MFMP’s Project Dog Bone Thread — Update #8: [Powder Test in Sealed Alumina Tube Scheduled for Wed, Feb 4th]

UPDATE #8 (Feb 3, 2014)

Thanks to Ged for pointing out the timeline that the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has posted on their quantumheat.org website. They have a schedule laid out for this week there. The main events are:

Monday, Feb 2 (yesterday): Team assembles, Test equipment set up, integrated, and prepared. Lots of reading the manuals!
Tuesday, Feb 3: Test 1: Calibration with Thermocouples, Optris camera, and Williamson Pyrometer; Test 2: Fat coil dog bone with internal heat source; Test 3: Assessment of Alan’s calibrated alumina temperature sources
Wednesday, Feb 4: Tests 4-: Powder Tests in sealed Alumina tube
Thursday, Feb 5: Test X: High Temp Inconel Heater Dogbone Calibration

The powder tests in the sealed tubes are the ones that are going to get most attention, I am sure. The MFMP team says that live YouTube video streams will be announced when they are ready.

I’m looking forward to following all this — best wishes to all at MFMP, and thanks for sharing your work with us all!

UPDATE #7 (Dec 29, 2014)

[Corrected Sentence based on a wrong assumption] The MFMP are making preparations to test one of their ‘dogbone’ reactors with fuel inside. According to a new post on their Facebook page, they hope to carry out a live online test on January December 30th.

Bob Greenyer posted this today: “Tomorrow – frank will correct the title. Dog bone cast last night and baking tonight in oven,Ryan is getting the glove box ready now to mix the powder”

Here’s the information from the post:

Given the encouraging fast response from Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, Ryan is in the lab this evening preparing to cast up another Dog Bone.
It will be essentially the same as the first two so that we have data for comparison, it will be single phase and have the swappable core ( we have 3 core tubes in hand to make attempts with ).
Plan
– make new swappable core dog bone
– make ceramic plug from pass-through and cement
– bake both of the above in furnace
– mix 2.2-2.8um nickel powder with LiAlH4 under argon and seal in container all in the glove box.
– flush glove box with air (we want air because Argon could not be combine with the O2 and N2 in the reactor core)
– quickly transfer the powder mix in glovebox into the reactor core.
– plug open end
– seal with ceramic cement (only have water based at moment)
– allow to dry
– b and k type thermocouples placed

Live experiment (hopefully on 30th)
– Youtube / google live streamed experiment
– test conservatively with an empty core to characterise the reactor
– insert active core
– test even more conservatively and see if there is a significant departure from the characterisation.
– if see something positive, will look to do the water vaporisation test.
In the meantime, more cores, plugs and non-water based cements will be ordered in case of negative outcome so that we can follow up quickly with variations.

UPDATE #6

Yesterday there was a ‘first pass’ live test carried out by Ryan Hunt of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project on the first dummy reactor that the group has prepared. Below is a video of the reactor, along with a chart showing the temperature measurements made.

dogbonedata

We must remember — the purpose of this test is to see if it could give us clues about the validity of the Lugano E-Cat test where a reactor of similar dimensions and composition was heated up to a maximum temperature around 1400 degrees C with an input of just over 900 Watts.

I asked Bob Greenyer if he could provide a brief summary of the significance of yesterdays testing, and he wrote:

1. It looks like it will be hard to reach 1400ºC average temperature on the outside of the Dog Bone and not with 900W
2. It supports the use of a thermal averaging technique (just look at the difference between fin and grove)
3. A dog bone at 1400ºC will be very hard to look at (will almost certainly need filter glass)
4. The windings were, as we suspected, unlikely to be Inconel.
5. it is quite a challenge to get something to run at these temperatures for 32 days
6. It has yet to be demonstrated that their method of measuring the surface temperature was valid – this can only be done when we have the Optris camera (in January).

UPDATE #5 (Dec 7, 2014)

The MFMP team has started to apply power to the resistor inside the dummy dogbone reactor. Here’s the latest from their Facebook page:

“It gets warm!

[]=Project Dog Bone=[]

Ok, so the phases need to be better connected as right now they are showing themselves to be high resistance contacts and getting too warm. There are also hot-spots visible in this test, hopefully that is just due to a few close windings.

