did not want to risk this DogBone

            Powder macro size / features will vary the optimum thermal excitation temperature

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            It’s unclear to me if MFPF got up to the right temperature. Look at Parkhomov’s picture, quite cold at the middle where Parkhomov measured the temperature, of cause the thermocouple is a bit inside and it’s thicker, so I’m not sure. WDYT? at Parkhomov’s 970 degrees he had 20% COP, slightly above and you might see something, but possible a measurement error. MFMP’s outer temperature went up to 850 degrees, the inside was then at 1157.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is also possible that they did not get enough pressure, either since some of the hydrogen escaped before sealing or because the volume of the reactor chamber is larger (?) than in Parkhomov’s experiment.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We need to list all the variances and work through them.

            We did not want to push the reactor to failure and loos the chance to easily do another test.

  • ecatworld

    Ryan is targeting 200 W to start out.

  • Mats

    How long will this “fuel-part” of the experiment last? Getting late in Sweden….

  • Ged

    This is quite a bit different than the Celani cell! The temps here are so much higher, ambiant noise no longer is visible or a factor.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are right Ged, this is either going to clearly work, or not.

  • Rémi André

    Sorry but would it be possible to know the input power versus time on the graph on HUGnetView ?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is a live stream of hug net on youtube

    http://youtu.be/ZeHBjlQjh5E

    and here is a calculation of power vs temperature.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gBiIO3Mz3OzQSYkxV3jreQ_ilb3FbAVPs2aBAXDrxb4/edit#gid=59964667

    • Ged

      Thank you, Bob!

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    honestly if it was going to go ‘over calibration’, we should have seen it by now

    • Ged

      I think so too. That fizzle may have killed it, but either way it seems this run was not a success.

    • Alain Samoun

      Let’s be patient,they seem to rise the temperature very slowly toward 1200

  • Reminds me of Edison, trying to find the proper filament for the light-bulb.

  • Daniel Maris

    Oh well if there is no energy gain, at least the skeps will accept this as a completely bona fide, scientific test. 🙂

    • Anon2012_2014

      We are up 10 degrees and at least my machine is not being fed with the last 10 minutes of data.

      • Anon2012_2014

        10 Degrees is noise in the setup, i.e. not significant IMHO.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    will mmfp be able to do some sort of spectrum analysis on the ash. Think that would tell you alot. If the there is no hydrogen in the ash then it most likely escaped

    • Bob Greenyer

      We plan to open up the reactor core and look to see what the powder looks like and where it is. We may package a sample to send.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Anyway, you should not throw away the rest of the used powder. It could be used for a future test with bottled hydrogen.

  • NT

    It seems the sealant and sealing the dog bone is a problem. So find out what our Russian friend was/is using and his exact particle size of Nickel then go for another try. Good double blank data points though…

    • Anon2012_2014

      No, one hypothesis (unproven) is that the ends of the dog bone were not sealed by the cement and hence the H2 leaked out. Unproven.

      It seems to me to be easy to, for example, put water in the dogbone, seal it up, and then heat it to 1000 degrees, and see if the same amount of water is in the dogbone when done, or if it escaped as pressurized steam.

      I always suspected Rossi’s Hotcat #1 with the hammered end plugs of being not sealed. When things get very (red/yellow/white) hot they expand at different rates and gas under pressure could escape or even air could get in.

      I would not be surprised if they find no H2 or or hydrogen compounds in the reactor core.

      By the way, does anyone know if Parkhamov used a special waveform on his heater. And what did MFMP use for the dog bone, i.e. single phase 60 HZ AC, or something different.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have this same question, did he use a triac or similar chopped waveform (with RF on the leading edge and pulse current).

        We used a 60Hz single phase full AC but through a variac.

        • deleo77

          What about the size of the dog bone? From what I understand Parkhomov had a smaller device. Pardon the expression, but size could matter.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It’s not the size, it’s what you do with it that matters.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks everyone, for participating. We have 2 more reactor tubes on hand for further tests.

