MFMP Design New Dog Bone Core

It’s been interesting watching the progress of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Project Dogbone, especially with the last two live experiments showing their live open science approach. We haven’t yet seen the hoped-for unambiguous demonstration of excess heat from the MFMP yet, but the experiments have been valuable in showing some things that don’t work, and where improvements need to be made.

One of the main areas of concern has been the design of the core which needs to be strong enough to contain very high hydrogen pressures when heated to certain levels. The MFMP concluded that in the first test, there was a leak in the reactor — and in the second, the stainless steel container was not able to contain the high pressure.

The MFMP have been reviewing the data, and looking at possible solutions, and on their Facebook page have presented a design of a new reactor with notes in the image below:

MFMPnewreactor

They also note regarding pressure drops they found in the second test:

“We have since learnt that other Russian researchers have seen a similar pressure drop. We also have learned that Dr. Alexander Parkhamov spent 5 hours just heating his reactor up – so if we had stuck with it, might we have seen excess heat – who knows?”

  • Once LENR devices like the E-Cat hit the market and companies all over the world compete to produce better designs, how fast will progress be? I remember the very first HDTV I saw in a store was a 65″ Mitsubishi rear projection HD television that was dim and fussy compared to today’s TVs, and it took up allot of space. Take a look at this new 65″ diagonal LED-LCD TV from Sony that is only 4.9 mm thick.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2015/01/06/ces-sony-tv/21337435/

    We have two Toyota dealers in my town, and they sell their cars at a big discount compared to dealers in town that have a local monopoly on their brand. Competition works.

  • Once LENR devices like the E-Cat hit the market and companies all over the world compete to produce better designs, how fast will progress be? I remember the very first HDTV I saw in a store was a 65″ Mitsubishi rear projection HD television that was dim and fussy compared to today’s TVs, and it took up allot of space. Take a look at this new 65″ diagonal LED-LCD TV from Sony that is only 4.9 mm thick.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2015/01/06/ces-sony-tv/21337435/

    We have two Toyota dealers in my town, and they sell their cars at a big discount compared to dealers in town that have a local monopoly on their brand. Competition works.

    • bachcole

      “Competition works.” You’re just saying that because you don’t care and are a selfish right wing beast.

      {Joke. Really, that was a joke.}

  • NT

    Exciting times indeed!
    Engineering solutions, will crop up all over the place when MFMP basically proves to the world that the “Rossie Effect” is real, replicable and just WORKS. Finding out why it works will likely take many months or years. Just as we are still exploring “fire/combustion” in major USA labs (Sandia Combustion Laboratory in Livermore, CA) for one. This “New Fire” will give those researchers something to REALLY think about (hopefully)…

  • NT

    Exciting times indeed!
    Engineering solutions, will crop up all over the place when MFMP basically proves to the world that the “Rossie Effect” is real, replicable and just WORKS. Finding out why it works will likely take many months or years. Just as we are still exploring “fire/combustion” in major USA labs (Sandia Combustion Laboratory in Livermore, CA) for one. This “New Fire” will give those researchers something to REALLY think about (hopefully)…

  • Ged

    It is a very elegant and simple design, I like it a lot! Looking forward to see what this baby can do. Great work guys!

  • Ged

    It is a very elegant and simple design, I like it a lot! Looking forward to see what this baby can do. Great work guys!

  • uDevil

    I guess they’re referring to the gradual decrease from the peak pressure over the duration of the test. I’d like to have them say more about their thinking now about the pressure data. I thought at first the ‘noise’ could be an acoustic effect, but the sampling period of 30 seconds means the variations occur at about the same time scale or longer. The transducer output at zero pressure seems to have shifted by about 15 psi. This is probably due to temperature but this error is <2% of full scale (1000 psi) while the excursions seen during the test were as much as ~100 psi. It might be worth playing with the transducer on a deadweight tester to see how it responds to temperature changes.

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, may be they are talking about the pressure decrease because of absorption of H2 into Ni, not because of a leak (which will decrease it rapidly).
      At 10:1 ratio, most of the H2 may get inside the powder with only a tiny bit of air and Li vapor remaining, this will keep it from exploding. Just guessing because neither Lugano Team nor Parkhomov used any special protection.

      • Ged

        I am thoroughly unconvinced it wasn’t a leak through the steel. One of the biggest challenges of all to a hydrogen economy is the storage and transport of hydrogen under pressure due to it leaking through the steel itself–and that happens even when super cooled at a rate enough to keep the hydrogen economy a pipe dream, let alone at higher temps. It additionally isn’t fast, but constant relative to atmospheric pressure. I will gladly be wrong though if supplied with the contrary data.

        Not to say the nickel didn’t absorb any hydrogen, as we know it does, but usually more slowly too.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Or some gas escaped at higher tempature and pressue.
        The resulting vacuum is thus VERY common in this kind of setup if leakage occurs at a higher temperatures/pressure.

        If you have a vessel at room temperature, heat it up, then you have a resulting LARGE increase in pressure. If any of the gas/air leaks or vents out at higher pressure due to this higher pressure, then when you return to room temperatures then the vessel will now experience a vacuum since you have LESS gas at room temperature.
        Take any tube, heat it to very high temperatures, put caps on the end, and cool – you have a partial vacuum.

        Kind of high school physics.

        if leakage occurs at higher pressure and temperature, then when you return the pressure vessel to room temperature then you simply have less gas then the equalized pressure you started out with.

        This will result in in a partial vacuum, or simply less pressure at room temperature since you have less gas at room temperature then when you started.
        Perhaps some gas absorption is occurring, but any leakage at higher pressure would also cause this effect.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada
        kallal@msn.com

        • Bob Greenyer

          What Albert said

    • uDevil

      I looked at their comments on FB and their Evernote notebook. They noticed the below atmospheric pressure measurement at the end of the test data and this was confirmed days later when Ryan disconnected the pressure transducer and heard the vacuum break. So there may not have been any significant shift in the transducer zero output. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason at the moment to think the transducer wasn’t working properly and the ‘noise’ is actually valid pressure data.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Given that we take 24 hours to load celani wires and days to load powders in powders cells, and given that Rossi raised the temperature carefully in Lugano and Dr. AP said he took 5 hours to get to 1000ΒΊC – I think we should spend a lot MORE time getting to temperature.

  • uDevil

    I guess they’re referring to the gradual decrease from the peak pressure over the duration of the test. I’d like to have them say more about their thinking now about the pressure data. I thought at first the ‘noise’ could be an acoustic effect, but the sampling period of 30 seconds means the variations occur at about the same time scale or longer. The transducer output at zero pressure seems to have shifted by about 15 psi. This is probably due to temperature but this error is <2% of full scale (1000 psi) while the excursions seen during the test were as much as ~100 psi. It might be worth playing with the transducer on a deadweight tester to see how it responds to temperature changes.

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, may be they are talking about the pressure decrease because of absorption of H2 into Ni, not because of a leak (which will decrease it rapidly).
      At 10:1 ratio, most of the H2 may get inside the powder with only a tiny bit of air and Li vapor remaining, this will keep it from exploding. Just guessing because neither Lugano Team nor Parkhomov used any special protection.

      • Ged

        I am thoroughly unconvinced it wasn’t a leak through the steel. One of the biggest challenges of all to a hydrogen economy is the storage and transport of hydrogen under pressure due to it leaking through the steel itself–and that happens even when super cooled at a rate enough to keep the hydrogen economy a pipe dream, let alone at higher temps. It additionally isn’t fast, but constant relative to atmospheric pressure. I will gladly be wrong though if supplied with the contrary data.

        Not to say the nickel didn’t absorb any hydrogen, as we know it does, but usually more slowly too.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Or some gas escaped at higher tempature and pressue.
        The resulting vacuum is thus VERY common in this kind of setup if leakage occurs at a higher temperatures/pressure.