Hopefully get live data running early next week.”

Bob Greenyer has posted here on ECW: “The first data point is 120W=>225C on the surface and 300 inside.we will hold off doing wider sweeps until we can get the data live publishing.”

hotdogobone
UPDATE #4 (Dec 1, 2014)

Here’s an interesting comment on the MFMP’s Facebook page from Alan Goldwater  who describes what has happend after the bare dummy core (See Update #1 below) has been coated with alumina.

“I coated a freshly calibrated core coil with two thin layers of high-alumina cement. The coated coil was then reinstalled in the jig and tested. The difference was startling!

Above 200 watts, the coated coil resulted in far higher thermocouple temperatures than the uncoated one did. The core was over 1300 degrees with just 732 watts input. At 1330 C (780 watts), the type K thermocouple failed. It’s now stuck to the inside of the core tube, probably by melted fiberglass insulation. The cement coating survived but is cracked in many places, probably from thermal expansion of the wire.

This is a good illustration of the thermal dynamics at work. As the temperature rises above 500 C, the radiation heat path is increasingly dominant, and the lower emissivity of the cement is evident in the steeper slope of the curve.”

UPDATE #3 (Nov 25, 2014)

More progress with Project Dog Bone, even on Thanksgiving day. The MFMP Facebook page reports they have created a three-phase winding for the resistor heating coil made out of Kanthal A1 on a ceramic tube, and put it inside the recently casted alumina casing. The whole thing has come in 20 grams (4 per cent) heavier than the E-Cat reactor core used in the Lugano test.

dogbone
winding

UPDATE #2 (Nov 25, 2014)

The picture below shows us that the MFMP team is setting up a system that tries to closely match the reactor and testing equipment used in the Lugano E-Cat Test. The reactor shown here is described as a ‘broken bone’ — the team is apparently making better molds and obtaining needed materials for making a reactor that more closely matches the E-Cat used by Levi et. al. in the recent test.

brokenbone
New photo: here’s Ryan Hunt of the MFMP with a better casting of an alumina casing:

ryanhuntaluminacase
More pictures can be seen on the MFMP Facebook page here.

Also mentioned on a Facebook post is that the MFMP is trying to purchase a thermal camera of the same model (Optris Pi160) used in the Lugano test, and finding out that they are in short supply. However, they hope to be able to get one from an Italian distributor for the hefty sum of 3000 Euros.

UPDATE #1 (Nov. 20, 2014) It’s good to see the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project get underway with testing in their Project Dog Bone. Today here is a post on the MFMP’s Facebook page about the first test that has been carried out on a bare dummy core.

Specifications are: 200 mm in length, 190 turns, 5.8 ohms resistance (before heating).

According to the Facebook post:

The dummy core is being built to try and represent LENR heat from the centre of the dog bone in the thermal assessment experiments.

This core maxed out at 80.1V RMS and 1119ºC as you can see in the photos.

Approximate resistance and peak power was 7.0 ohms, 914 watts, a calibration curve is given.

PDB1

PDB2

PDB3

  • Looks hot. Not quite hot enough to simulate the core at full blast though.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And that is interesting in itself

      • Ged

        It very much is interesting. Learning the limits of the system here, and it’s quite curious information indeed.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Very happy the MFMP guys are on it. I hope it will finally lead to a successful replication.

    What I do wonder is why this dummy core was not tested at 1200 and 1400C as those were the temperatures the reactor was running in the test. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what power is needed to reach those temperatures on the dummy core?

    • Bob Greenyer

      As I say to Dr. Mike above, Alans equipment and the aerial will not allow that.

      We are considering getting 3 lengths of 3.5 meters of the 3 highest spec Inconel wires commercially available, firstly to test resistance heat characteristics and secondly as alternative coils – they are going to cost a lot though and we need to think seriously if we can afford them.

      http://bit.ly/1uDMIrV

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        That explains it. I wasn’t aware that the dummy core couldn’t reach that temperature. I wish the companies you have to buy the stuff from would consider donating said stuff to you guys.

        Very impressive that the hot e-cat can run continuous at 1400C if you look at what metals are available:

        http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html
        Stll, the iconel wires seem only just up to the job; steel isn’t an alternative?