    We will do a quick test tomorrow with no reactor tube in to see if the conduction losses in the plug/seal explains the cooler end.

    We should have a IR cut filters by Friday.

    We would like guidance from Alexander on the type of sealant used and anything else that he considers a critical variation from his experiment.

    Was Alexander’s LiAlH4 isotopically pure for H (no D) as would seam the case with the Lugano Fuel. Piantelli says that if there is any D2, we will not see excess heat in Ni+H system.

    On the subject of Piantelli, for those in the US that wanted to pledge for a bottle of his Chianti, you have around 3 hours to do so!

    • Ged

      Since it’s possible the water contaminated sealant caused a loss of hydrogen or other decomposition of the fuel constituants (with an audible reaction!), do you plan to run this again tomorrow using the non-water containing sealant that was meantioned? If I remember right that you have it on hand.

      • Bob Greenyer

        sadly – we don’t have a non water based sealant on hand. We are considering using glass.

        We did not want to push the dog bone too high and loose the coil.

        • Ged

          Glass sounds reasonable. At least a thermal resistant kind that can handle the temps. Is a silicon based sealant possible? Might be something one can grab from home depot…

        • tlp

          In lugano test they also used water based sealant.

          • NT

            But with a cap no plug…

        • Obvious

          I recommend a zero clearance friction fit, cold plug-hot tube, with just enough ceramic glue to lightly lubricate the outer half of the plug for assembly.

  • deleo77

    If Parkhomov could simply send out a sealed dog bone with wires attached, it would probably be the best chance at avoiding unforeseen errors. Why try to replicate the dog bone that Parkhomov created. There is no need to start from scratch. If MFMP could simply apply their own calorimeters to Parkhomov’s device I would accept that as independent verification. If MFMP has the funds to pay Parkhomov to assemble and ship one to them, I suggest they do it.

    • Mike Ivanov

      It is not easy to pass that kind of device through Russian custom service. Parkhomov will be forced to do a lot of paperwork and consumes a lot of time, no only money.

      • SanjeevM

        I think its worth the effort. If he sends a device, it will be a good social evidence that his results are correct. That’s besides the point.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sorry – fixed it after a while – was google hangout treating the feed as a face.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Might have been the plugged end of the core conducting more. We will do a short test without a core tomorrow to test the theory.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It was certainly history in terms of peer review – just need more detail from the claimant.

  • Mr. Moho

    It looks like the active run was very marginally hotter than calibration above 500 °C (although the opposite happened for the last data point), but it’s well within tolerances:

    http://i.imgur.com/fwTWy5F.png

    Besides asking Parkhomov for every possible detail of his cell and experiment, and attempting a perfectly identical replication of his replication (which the MFMP Dog Bone wasn’t) I would also try investigating whether something didn’t go wrong when sealing off the active core. It sounded as if water from the water-based cement for the alumina plug reacted with the LiAlH4.

    • Mr. Moho

      In the best case, ignoring error margins and that we’re still only dealing with fixed point temperature measurements and not actual output heat measurements, it took 585W for the active core to match the temperature measured at 599W with the calibration run, which would imply a 2.39% power gain.

  • NT

    Bob, If you have no other good choices of sealant and since the water based ceramic sealant is a major concern because of its reaction on contact with the Lithium aluminum hydroxide releasing the needed hydrogen to atmosphere before it cures and seals. Why not use a “two part barrier” sealant system? The first inner sealant, consisting of something simple that will not poison the internal reaction, but temporarily creates a barrier between the Lithium aluminum hydroxide in the reactor tube and the water based ceramic sealer. Something inert and simple such as dipped molten lab glass on the inner end of the ceramic plug, even canners beeswax might work – ha, until the outer ceramic sealant has cured properly and seals the unit. Perhaps a real dumb idea – but here it is for what it is worth…

    • Mr. Moho

      More than the loss of hydrogen I would be concerned that the loss of LiAlH4 in its original form due to water means that its oxide reduction capabilities – which could be essential for the thermal anomaly to occur (read Abd’s comment about this for more details as for why) – will be irreversibly lost.