        If you have a vessel at room temperature, heat it up, then you have a resulting LARGE increase in pressure. If any of the gas/air leaks or vents out at higher pressure due to this higher pressure, then when you return to room temperatures then the vessel will now experience a vacuum since you have LESS gas at room temperature.
        Take any tube, heat it to very high temperatures, put caps on the end, and cool – you have a partial vacuum.

        Kind of high school physics.

        if leakage occurs at higher pressure and temperature, then when you return the pressure vessel to room temperature then you simply have less gas then the equalized pressure you started out with.

        This will result in in a partial vacuum, or simply less pressure at room temperature since you have less gas at room temperature then when you started.
        Perhaps some gas absorption is occurring, but any leakage at higher pressure would also cause this effect.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada
        kallal@msn.com

        • Bob Greenyer

          What Albert said

    • uDevil

      I looked at their comments on FB and their Evernote notebook. They noticed the below atmospheric pressure measurement at the end of the test data and this was confirmed days later when Ryan disconnected the pressure transducer and heard the vacuum break. So there may not have been any significant shift in the transducer zero output. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason at the moment to think the transducer wasn’t working properly and the ‘noise’ is actually valid pressure data.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Given that we take 24 hours to load celani wires and days to load powders in powders cells, and given that Rossi raised the temperature carefully in Lugano and Dr. AP said he took 5 hours to get to 1000ΒΊC – I think we should spend a lot MORE time getting to temperature.

      • uDevil

        In the interest of minimizing the differences between experiments, that seems like a good idea. In my OP I was suggesting some separate effort go into characterizing the pressure transducer. I’m interested in whether or not the pressure spikes are real.

  • Hank Mills

    Is any of the hydrogen in this setup exposed to steel? Is the part of the pressure gauge that contacts the hydrogen made of steel? If so, hydrogen could leak out if the steel in that area is not kept well below 500C. Is this possible without active cooling if the surface of the reactor reaches 1400C? Between radiative and conduction heat transfer there might need to be a cooling jacket placed near the seal.

  • Hank Mills

    Is any of the hydrogen in this setup exposed to steel? Is the part of the pressure gauge that contacts the hydrogen made of steel? If so, hydrogen could leak out if the steel in that area is not kept well below 500C. Is this possible without active cooling if the surface of the reactor reaches 1400C? Between radiative and conduction heat transfer there might need to be a cooling jacket placed near the seal.

  • Any idea when the next test is?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are testing ferrule strength and seals over the next few days – look out for videos.

  • Any idea when the next test is?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are testing ferrule strength and seals over the next few days – look out for videos.

      • R101

        Looking forward to following along on youtube again Dr Bob!

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am no Dr!

          • R101

            Sorry about that, I thought you were a Dr. I’ll just call you Bob from now on πŸ˜‰

  • LookMoo

    In their communication they mix Imperial and metric system freely. Just like amateurs would, Instead of choosing one system.

    • Obvious

      Metricizing NPT would be confusing. These are standard, off-the-shelf US pipe sizes.

      • LookMoo

        In that case they should stick to imperial..

        Churchill: Americans usually do the right thing but only after exhausting all other options.

        • Obvious

          The US is the last hold out to fully metric/SI use in the world. The US will go fully metric after you pry their 3/8″ wrenches from their cold, dead hands (mostly kidding).
          In the meantime, 5/16″ is a good 8 mm, 7/16″ makes a decent 11 mm, 9/16″ is an OK (tight) 14 mm, 5/8″ is a pretty good 16 mm, and 1/2″ and 3/8″ can be pounded over 13 mm and 10 mm respectively with a hammer and made to work for wrenches and sockets….

        • Robert Ellefson

          What advantage would there be to converting metric units to imperial? This is just another place for inaccuracies to be introduced. Do you really think that some advantage would be gained by using only Imperial or only metric units?

          George Bernard Shaw: Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her.

          • LookMoo

            Just like we use English on this website.. think if everybody here should start posting in the mother tongue. hur fan skulle det se ut??

            Sure, you could use Google translator but what would be lost in the translation??

    • Mike Henderson

      Good luck finding metric SS compression fittings at Home Depot.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Haha, as an engineer I enjoy freely mixing units with confidence, because actual materials come in a mixture of units. Conversions introduce inaccuracies and should be performed only when calculations involving mixed units are required, or when writing a Real Science Paper for the benefit of people who have a difficult time understanding unit conversions. I think most folks harbor misplaced beliefs that metric units are somehow more accurate than imperial units, but this is nonsense. Metric units are more convenient for performing calculations, and formal science does require them by convention, but the choice of units has NO bearing on the accuracy of information expressed with them.

      • Len Fusioneer

        Pity those of us who grew up in Canada during the 70’s. We older ones must deal with both systems even though being educated in Imperial.
        Metrication in Canada at Wikipedia shows the confusion. What it doesn’t mention is that there was an agreement with the US to convert to Metric alongside Canada, but they bailed after Canada was committed.
        Try building a house in metric in Canada…

      • georgehants

        Unless you happen to be NASA building a space telescope.
        ——
        Nasa’s disastrous year
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/686674.stm

        • Robert Ellefson

          The only incident among those you cite that I’m aware of being attributable to a failed mixture of units was the Mars Climate Orbiter, and that failure was the fault of engineering project management more than anything else. Many successful engineering projects mix units as a matter of routine, particularly large ones, but everybody must pay careful attention to the procedures for doing so. These procedures were obviously not followed in this case, if they were even specified for the appropriate level of this project at all, which would not be unusual.

        • Robert Ellefson

          The only incident among those you cite that I’m aware of being attributable to a failed mixture of units was the Mars Climate Orbiter, and that failure was the fault of engineering project management more than anything else. Many successful engineering projects mix units as a matter of routine, particularly large ones, but everybody must pay careful attention to the procedures for doing so. These procedures were obviously not followed in this case, if they were even specified for the appropriate level of this project at all, which would not be unusual.

      • LookMoo

        Only civilians in USA is still using the Imperial system, mostly due to their education level.. The rest.. US. military, NASA etc is using the metric system.

        How exact your conversion is and how much you lose in the conversion depends on the number of decimals your system can handle. Something you don’t like to bother yourself with not to mention different versions of drawing software… with ask Airbus.

        • Robert Ellefson

          “Only civilians in USA is still using the Imperial system, mostly due to their education level..”

          This is somewhat like saying that Fred Astaire always led the dances because he was obviously the better dancer. Yet, it ignores the fact that Ginger Rogers was deftly responding in perfect timing with the leader’s moves, except backwards, and while wearing high heels.

          Who do you think is really the better dancer in this analogy? And who appears to be the one actually lacking in education regarding this discussion of unit conventions?

          American engineers are quite adept at mixing units with accuracy, by paying attention to appropriate conventions and required precision. We’ve also learned long ago about the folly of insisting on one or the other unit systems exclusively when specifying materials, as that leads to e.g. purchasing departments spending orders of magnitude more money for a 15.875mm bolt to be custom made, when the specification was really calling out an off-the-shelf 5/8″ bolt.

          Before you adopt such a sneering disdain of things you don’t understand, I hope you will strive to more carefully consider the circumstances you are seeing, and to put less value on blind adherence to dogmatic principles. If you still want to sneer, I suggest you do it in private. If you think you have a constructive criticism worth sharing, you will do everybody, including yourself, a favor by structuring your remarks in a constructive and respectful manner. It would seem that many other people here have figured this process out to good effect, and you are welcome to join.

        • Robert Ellefson

          “Only civilians in USA is still using the Imperial system, mostly due to their education level..”

          This is somewhat like saying that Fred Astaire always led the dances because he was obviously the better dancer. Yet, it ignores the fact that Ginger Rogers was deftly responding in perfect timing with the leader’s moves, except backwards, and while wearing high heels.

          Who do you think is really the better dancer in this analogy? And who appears to be the one actually lacking in education regarding this discussion of unit conventions?