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is not just about melting point, there is oxidation, creep, tensile strength and resistance – if steel worked, everyone would using it in their heater coils…

          Kanthal A1 is an iron alloy though, it is Fe Cr Al based the AL oxidises to – our dog bone favourite material, Al2o3 – protecting the Fe

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            This is clearly more advanced then I can wrap my head around. Happily that’s why I’m glad you guys do the replication and not I.

  • Sanjeev

    It looks like Rossi is saying that some other lab (competitor?) has replicated the Ecat.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=7#comment-1026479

    Marco: Do you know of any lab that succeded in replication of the Rossi Effect even in a minimal part ?
    Rossi: Yes.

    • Maybe he’s referring to brillouin.

      • Sanjeev

        Someone can ask. But I guess he will not name anyone.

      • ecatworld

        He has already said that IH has replicated LENR patents of Ahern and Ikegami/Pettersson — maybe one of those.

        • Do these guys have own companies?

          From the latest reports coming from Brillouin it looks like they are very near to a market entry.

      • Dr. Mike

        SG,
        There were 3 resistors wound on the Lugano reactor unless you don’t believe the Figure 4 wiring diagram. The wires can be seen in Figures 12a and 12b in the report. From the photo you can see about 24 +/- 3 turns, or about 8 turns per resistor. The length of 8 turns of a coil wound around a ~2 cm diameter cylinder would be a little more than 50 cm in length. This means the minimum diameter would .58 cm for a wound resistor as compared to the .26 cm for a straight resistor. This does not agree with the photos in Figures 12a and 12b where the wire diameter is much less than the spacing between the wires.
        Dr. Mike

    • Great news. I would not rule out Toyota or Mitsubishi, or a silent player from Europe.

  • Sanjeev
  • Simply said: This reactor is currently empty. They heated it up to a specific temperature and measured voltage, current and temperature.
    Later they will fill in their powder mix and heat it up again with same parameters (voltage, current). If there is an exothermic reaction happening inside the reactor, the temperature should be higher than at the empty (dummy) test.

    • psi2u2

      Thanks for the clear explanation.

    • US_Citizen71

      My understanding of what they are doing: The above setup is to take the place of the reaction in the center of their first model of the reactor. What is shown above will be covered with alumina and then a thermal camera will be aimed at it so they can test the validity of the camera data in the report and if using a thermal camera is a valid method to use with alumina.

      • Bob Greenyer

        US_Citizen71

        You are correct. This is part of the thermal assessment of the claims made in Lugano. This will help us settle questions such as “is the core or the wires hotter”. What we are finding is that it is actually quite hard to get much power into the core space – this in itself is supportive of the Lugano report. However, only only if the power assessment method is valid.

  • Dr. Mike

    I don’t understand the statement: “This core maxed out at 80.1V RMS and 1119ºC as you can see in the photos” It looks like 80 volts was just the maximum voltage used in the test. The voltage will need to be increased to 110-120V to duplicate 1660W output from the core in the first portion (1260C) of the active Lugano test.
    Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Mike,

      And there-in lies the problem – we are finding it is actually really quite hard to get that much power into the space. This first preliminary tests on a mock-up “Fake LENR core” was made of Kanthal A1 wire. The limits Alan had in his lab was a

      – K-Type thermocouple
      – Kanthal A1 would have failed if he could put in 1660W, the specifications limit the wire to around 1000W Max
      – His variac

      The test is to understand this part of the thermal mock up which is being designed to see what temperature alumina actually is at against input power when observed by a Optris 160 camera.

      A Molybdenum Disilicide element can handle much higher surface loads, but is very expensive and needs to breathe (in order to form the SiO2 layer) and a very different and more careful way of supplying power.

      • Ophelia Rump

        This may be why Industrial Heat is using a special alloy.

        If you go with Molybdenum Disilicide, possibly as a plating on the element, you could pre-oxidize the element before embedding it.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hopefully I will get time to do another reveal video this weekend, got to gather all of the pieces of media together.