      At this point I don’t think LiAlH4 only acts as a hydrogen carrier and lithium source inside the cell.

      • NT

        In any case the material needs to be preserved and not contaminated with water, in the now used sealant, or anything else before a proper seal is in place in the reactor…

  • Mike Ivanov

    The test clearly shows the importance of calibration. Both Lugano and Parkhomov tests actually look much less credible for me, comparing to this one.

    • Ged

      Parkhomov calibrated a dummy run from what he said, coming to within 10% of the calculated baseline based on water chemistry. So, depends on how much you trust a completely uninvolved Russian nuclear physicist with a crazy amount of peer reviewed publications. Maybe he’s playing with everyone? That’s the only nefarious reason I can think of.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I trust what Parkhomov did exactly what he said in his report. And his report does not show two curves for loaded and dummy devices like report from MFMP.

        • Ged

          It would be nice to see. But the COP data is anamoly data, same as climate science reports for the Earth’s temp. This means you can redraw the dummy curve by removing the anamoly, easy as that, if you want.

          • Mike Ivanov

            What do you mean by “redraw”? Parkhomov claims what he had tested an and verified the the method how he had measured the heat energy. For dummy run it should be close 1:1.

          • Ged

            You missed the point. Saying a COP is 2.58 at a certain value of input, means the 1:1 baseline was 2.58 times less than the experimental value reported. Simple algebra gives you back the dummy run values within 10% by just dividing out the excess COP of the live run (and remembering power = temp^4). Simple as pie.

          • Mike Ivanov

            No, I am talking about doing real dummy run, not reverse calculated one. Of course you can draw imaginary 1:1 base line, but what is the point?

          • Ged

            He did do a real dummy run, and reported it was within 10% of the calculations. Thus you can draw your own dummy curve based on the COP anamoly. There is no point in all that other seeing how the curve shape changes with temp, is my point 😉

  • SiriusMan

    Even despite the experimental outcome here, this was a fantastic effort by the MFMP team.

    In fact, if the experiment HAD shown excess heat, I would have become immediately suspicious that some error had been made. In my experience, experiments *NEVER* work on the first attempt. It’s like its a law of nature or something…..

    Keep going!

  • Gerrit

    [OT] siliconrepublic’s article “8 clean-energy stories that brightened our world in 2014” discusses the e-cat and Bill Gates’ Italy trip as 2 of the 8. If developments keep going like we have seen the last few months, 2015 has good chances of bringing of the start of a new era.

    http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/39783-8-clean-energy-stories-that

  • artefact

    @Bob, are calibration runs necessary in further tests if you just swap the cores?

    Thank you for all your efforts.

    • Bob Greenyer

      No, we can just run tests.

      It is a pleasure we are one big team.

  • Ged

    Show me data where the mistake was exactly. I need facts not belief.

  • rats123

    Just want to say good on MFMP for persevering. I, amongst others, have been critical of the way Bob and co have been running the tests. I feel there were simpler ways of confirming the LENR effect e.g. obtaining Piantelli’s test unit and testing it, rather than creating a test unit from scratch. Once the excess heat was confirmed the set up from scratch could be attempted later.

    Nonetheless no one can take the dedication, perseverance, attention to detail, and most importantly, the openness demonstrated by MFMP. I really hope you guys crack it.

    Happy New Year to all!

  • Ged

    Update on the MFMP Facebook from their reactor autopsy I feel is important to put here too so people can see:

    “Reactor core autopsy conclusion – we had no H2 or pressure and it was effectively open

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Main conclusions:
    – The seal was flawed
    – The cement had a poor bond to the alumina

    Likely effect was that there would have been gas exchange with air, no significant pressure and no Hydrogen.”

    The reactor was sadly dead and this can be chalked up as a calibration run. Good news is 1) the powder by itself doesn’t change the reactor thermal behavior and will not present any error, and 2) air does not react with the fuel mix or give any heat. Important data learned, even if the poor thing was not functional.