          American engineers are quite adept at mixing units with accuracy, by paying attention to appropriate conventions and required precision. We’ve also learned long ago about the folly of insisting on one or the other unit systems exclusively when specifying materials, as that leads to e.g. purchasing departments spending orders of magnitude more money for a 15.875mm bolt to be custom made, when the specification was really calling out an off-the-shelf 5/8″ bolt.

          Before you adopt such a sneering disdain of things you don’t understand, I hope you will strive to more carefully consider the circumstances you are seeing, and to put less value on blind adherence to dogmatic principles. If you still want to sneer, I suggest you do it in private. If you think you have a constructive criticism worth sharing, you will do everybody, including yourself, a favor by structuring your remarks in a constructive and respectful manner. It would seem that many other people here have figured this process out to good effect, and you are welcome to join.

      • Bob Greenyer

        What Robert said

  • Dr. Mike

    This looks like a good initial design for a re-useable reactor. I’m fairly sure the outer surface of the alumina will need to be plated to get a good seal as the microscopic surface of the alumina will be rougher than one might imagine. (I’ve looked at some alumina substrates with a SEM.) Make sure that the alumina is plated without trapping any plating solution in the holes and crevices in the alumina surface.
    Why not make the device 10-20cm longer to make it easier to keep the seal region cool? Will the amount of LiAlH4 used be the amount to set a desired initial hydrogen pressure in the reactor?
    Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      Plating is the intention.

  • Dr. Mike

    This looks like a good initial design for a re-useable reactor. I’m fairly sure the outer surface of the alumina will need to be plated to get a good seal as the microscopic surface of the alumina will be rougher than one might imagine. (I’ve looked at some alumina substrates with a SEM.) Make sure that the alumina is plated without trapping any plating solution in the holes and crevices in the alumina surface.
    Why not make the device 10-20cm longer to make it easier to keep the seal region cool? Will the amount of LiAlH4 used be the amount to set a desired initial hydrogen pressure in the reactor?
    Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      Plating is the intention.

  • Alain Samoun

    Good but where is (are) the TC to measure the inside temperature? or is it only for a thermal camera?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They will sit on the outside of the core as they have in the last two tests

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I like – and a few days ago I suggested a screw and gasket design here.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

    • Obvious

      The US is the last hold out to fully metric/SI use in the world. The US will go fully metric after you pry their 3/8 wrenches from their cold, dead hands (mostly kidding).
      In the meantime, 7/16 makes a decent 11mm, 14 mm is an OK 9/16, 5/8 is a pretty good 16 mm, and 1/2 and 3/8 can be pounded over 13 mm and 10 mm respectively with hammer and made to work for wrenches….

  • Alain Samoun

    Good but where is (are) the TC to measure the inside temperature? or is it only for a thermal camera?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They will sit on the outside of the core as they have in the last two tests

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I like – and a few days ago I suggested a screw and gasket design here.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

  • builditnow

    The new reactor setup could be pressurized with hydrogen from a tank to compensate for leaks, to see if the reactor then generates excess heat. If it does, then, all that has to be done is to seal it effectively.

    • guest9

      very bad idea

      • guest2

        Extremely dangerous idea. LiALh4 use is to replace dangerous H2 tank and possible flashback , resulted in explosion and already afew kills

    • Anon2012_2014

      I like this idea. If the pressure on the supply side is kept at or slightly higher than the pressure in the reaction chamber, nothing will leak out through the seal. Assuming the glazed alumina is hot hydrogen tight, we have a solution.

  • builditnow

    The new reactor setup could be pressurized with hydrogen from a tank to compensate for leaks, to see if the reactor then generates excess heat. If it does, then, all that has to be done is to seal it effectively.

    • guest9

      very bad idea

      • guest2

        Extremely dangerous idea. LiALh4 use is to replace dangerous H2 tank and possible flashback , resulted in explosion and already afew kills

    • Anon2012_2014

      I like this idea. If the pressure on the supply side is kept at or slightly higher than the pressure in the reaction chamber, nothing will leak out through the seal. Assuming the glazed alumina is hot hydrogen tight, we have a solution.

  • Gerard McEk

    I like the reusable simle design. I wonder if the temperature at the left hand side may be so low that two component compounds can be used to seal it. Nickel plating takes time to make and is not easy to control especially for seals.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Both stainless steel and copper (the supposed material of the ferrule) have a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than alumina. Therefore, the connection could start to leak when the temperature rises. Perhaps it would be advisable to heat the fitting and/or cool the alumina tube a bit before they are assembled.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It will be an aluminium ferrule possibly, that end will be cool and the alumina metal plated.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Aluminium expands even more than steel or copper. Al2O3 has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 8.1…8.4 *10^-6/K. For the metals it comes to 10.1…17.3 (stainless steel), 17 (copper), and 23.1 (aluminium).

        For example, with these parameters

        Difference of TEC = 10 * 10^-6/K
        Temperature difference = 20 K (above room temperature)
        Diameter = 3.97 mm

        one could expect a gap of almost 800 nm between two telescoped tubes, which would be a highway even for the largest molecules.

        However, since the construction of the Swagelok fittings is sophisticated, the real difference should be significantly smaller. One could also hope that the elasticity of the material will provide some compensation. Let’s see…

        • Bob Greenyer

          In Alan’s tests yesterday, the Swageloks held 31kg (as much weight as he had on hand and much more than is needed from the evolved pressure) and then held 31 microns of vacuum.

          Next he is going to do tests to see if the seals are pressure tight, perhaps with pressurised gas first, and then by placing a little water in and using a coil, electrically heating the tube (be hid some shielding of course.

  • georgehants

    “Let our New Year’s resolution be this: we will be there for one
    another as fellow members of humanity, in the finest sense of the word.”
    Goran Persson

  • georgehants

    “Let our New Year’s resolution be this: we will be there for one
    another as fellow members of humanity, in the finest sense of the word.”
    Goran Persson

  • georgehants

    Bob, would I be correct to say that MFMP is in competition with no one and that our donations are going to help Research into Cold Fusion that will be available and free to all, thus bypassing any attempts to use the knowledge for excess profit?
    Would I also be correct to say that if you succeed in finding a simple, safe device that can be used in poor areas, for instance to produce clean water, only government etc. interference could stop them being freely and cheaply produced?
    ——
    The cost to global health of drug company profits.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071375/

    • Bob Greenyer

      We publish what we do. People can use what we do in their own research and if there is no prior claim, and we are not making a claim, the results can be used by whoever.

      Obviously some people might build novelty on what we put into the public domain – and claim IP rights on that – that is reality, but we say what we are thinking, then we test our thinking, and you get to see the outcome as it happens. With the collective mind adding to that thrust, so many possible ideas are recorded on-line that novelty will be increasingly hard to find unless it is truly not an obvious step.

      If we define a device that helped create potable water, that would make me very happy. Having lived in India for 6+ of the last 7 years, I truly understand the suffering that people endure for this simplest of needs.

  • Nigel Appleton

    Perhaps Parkhomov’s slow heating allowed alumina cement seal applied after charge insertion to cure hard before the H2 pressure got too high

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is one thing for sure, he has stated that.

      The other is possible loading into the Nickel of the evolved H2

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Basically, replicate. That includes everything you know about the experiment. Do *not* try to improve it. Period. See what results you get. Might be good to use the same calorimetry as well. The whole thing.

        But, please, make *all the data* available. Parkhomov hasn’t done that yet.

        • Blazespin

          The goal I believe is to replicate Lugano and they’re using Parkhomov to help inspire that. It’s reasonable to point out that Lugano has a group of well known (at least to us) scientists whereas Parkhomov is a newcomer here.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The conditions of the Lugano experiment make results highly suspect. I don’t suspect anyone of lying, but the failure to calibrate Lugano originated somewhere. What were they thinking? What I notice is that none of the “independent professors” had experience with either cold fusion — which has a long history of iffy results (as well as some definitive ones) — nor with calorimetry of something like the Lugano reactor. Rossi picks or approves these people, and clearly took much more of a role in the Lugano test than genuine skeptics would like. I don’t care about pseudoskeptics, they are impossible to please, they will move the goalposts, I mean those who practice ordinary, basic, essential scientific skepticism. Truzzi-style skeptics.