          • Ophelia Rump

            You might also consider using multi-strand twisted wire to increase the load. You can twist your own and work out the details of satisfying the load requirement by length, number of twists, number of strands and thickness and composition of the wire used. It might take a little sampling and calculator work. But I am sure you will find what you need in short order.

      • US_Citizen71

        I’m sure you have stated it elsewhere but why not use a tungsten heating coil to stand in for the reaction with a melting point of over 3400 C it should handle the temperature and many pre-made elements exist and from a quick search it appears a custom one might not be that outrageous. http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Discount-customized-tungsten-coil-heater-heating_1364425527.html

        • Bob Greenyer

          tungsten oxidises even in air, then a lot above 200ºC, then above 600ºC the oxide cracks letting air in to oxidise the wire further – we would never get close.

          If tungsten alone could work in air, many heater coils would be made from it.

          There are alloys for heater coils that do contain tungsten like TZM.

          see here

          http://www.plansee.com/en/Materials-Molybdenum-402.htm

          We have learnt a lot in a very short time.

          • US_Citizen71

            Thanks for the reply and good luck very exciting! Seeing how far you have come already is amazing and it has convinced me to contribute, keep up the good work!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thankyou for helping make our work possible

      • Dr. Mike

        Bob,
        It’s too bad that the Kanthal won’t go up to a higher power level. I thought the A1 wire was speced to go up to 1400C? I can see where the limiting factor was the output power of the available variac.
        One problem that I had with the Lugano results was that if it was assumed that the Ni powder was in a line at the bottom of the reactor, the top of the reactor cylinder would be much cooler than the bottom, which was not mentioned in the report (calorimetery calculations assumed radial temperature symmetry). If you place your dummy core on the bottom of the reactor cylinder, it would be interesting how much of a top to bottom temperature difference you see on the outside of the reactor cylinder. If you see 50-100C temperature difference in the top to bottom of the reactor with just the dummy core outputting 900W, it would be a good indication that the Ni powder at the bottom of the reactor was not outputting 1660-2300W as claimed in the active run of the Lugano test.
        Dr. Mike

        • Bob Greenyer

          If you look at a levels adjusted image on our Facebook post “Did the reactor have hot spots?” from November the 3rd, it would appear that the top of the reactor was hotter.

          The A1 can go hotter, I have been told that if the wires can get rid of their heat effectively – it can run for 10 hours at 1400.

      • Obvious

        Actually, this is a very good question, Ivan. I have thought about this a bit.
        If Phase Voltage is the same as Line Voltage, then for a DC magnitude equivalent, one might think that the resistors are to be considered to be all in parallel somehow, to keep the voltage the same. Tricky.

    • Axil Axil

      My assumption is that the input power was provided conformant to the local power convention provided by the town that the test was conducted in. To provide a replication effort that has minimum negative comment potential, the power provided by the wall receptacle should be European in nature. This should make a comparison between the TPR-2 results and the replication results easier. …just wondering.

  • LuFong

    It would be nice if the data was specified in terms of Watts rather than Volts in order to make a more direct comparison with the Lugano Report.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It will be, this is just a preliminary test, Alan is giving you what he has in his lab, when learning from these experiments is distilled into the full LOS tests – we will have the power metering necessary.

      I will seek an adjusted chart.

  • Bob Greenyer

    US_Citizen71 and LENR G have made good descriptions of what the purpose of the dummy core is in this thread.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding this datum from the TPR-2 test document as follows:

    “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted”.

    It seems to me, this relationship between input power increase and output gain increase is insensitive to static test procedures such as how or where the temperature is measured at.

    As a metric of change, this measurement is not affected by any static condition. This seven times COP increase shows substantive over unity behavior within the reactor.
    I suggest that interval power increase measurements be included in the replication test protocols.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This would also be important due to the possibility of exothermal phase transitions or chemical reactions which require a certain ignition temperature.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder why your tube at 1100 C. seems to emit light much brighter, than the 1400 deg Ecat in the Lugano test. Would the Ecat not be at 1400 C when the picture for the report was made?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      See the comments on the Replication Thread.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Andreas, so this picture was taken in the dark and the Ecat under bright light conditions.