        • Blazespin

          The goal I believe is to replicate Lugano and they’re using Parkhomov to help inspire that. It’s reasonable to point out that Lugano has a group of well known (at least to us) scientists whereas Parkhomov is a newcomer here.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Basically, replicate. That includes everything you know about the experiment. Do *not* try to improve it. Period. See what results you get. Might be good to use the same calorimetry as well. The whole thing.

        But, please, make *all the data* available. Parkhomov hasn’t done that yet.

      • Omega Z

        Bob,
        Everything I’m familiar or worked with, They always bring them up to temp gradually in steps with holding levels. This allows the temperature to equalize throughout before raising the temperature to the next level.

        The purpose for this is to minimize the possibility of stress crack/fractures & even explosions. This applies to clay pottery, porcelain ceramics, fire brick in heat treat systems & even in metals.

        Note that the Turbines in power plants are brought up to temperature over 24 to 72 hours before they start producing electricity(time varies by size). Last thing you want is 1 of those turbine blades developing a stress crack or fracture.

        Note that with your Alumina cement plug. As long as it wasn’t so wet as to weep water into the reactor & the charge, With a slow heat up process, the moisture would have migrated out away from the heat.
        A fast heat up would cause most to migrate out, but some would release internally creating pressure thus preventing a good seal before the Alumina cement was cured.

        Rossi has repeatedly mentioned the 4/5 hour start-up time in the past. This is the Achilles heal of the E-cat for home use. For instant availability, it needs to run 24/7. Tho the energy is cheap, if you waste 80% of it, Most of the savings is lost.

      • Omega Z

        Bob,
        Everything I’m familiar or worked with, They always bring them up to temp gradually in steps with holding levels. This allows the temperature to equalize throughout before raising the temperature to the next level.

        The purpose for this is to minimize the possibility of stress crack/fractures & even explosions. This applies to clay pottery, porcelain ceramics, fire brick in heat treat systems & even in metals.

        Note that the Turbines in power plants are brought up to temperature over 24 to 72 hours before they start producing electricity(time varies by size). Last thing you want is 1 of those turbine blades developing a stress crack or fracture.

        Note that with your Alumina cement plug. As long as it wasn’t so wet as to weep water into the reactor & the charge, With a slow heat up process, the moisture would have migrated out away from the heat.
        A fast heat up would cause most to migrate out, but some would release internally creating pressure thus preventing a good seal before the Alumina cement was cured.

        Rossi has repeatedly mentioned the 4/5 hour start-up time in the past. This is the Achilles heal of the E-cat for home use. For instant availability, it needs to run 24/7. Tho the energy is cheap, if you waste 80% of it, Most of the savings is lost.

        • Bob Greenyer

          You are right.

        • Bob Greenyer

          You are right.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I strongly suspect that anything that raises humidity inside the Parkhomov tube will cause hydrogen release which will cause seal failure during curing. The LiAlH4 must be kept completely dry. The Parkhomov design has alumina plugs. I worry that moisture can migrate past them, and I also worry that Parkhomov himself did not get a seal. See, looking at the temperature data, I see strong signs of no XP. However, that is not a proof. I would think of sealing one end of the tube, curing that, then turning it over and sealing the other end it at slightly above 100 C, and with measures in place to inhibit air flow from the wet cement into the fuel space.

          I would think in terms of making hundreds of these tubes and coding them so that those testing them don’t know which are which, i.e., which ones have just nickel in them and which ones have LiAlH4 as well. They can always be opened later to check (carefully!). Even after a test, there should still be high pressure inside one of the tubes. I would not bother, at this point, trying to measure the pressure live. It is far too risky, and anything inside the tube could contaminate it. Make fuel tubes and test them! The planet will be grateful, no matter what results you get, if you do this work carefully.

  • Axil Axil

    Replicating a system is valuable. It forces one to evaluate every detail of the design of the system. They say that the devil is in the details. In this light, the HOT cat as tested recently is not yet a completely designed stand alone system.

    First off, the Hot Cat is hard to start up and if not manually controlled and constantly monitored it could possibly explode due to a pressure excursion. The start up procedure is long and complicated. The Hot cat cannot be easily cycled on and off.

    True, all these system faults could be remedied using a microprocessor controlled automation system using temperature and pressure core readings as variables in a feedback loop.. But such a system would require input of both the temperature and the pressure. The temperature control is provided but the pressure feed back is not yet available. It looks like this pressure feedback is not yet covered in the structural design of the Hot Cat. This is a deep design problem. There is no pressure transducer provisions made at present in the structural design of the core tube.

    The programming of a microprocessor based controller for the Hot Cat will not be easy. Beside the pressure and temperature considerations, there is the superconducting behavior that was seen in the TPR2 test that might be manifest in a functional LENR system. This behavior might well be seen in the power feed to primary core heater. This behavior will throw a complication into the computer control algorithms.

    My estimation is that the Hot Cat has a very long design road ahead of it.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The advantage of the current solution seems to be that there is a theoretical pressure limit, resulting from the total amount of hydrogen (and other substances that might be vaporized) and the highest possible temperature. That limit can be used as a reliable point of reference in the reactor design, provided that the composition of the fuel is well controlled. Using an external hydrogen tank in order to increase pressure would be much more risky from this point of view. Reducing pressure by a valve might imply other risks and will presumably not be necessary in normal operation, since cooling of the reactor would have an analogous effect. That’s why I think that using a chemical hydrogen source in a closed system was a reasonable decision.

  • Axil Axil

    Replicating a system is valuable. It forces one to evaluate every detail of the design of the system. They say that the devil is in the details. In this light, the HOT cat as tested recently is not yet a completely designed stand alone system.

    First off, the Hot Cat is hard to start up and if not manually controlled and constantly monitored it could possibly explode due to a pressure excursion. The start up procedure is long and complicated. The Hot cat cannot be easily cycled on and off.

    True, all these system faults could be remedied using a microprocessor controlled automation system using temperature and pressure core readings as variables in a feedback loop.. But such a system would require input of both the temperature and the pressure. The temperature control is provided but the pressure feed back is not yet available. It looks like this pressure feedback is not yet covered in the structural design of the Hot Cat. This is a deep design problem. There is no pressure transducer provisions made at present in the structural design of the core tube.

    The programming of a microprocessor based controller for the Hot Cat will not be easy. Beside the pressure and temperature considerations, there is the superconducting behavior that was seen in the TPR2 test that might be manifest in a functional LENR system. This behavior might well be seen in the power feed to primary core heater. This behavior will throw a complication into the computer control algorithms.

    My estimation is that the Hot Cat has a very long design road ahead of it.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The advantage of the current solution seems to be that there is a theoretical pressure limit, resulting from the total amount of hydrogen (and other substances that might be vaporized) and the highest possible temperature. That limit can be used as a reliable point of reference in the reactor design, provided that the composition of the fuel is well controlled. Using an external hydrogen tank in order to increase pressure would be much more risky from this point of view. Reducing pressure by a valve might imply other risks and will presumably not be necessary in normal operation, since cooling of the reactor would have an analogous effect. That’s why I think that using a chemical hydrogen source in a closed system was a reasonable decision.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        A Parkhomov reactor, I’ve seen various estimates, but it seems that pressure will go to 1500 psi or so. Having that in a tiny tube, not a huge problem, just a little risky, easy to handle. Having that pressure in a large system, completely insane. Don’t do it! I saw an MFMP comment that they had a pressure gauge they were going to use, proud that it could go to 1000 psi. Uh, folks, what are you doing?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        A Parkhomov reactor, I’ve seen various estimates, but it seems that pressure will go to 1500 psi or so. Having that in a tiny tube, not a huge problem, just a little risky, easy to handle. Having that pressure in a large system, completely insane. Don’t do it! I saw an MFMP comment that they had a pressure gauge they were going to use, proud that it could go to 1000 psi. Uh, folks, what are you doing?

  • Robert Ellefson

    What advantage would there be to converting metric units to imperial? This is just another place for inaccuracies to be introduced. Do you really think that some advantage would be gained by using only Imperial or only metric units?

    George Bernard Shaw: Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her.

  • guest9

    ing. Michelangelo De Meo

    January 7th, 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi, I wanted to tell this interesting article that shows your patent in 3D and also said the path of cold fusion in the world.

    http://eco-energie-montreal.com/post/e-cat-lugano-reaction-nucleaire-basse-energie-evenements-derniers-mois

    • R101

      While that looks fabulous, I think a better design would be where the resistive elements are inside the receptacle also and only the nickel/hydrogen fuel payload slides in and out for replacement.

  • Mike Henderson

    As a practical issue, it may be easier to clean out and reload if BOTH ends could be opened. I am not sure how to remove partially sintered contents from a deep, closed vessel. Perhaps instead of using a close-ended tube, use an Al2O3 tube and identical fittings / rod / plug on both sides. The downsides are 1) more difficult to insert into the dogbone and 2) it requires two good seals.

    • Bob Greenyer

      In the last test, the partially sintered bits just fell out – granted it was free at both ends, – it was also soft.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Why bother cleaning it out — so as to save money on a new tube.

      Seems to me that the closed end gets rid of one leak source. I like the idea of a really long tube so that the other end can be bonded to a hydrogen source which is calibrated to keep pressure the same on both sides. Note that if we could “balance” the pressure so that none of the H2 leaks out, we could use even argon or nitrogen on the pressure balance side. All these problems go away if we can get a hermetic seal out of the open side with the alumina wool + solid tamper + alumina cement. I am interested how we could get a pressure transducer line through the hermetic seal.

  • Bob Greenyer

    That is one thing for sure, he has stated that.

    The other is possible loading into the Nickel of the evolved H2

    • Omega Z

      Bob,
      Everything I’m familiar or worked with, They always bring them up to temp gradually in steps with holding levels. This allows the temperature to equalize throughout before raising the temperature to the next level.

      The purpose for this is to minimize the possibility of stress crack/fractures & even explosions. This applies to clay pottery, porcelain ceramics, fire brick in heat treat systems & even in metals.

      Note that the Turbines in power plants are brought up to temperature over 24 to 72 hours before they start producing electricity(time varies by size). Last thing you want is 1 of those turbine blades developing a stress crack or fracture.

      Note that with your Alumina cement plug. As long as it wasn’t so wet as to weep water into the reactor & the charge, With a slow heat up process, the moisture would have migrated out away from the heat.
      A fast heat up would cause most to migrate out, but some would release internally creating pressure thus preventing a good seal before the Alumina cement was cured.

      Rossi has repeatedly mentioned the 4/5 hour start-up time in the past. This is the Achilles heal of the E-cat for home use. For instant availability, it needs to run 24/7. Tho the energy is cheap, if you waste 80% of it, Most of the savings is lost.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Testing aluminium ferrule based Swagelok fittings and Alumina!

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Gerard McEk

      Looks impressive indeed. What is exactly the seal material? Is it copper, aluminium or something different?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I hope you get lucky, but this is such a bad idea!

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I hope you get lucky, but this is such a bad idea!

  • Mick Jordan

    It seems to me that another parameter to control the process could be adjustment of the radiation
    heat loss rate. By placing curved reflective foils in the vicinity of the reactor heat could be reflected back on the reactor. Wouldn’t these adjustments increase the odds of attaining a self sustaining reaction ? If the reaction begins to run away, move the mirrors back, if it begins to die, move the mirrors in. It seems like it would be pretty cheap and easy to cut and bend some shiny sheet metal just to have around.Ultimately it would be nice to have the mirrors servo-controlled by a computer. I presume others must have thought of this. Mick

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have a paper and visual basic application that has been donated to us we will publish soon that proposes and models a similar system of thermal self regulation by moving reflectors/insulators in and out with a empirically derived bi-metallic strip actuator.

      Great minds think alike!

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Yeah. However, people are getting way ahead of the results. Yes, once you have confirmed XP at some significant level, and if the reactors are simple Parkhomov tubes, it should be easy to construct a set of them so that they self-heat. Even a single reactor could become self-heated as described. Rossi apparently controls the heat, but you can, instead, control the cooling. That should allow you to go to higher COP, even to self-sustain.

        *If you get reliable XP!*

        Don’t design the next generation until you have the first generation working! Unless you have time and money to burn.

        • Mats002

          It is not only about burning time and money. It is also about keeping or burning trust from an audience with high expectations. I vote for conservatism. Early success in XP will gain a lot of trust and a larger audience for making innovations.

        • Mats002

          It is not only about burning time and money. It is also about keeping or burning trust from an audience with high expectations. I vote for conservatism. Early success in XP will gain a lot of trust and a larger audience for making innovations.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            A series of “open” failures (as they will be seen) can turn off an audience as much as anything. Open science does require documenting “failure” (there is really no such thing, there is only failure to report experience), but how often can you get people to watch 12 hours to see what looks like nothing? A summary report that takes a minute to read, with a link to a full report, with links to raw data, and, yes, a video if you want (frankly, I think it just wastes bandwidth), The full report should *always* be conservative. Read McKubre!

            There is some sort of idea that “live video” is more trustworthy than a signed, written report from someone who cares about their reputation. Remember the DGT demo from 2013? Live video. Totally useless. Got questions? Ask the video!

            What is wrong with this picture?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Yeah. However, people are getting way ahead of the results. Yes, once you have confirmed XP at some significant level, and if the reactors are simple Parkhomov tubes, it should be easy to construct a set of them so that they self-heat. Even a single reactor could become self-heated as described. Rossi apparently controls the heat, but you can, instead, control the cooling. That should allow you to go to higher COP, even to self-sustain.

        *If you get reliable XP!*

        Don’t design the next generation until you have the first generation working! Unless you have time and money to burn.

      • Mick Jordan

        Aha! Very interesting.I look forward to the paper.
        The positive feedback of increasing LENR heat production with increasing temperature is of course offset by increasing radiative heat loss which goes about like absolute temperature (Kelvins=C+273) to the fourth power. Increasing the power input increases the temperature until the increased radiative loss exceeds the increased LENR heat production by the amount of the increased power input and the new equilibrium is reached. The radiative heat loss increases faster than the LENR heat production, else the reaction would run away until the nickel melts.Introducing a mirror will increase the temperature increase at the new equilibrium (since radiative loss is reduced at any given temperature), thus increasing COP. Alternately one can introduce the mirror and reduce power input to maintain the same temperature at a higher COP.
        One could model this process with a power series for LENR heat production with coefficients that could be estimated from the Parkhomov data.

      • Mick Jordan

        Aha! Very interesting.I look forward to the paper.
        The positive feedback of increasing LENR heat production with increasing temperature is of course offset by increasing radiative heat loss which goes about like absolute temperature (Kelvins=C+273) to the fourth power. Increasing the power input increases the temperature until the increased radiative loss exceeds the increased LENR heat production by the amount of the increased power input and the new equilibrium is reached. The radiative heat loss increases faster than the LENR heat production, else the reaction would run away until the nickel melts.Introducing a mirror will increase the temperature increase at the new equilibrium (since radiative loss is reduced at any given temperature), thus increasing COP. Alternately one can introduce the mirror and reduce power input to maintain the same temperature at a higher COP.
        One could model this process with a power series for LENR heat production with coefficients that could be estimated from the Parkhomov data.

    • Gerard McEk

      I like that idea. I did not think about it for the Hot Cat, but is seems that it could work. Similary I have proposed this in the past for the Ecat and controlling the coolant flow.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I proposed this idea to Rossi in 2012, after the Penon report. That might increase the COP without having to make changes to the core. But first one should get some excess heat…

      • Omega Z

        If using the excess heat is necessary to keep it operating in SSM, then it would seem to be just an interesting Lab toy. The purpose of obtaining the excess heat is to provide cheap useful productive work.

        Considering that the reactor produces temperatures in excess of those obtainable only buy the wattage supplied, I suspect the reactor would be self sustaining if heat was all that is needed.

      • Omega Z

        If using the excess heat is necessary to keep it operating in SSM, then it would seem to be just an interesting Lab toy. The purpose of obtaining the excess heat is to provide cheap useful productive work.

        Considering that the reactor produces temperatures in excess of those obtainable only buy the wattage supplied, I suspect the reactor would be self sustaining if heat was all that is needed.

      • Mick Jordan

        Interesting. I agree all around. See my reply to Greenyer below.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am no Dr!

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    “We also have learned that Dr. Alexander Parkhamov spent 5 hours just
    heating his reactor up – so if we had stuck with it, might we have seen
    excess heat – who knows?””

    Did they not read the Parkhomov report? I’ve been suggesting an exact Parkhomov replication, that should be the first thing tried, not a whole series of other nightmares! Parkhomov’s reactor design was brilliant in its simplicity. Sure, you can find this or that apparent shortcoming in it, but this is classic in cold fusion, and one of the reasons why it is regrettable that most working with the MFMP do not have wide experience or knowledge about this history.

    An exact replication includes the power-up sequence. I have a spreadsheet showing Parkhomov’s power-up sequence, with times. I had to speculate that his power-up sequence was a particular set of nominal powers. It was not hard to guess, it was 0, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 W., apparently. Those powers plotted with eyeballed “mean temperature” showed linear behavior, in two phases, so the power figures are probably close to accurate. It appears that the water in the cooling bath did not start to boil until input power exceeded 250 W. The 250 W period ended 4 hrs, 20 minutes, after the start of heating at 25 W. At this point the heat profile, temperature elevation per watt, declined from a very linear 3.64 degrees/watt to 1.4 degrees/watt, a new very linear regime. This was the point, the 300 W input period, where evaporation appears to show XP. At this point, the temperature of the reactor was over 1000 C.

    I cannot imagine trying to replicate an experiment like this without first understanding it thoroughly.

    Trying to confirm or improve results without first verifying the original report *usually fails* with cold fusion. You don’t know what is critical. The Japanese decided that it would be better to use ultrapure palladium, so they did, and wasted a ton of money. It did not work and they also refused to back down. Instead of using a known material, they kept trying to make what would never work, work, because it *should*.

    The Parkhomov reactor proper — separate out the heater coils and the thermocouple — is an alumina tube with some fuel in it, sealed with two alumina plugs and cement. Yes, that’s tricky to manage, to get a working seal, as MFMP found with the first effort. They obviously got the LiAlH4 wet.

    They were *not* using the Parkhomov design, they were using the dogbone, a waste of a perfectly good dogbone, which is needed for the Lugano calibration work coming up.

    Parkhomov reactors, by design, are so cheap that re-usability is moot. If you want re-usability, build the heaters and thermocouple(s) so that the fuel tubes can slide in. Test these things by the dozens or more. Calibrate the heaters and thermocouple(s) with dummy fuel assemblies so that temperature is reasonably reliable as a measure of XP. Do at least one run that is a full, no changes at all, Parkhomov replication.

    (I mention the possibility of multiple thermocouples. Do *not* put a thermocouple inside a Parkhomov reactor. It’s a huge can of worms. Later, maybe something can be figured out, but first get replication! There could be two thermocouples on the outside. I think of making tight-fitting sleeves with heating coils and thermocouples. It would be a three-piece unit, the fuel core on the inside, and two sleeves that slide over the ends so that there is only a seam in the middle.) (The fuel core is fully sealed. If a single thermocouple is used, this could be completely identical to a Parkhomov reactor except for that seam where the sleeves meet, it could be the same mass, etc.)

    Yes, you may want a way to verify integrity of the reactor. I won’t give details here, but it can be done. Even if it’s not done, it should still be possible to reliably seal the reactor so it can handle the 1500 psi or so involved. These small reactors could still pop and generate some shrapnel, so maybe put the whole thing inside a strong pipe. But *think* first.

    MFMP is not doing what I’d think of as public science. They are doing things and put them on the web, live, which is about the most useless activity I can imagine. Those runs are done and not thoroughly documented, or if they are, it’s quite hard to find. Public science would have more discussion first. A proposed experiment. Comment. I am *not* suggesting some sort of *public decision,* but, rather, collecting advice and ideas. The working group would still make the final decisions.

    On-line visibility is almost useless. Consider the Defkalion Green Technologies demo. Complete waste of time, and all that public visibility was useless. What would have been useful would have been full data, including the raw flowmeter data. That raw data could have exposed the artifact immediately. (However, that data probably just went into a counter. Nevertheless, the full data, if the counts were reported by the minute, could have exposed the problem. It would have been visible in the setup, during power-up.)

    I want to emphasize a point. The DGT demo was considered definitive by many people. It looked so good! Yet it was garbage. Be aware! Any major advance in science requires multiple *independent* confirmations. One of the problems of cold fusion was that people kept trying to *Improve* results. So there came to be a huge pile of independent experiments with very few actual *replications.* As a result, if someone is skeptical and wants to test the evidence, what, *exactly*, do they do?

    There are answers to that question, but they are not widely known. Hopefully, that will change, soon. That widely confirmed work is with palladium deuteride, not nickel hydride. So, learn from this history, MFMP! Create replications, do not start by trying to improve.

    You can improve accessory instrumentation, as long as it cannot affect the reactor itself. Watch out for instrumentation that could, for example, change the heat profile. That could affect the reaction!

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    “We also have learned that Dr. Alexander Parkhamov spent 5 hours just
    heating his reactor up – so if we had stuck with it, might we have seen
    excess heat – who knows?””

    Did they not read the Parkhomov report? I’ve been suggesting an exact Parkhomov replication, that should be the first thing tried, not a whole series of other nightmares! Parkhomov’s reactor design was brilliant in its simplicity. Sure, you can find this or that apparent shortcoming in it, but this is classic in cold fusion, and one of the reasons why it is regrettable that most working with the MFMP do not have wide experience or knowledge about this history.

    An exact replication includes the power-up sequence. I have a spreadsheet showing Parkhomov’s power-up sequence, with times. I had to speculate that his power-up sequence was a particular set of nominal powers. It was not hard to guess, it was 0, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 W., apparently. Those powers plotted with eyeballed “mean temperature” showed linear behavior, in two phases, so the power figures are probably close to accurate. It appears that the water in the cooling bath did not start to boil until input power exceeded 250 W. The 250 W period ended 4 hrs, 20 minutes, after the start of heating at 25 W. At this point the heat profile, temperature elevation per watt, declined from a very linear 3.64 degrees/watt to 1.4 degrees/watt, a new very linear regime. This was the point, the 300 W input period, where evaporation appears to show XP. At this point, the temperature of the reactor was over 1000 C.

    I cannot imagine trying to replicate an experiment like this without first understanding it thoroughly.

    Trying to confirm or improve results without first verifying the original report *usually fails* with cold fusion. You don’t know what is critical. The Japanese decided that it would be better to use ultrapure palladium, so they did, and wasted a ton of money. It did not work and they also refused to back down. Instead of using a known material, they kept trying to make what would never work, work, because it *should*.

    The Parkhomov reactor proper — separate out the heater coils and the thermocouple — is an alumina tube with some fuel in it, sealed with two alumina plugs and cement. Yes, that’s tricky to manage, to get a working seal, as MFMP found with the first effort. They obviously got the LiAlH4 wet.

    They were *not* using the Parkhomov design, they were using the dogbone, a waste of a perfectly good dogbone, which is needed for the Lugano calibration work coming up.

    Parkhomov reactors, by design, are so cheap that re-usability is moot. If you want re-usability, build the heaters and thermocouple(s) so that the fuel tubes can slide in. Test these things by the dozens or more. Calibrate the heaters and thermocouple(s) with dummy fuel assemblies so that temperature is reasonably reliable as a measure of XP. Do at least one run that is a full, no changes at all, Parkhomov replication.

    (I mention the possibility of multiple thermocouples. Do *not* put a thermocouple inside a Parkhomov reactor. It’s a huge can of worms. Later, maybe something can be figured out, but first get replication! There could be two thermocouples on the outside. I think of making tight-fitting sleeves with heating coils and thermocouples. It would be a three-piece unit, the fuel core on the inside, and two sleeves that slide over the ends so that there is only a seam in the middle.) (The fuel core is fully sealed. If a single thermocouple is used, this could be completely identical to a Parkhomov reactor except for that seam where the sleeves meet, it could be the same mass, etc.)

    Yes, you may want a way to verify integrity of the reactor. I won’t give details here, but it can be done. Even if it’s not done, it should still be possible to reliably seal the reactor so it can handle the 1500 psi or so involved. These small reactors could still pop and generate some shrapnel, so maybe put the whole thing inside a strong pipe. But *think* first.

    MFMP is not doing what I’d think of as public science. They are doing things and put them on the web, live, which is about the most useless activity I can imagine. Those runs are done and not thoroughly documented, or if they are, it’s quite hard to find. Public science would have more discussion first. A proposed experiment. Comment. I am *not* suggesting some sort of *public decision,* but, rather, collecting advice and ideas. The working group would still make the final decisions.

    On-line visibility is almost useless. Consider the Defkalion Green Technologies demo. Complete waste of time, and all that public visibility was useless. What would have been useful would have been full data, including the raw flowmeter data. That raw data could have exposed the artifact immediately. (However, that data probably just went into a counter. Nevertheless, the full data, if the counts were reported by the minute, could have exposed the problem. It would have been visible in the setup, during power-up.)

    I want to emphasize a point. The DGT demo was considered definitive by many people. It looked so good! Yet it was garbage. Be aware! Any major advance in science requires multiple *independent* confirmations. One of the problems of cold fusion was that people kept trying to *Improve* results. So there came to be a huge pile of independent experiments with very few actual *replications.* As a result, if someone is skeptical and wants to test the evidence, what, *exactly*, do they do?

    There are answers to that question, but they are not widely known. Hopefully, that will change, soon. That widely confirmed work is with palladium deuteride, not nickel hydride. So, learn from this history, MFMP! Create replications, do not start by trying to improve.

    You can improve accessory instrumentation, as long as it cannot affect the reactor itself. Watch out for instrumentation that could, for example, change the heat profile. That could affect the reaction!

    • Blazespin

      I am critical of many things in Cold Fusion, but the MFMP guys are in a completely different class. Not only is everything they do extremely effective from what I can see, they are innovating on a profoundly new way of doing research. They deserve nothing but support and encouragement and I can’t imagine changing anything that they’re doing.

      That being said, they are very open to ideas on how to improve each experiment, which I think is what you’re trying to do here. One comment – I think the more hard science you can reference to back up your suggestions the more they listen. Donations are always good too πŸ™‚

      • Mark Szl

        Lomax is right from a conservative view. There are very good reasons to do repeat before you extend. We may not be yet ready for a repeat-extend combination unlesd MFMP gets really lucky with a good strong effect i this design. Luck!!!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Our project was set up specifically because of lack of accessible replication in the field. It is our principal aim to facilitate this.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Our project was set up specifically because of lack of accessible replication in the field. It is our principal aim to facilitate this.

      • Mark Szl

        Lomax is right from a conservative view. There are very good reasons to do repeat before you extend. We may not be yet ready for a repeat-extend combination unlesd MFMP gets really lucky with a good strong effect i this design. Luck!!!

      • doug marker

        Ubd Ul Rahman Lomax is offering some incredibly insightful advice. He knows better than most he has ‘been there and done that’ many times. In a nutshell he is saying ‘replicate’ not ‘innovate’ (i.e. repeat the experiment without changing anything other than well thought out improvements to measurement). The point he makes is that too many so called repeat experiments try to innovate on the original experiment and then wonder why they fail.

        But the MFMP is a great idea (for us science plebs watching) and if they do plan their repetitions cautiously and carefully and avoid the pitfalls, we can, along with them, be part of the whole scene.

        Keep it rolling!.

        DSM

      • doug marker

        Ubd Ul Rahman Lomax is offering some incredibly insightful advice. He knows better than most he has ‘been there and done that’ many times. In a nutshell he is saying ‘replicate’ not ‘innovate’ (i.e. repeat the experiment without changing anything other than well thought out improvements to measurement). The point he makes is that too many so called repeat experiments try to innovate on the original experiment and then wonder why they fail.

        But the MFMP is a great idea (for us science plebs watching) and if they do plan their repetitions cautiously and carefully and avoid the pitfalls, we can, along with them, be part of the whole scene.

        Keep it rolling!.

        DSM

    • Blazespin

      I am critical of many things in Cold Fusion, but the MFMP guys are in a completely different class. Not only is everything they do extremely effective from what I can see, they are innovating on a profoundly new way of doing research. They deserve nothing but support and encouragement and I can’t imagine changing anything that they’re doing.

      That being said, they are very open to ideas on how to improve each experiment, which I think is what you’re trying to do here. One comment – I think the more hard science you can reference to back up your suggestions the more they listen. Donations are always good too πŸ™‚

    • Axil Axil

      There is much wisdom in what Abd Ui-Rahman Lomax presents here but I see nothing wrong in the way MFMP presents there experimentation. Using YouTube to fully record and document an experiment is the best way to get the most information to the most people at the least cost using the least work with the most robust data protection and the most transparency with the most detail with the lease interference from the opposition.

      Watching an experiment for 12 hours is hard on the interested science observer. Few scientist would prefer to do that. They prefer to have their information conveniently packaged and distilled and digested to meet their current experimental needs.

      Doing this formatting of an experiment for the convenience of the audience would in my opinion slow down MFMP far too much for my tastes. Full speed ahead with all possible delay removed. I want to see MFMP do as many experiments in the least time while expending the least effort. I will put in the extra effort that is necessary to absorb the experiment data to offload as much as possible MFMP in performing their central experimental role.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Axil Axil, your data aggregation and scientific insight has repeatedly entered into our conversations and planning.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Axil Axil, your data aggregation and scientific insight has repeatedly entered into our conversations and planning.

    • Axil Axil

      There is much wisdom in what Abd Ui-Rahman Lomax presents here but I see nothing wrong in the way MFMP presents there experimentation. Using YouTube to fully record and document an experiment is the best way to get the most information to the most people at the least cost using the least work with the most robust data protection and the most transparency with the most detail with the lease interference from the opposition.

      Watching an experiment for 12 hours is hard on the interested science observer. Few scientist would prefer to do that. They prefer to have their information conveniently packaged and distilled and digested to meet their current experimental needs.

      Doing this formatting of an experiment for the convenience of the audience would in my opinion slow down MFMP far too much for my tastes. Full speed ahead with all possible delay removed. I want to see MFMP do as many experiments in the least time while expending the least effort. I will put in the extra effort that is necessary to absorb the experiment data to offload as much as possible MFMP in performing their central experimental role.

    • rats123

      I could not agree more and this is the main criticism I have of MFMP. They start doing something different from what they are trying to replicate. Stick to what Parkhomov has done, replicate the effect, and only then change the experiment.

    • rats123

      I could not agree more and this is the main criticism I have of MFMP. They start doing something different from what they are trying to replicate. Stick to what Parkhomov has done, replicate the effect, and only then change the experiment.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You make some valuable contributions. thank you

      Oh, and hold the press on the Pd D exact replications, we have something brewing and it will shock everyone.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You make some valuable contributions. thank you

      Oh, and hold the press on the Pd D exact replications, we have something brewing and it will shock everyone.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Baited breath.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree 100%. But I think the MFMP knows the value of “blindly copying” the original, especially after the “improvisation” of Celani device failed. They copied the dog bone faithfully. If you remove the watermarks from the pictures, you won’t be able to tell the difference with the original hot cat.

      I have suggested the same on QH pages and the answer I got was that they are trying to save money by making a reusable setup. I guess the first Parkhomov replication attempt was a bit hurried, they did not get time to match the powder or the structure exactly. At that time Parkhomov was not in contact and so many questions were unanswered, but it was too tempting to try a quick and dirty setup.

      I’m sure the next attempt will be a perfect copy…. Guys donate something if you want it to succeed. Mfmp MUST NOT waste time trying to save pennies or hitting in the dark. Give them tickets to Moscow now.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        To Moscow, premature, my opinion. They did not attempt to match Parkhomov structure the first time, they used a dogbone. I’ll say wasted a dogbone, the dogbone was designed to calibrate Lugano. The hard part about doing a Parkhomov replication was getting the LiAlH4. And then putting it together. Obviously, one must avoid raising humidity in the cylinder while putting it together! Alumina wool won’t be enough. When they have enough experience, and if they are not finding success, then one going to Moscow might be in order. However, there is a lot to do before then, same as with Lugano. If you duplicate the Parkhomov setup and find that 500 W of input power produces a matched temperature profile, with a dummy fuel core, you don’t need to go further than that with replication, you simply start exploring the parameter space and you will quickly move ahead of Parkhomov and maybe everyone else on the planet. One step at a time. It would also be useful to identify the Parkhomov calorimetric artifact, if there is one, as can be suspected from the data. And, of course, confirming XP would be spectacular! Even if it is only a few hundred watts.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree 100%. But I think the MFMP knows the value of “blindly copying” the original, especially after the “improvisation” of Celani device failed. They copied the dog bone faithfully. If you remove the watermarks from the pictures, you won’t be able to tell the difference with the original hot cat.

      I have suggested the same on QH pages and the answer I got was that they are trying to save money by making a reusable setup. I guess the first Parkhomov replication attempt was a bit hurried, they did not get time to match the powder or the structure exactly. At that time Parkhomov was not in contact and so many questions were unanswered, but it was too tempting to try a quick and dirty setup.

      I’m sure the next attempt will be a perfect copy…. Guys donate something if you want it to succeed. Mfmp MUST NOT waste time trying to save pennies or hitting in the dark. Give them tickets to Moscow now.

  • Blazespin

    I have a question, with greater sealant allows for greater pressure which allows for a more dangerous explosion. What sort of protections is MFMP taking to ensure one of these things doesn’t blow up at the wrong time and hurt someone? Is no one allowed in the room when the vessel is above a certain temperature?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We used polycarbonate sheeting, distance, protective eye ware.

  • Blazespin

    I have a question, with greater sealant allows for greater pressure which allows for a more dangerous explosion. What sort of protections is MFMP taking to ensure one of these things doesn’t blow up at the wrong time and hurt someone? Is no one allowed in the room when the vessel is above a certain temperature?

  • Blazespin

    I have a question, with greater sealant allows for greater pressure which allows for a more dangerous explosion. What sort of protections is MFMP taking to ensure one of these things doesn’t blow up at the wrong time and hurt someone? Is no one allowed in the room when the vessel is above a certain temperature?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We used polycarbonate sheeting, distance, protective eye ware.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We used polycarbonate sheeting, distance, protective eye ware.

  • It seems that there is something critical missing in the MFMP design, the catalyst. Everyone assumes the catalyst to be chemical in nature, or perhaps physical such as heat or pressure. I would suggest its none of the above. Yes each of the components is important but I think the undisclosed factor is RF. Using the heating core element as a conduit for pulsed RF specifically tuned for the vibratory frequency of the bonds holding the lithium nuclear bonds. Remember that both lithium-6 and Lithium-7 isotopes have an unusually low nuclear bond energy (~5,3 MeV), pusing at the correct RF will lower it further.

  • It seems that there is something critical missing in the MFMP design, the catalyst. Everyone assumes the catalyst to be chemical in nature, or perhaps physical such as heat or pressure. I would suggest its none of the above. Yes each of the components is important but I think the undisclosed factor is RF. Using the heating core element as a conduit for pulsed RF specifically tuned for the vibratory frequency of the bonds holding the lithium nuclear bonds. Remember that both lithium-6 and Lithium-7 isotopes have an unusually low nuclear bond energy (~5,3 MeV), pusing at the correct RF will lower it further.

    • Robert Ellefson

      I suspect that the RF is delivered through the EMF field originating in the heating coils and modulated into locally-intense gradients and frequencies by the macro-scale grains of electrical steel that are a part of the fuel, as seen in the ash analysis. There is no apparent means for a specific RF modulation of the stimulus in the Lugano device, and Parkhomov apparently did very simple switching of the AC line frequency on his heating coil, and did not use any iron or steel in his fuel. So, there probably is some frequency that matters more than others, but apparently you can somehow derive it easily from a broadband stimulus function applied to simple solenoids encapsulating the reactors. The device used in the 2013 Levi report did not even have a solenoid coil arrangement, but the adjacent parallel-axis coils should still have induced sufficient EMF.

    • Robert Ellefson

      I suspect that the RF is delivered through the EMF field originating in the heating coils and modulated into locally-intense gradients and frequencies by the macro-scale grains of electrical steel that are a part of the fuel, as seen in the ash analysis. There is no apparent means for a specific RF modulation of the stimulus in the Lugano device, and Parkhomov apparently did very simple switching of the AC line frequency on his heating coil, and did not use any iron or steel in his fuel. So, there probably is some frequency that matters more than others, but apparently you can somehow derive it easily from a broadband stimulus function applied to simple solenoids encapsulating the reactors. The device used in the 2013 Levi report did not even have a solenoid coil arrangement, but the adjacent parallel-axis coils should still have induced sufficient EMF.

  • Mats002

    It is not only about burning time and money. It is also about keeping or burning trust from an audience with high expectations. I vote for conservatism. Early success in XP will gain a lot of trust and a larger audience for making innovations.

  • hempenearth

    It could be useful for MFMP to know Toyota have released 290 high pressure hydrogen tank patents.
    http://www.gizmag.com/toyota-opens-fuel-cell-patents-to-drive-hydrogen-society/35453/
    Thanks to Bernie777 who posted this link in another thread.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – anyone care to read them and report back any useful titbits? πŸ˜‰

  • hempenearth

    It could be useful for MFMP to know Toyota have released 290 high pressure hydrogen tank patents.
    http://www.gizmag.com/toyota-opens-fuel-cell-patents-to-drive-hydrogen-society/35453/
    Thanks to Bernie777 who posted this link in another thread.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – anyone care to read them and report back any useful titbits? πŸ˜‰

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – anyone care to read them and report back any useful titbits? πŸ˜‰

  • hempenearth

    It could be useful for MFMP to know Toyota have released 290 high pressure hydrogen tank patents.
    http://www.gizmag.com/toyota-opens-fuel-cell-patents-to-drive-hydrogen-society/35453/
    Thanks to Bernie777 who posted this link in another thread.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dr. Alexander Parkhomov invites MFMP to Moscow

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • georgehants

      Wonderful. an example of how this World should be on everything.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dr. Alexander Parkhomov invites MFMP to Moscow

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • georgehants

      Wonderful. an example of how this World should be on everything.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dr. Alexander Parkhomov invites MFMP to Moscow

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

  • Bob Greenyer

    Our project was set up specifically because of lack of accessible replication in the field. It is our principal aim to facilitate this.