        • Omega Z

          Gerard

          Size and density of the reactor will cause much difference. What appears to be very simple & straight forward is actually quite complex. For this experiment to be worth while, they will need to be as precisely identical to Rossi’s reactor as possible.

  • Bob Greenyer

    If you go to our the plan for Phase 1 experiments for []=Project Dog Bone=[] here

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

    you will see that we are going to use several high temperature thermocouples – in fact they are costing nearly $1000 on their own!

    We are intending to use the Optris 160 and an as-much-as-possible analogue of the Lugano reactor (complete with dummy LENR core being developed here) to verify the thermal assessment method against input power as described in the report.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This question is answered elsewhere in the comments here or on the replication thread.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan whats to add

    “Power vs. temp will have large error bars because the resistance of the Kanthal changes as the metal heats up, and further as it oxidizes.

    The coil started at 5.6 ohms and finished after two heat cycles at 7 ohms. I’ll give it a go, but it will be +-10%.

    So to measure power correctly I need a clamp-on ammeter. I plan to shop for one today, and repeat the calibration with a fresh coil. Unfortunately, the refractory cement I ordered last week is apparently stuck on a UPS truck in the snow somewhere, so the error due to oxidation will still be there.”

    And

    “The coil is wound on a 0.156 inch mandrel (3.97 mm). The wire is 18 gauge, just over 1 mm diameter.

    The finished coil (just wound) measures 6.16 mm OD and that is consistent along the length.”

  • Thanks for your good work MFMP. You’re part of something that will have a huge impact on humanity.

  • Axil Axil

    The good news, I believe that MFMP and the collective wisdom of the LENR community has enough collective knowledge at this juncture to show over unity energy gain in an E-Cat
    replication. The bad news if you are a Rossi supporter, as I understand patent law, when any capability or method of a device is publicly demonstrated, that capability or method cannot be patented and is open source public property.

    • Freethinker

      Ask yourself what dates his patent applications were made public. Even the very first one. I think if this was a real problem, there would not have been a public TPR – ever. But ofcourse, it is up to the USPTO to decide, and then courts to settle.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I’m not sure I’ll have time to do a reveal video quick enough and it is too important for the crowd to consider – so the punchline has been given over on FB.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    Enjoy!

    • LuFong

      Looks like today was a very good day. Well done!

    • Freethinker

      Bob. Thank you.

  • Omega Z

    Your right. A patent is only to buy time. It does not stop someone from taking a different approach. Rossi/IH are well aware of this.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Something has to be connected to the contacts on the SiC element, this could have been inconel rods – these are a good choice as they can withstand the temperature at the cold contact end and not oxidise in the segments that are in air – also, they have good strength and are not brittle over a wide temperature range so that they can be connected to easily.

    • Sanjeev

      If you search Google Images for silicon carbide spiral element, you will find many interesting things.
      It looks like IH did use SiC element and the “shadows” are just grooves in the spiral SiC element.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He has already says he has submitted a patent about lithium, we have not seen that one yet – there may be others.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Even if you set the joule heating to null, you get still an average COP of 3.35, in comparison to 3.51 if joule heating is included. So what’s the point?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The whole “reversed clamps hypothesis” was an attempt to explain the 3 X extra joule heating in the supply wires based on an assumption that the reactors heater coils acted like a normal resistor (to all intense and purpose, the resistors are in series). The assumption that it could not have a negative temperature coefficient led to calculations that the results could be roughly accounted for if there was 1 clamp reversed on both the input and output PCE830s, this would imply gross incompetence of all involved or tacit fraud. Since this is a path of high resistance I felt there must be a simpler option that explains everything.

      Looks like there is and as bonus, it explains a whole lot of other things, like Rossi unguardedly saying the resistor coils were doped (that is a very specific word).

      You have to remember that IH and Rossi are trying to avoid people learning how it works, even if that is not actually patentable – there needs to be some mystery. The veil is being lifted, and it isn’t the wizard of oz behind…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The possible mistake in the calculation of joule heating cannot explain the apparent drop of resistance by a factor of > 3. Therefore, ivanc and others would have to show that there is another, more serious error, either in the calculations or in the measurement setup. The inverted clamp hypothesis has been rejected by the authors – so it seems that the resistance drop is real, as long as no evidence for the opposite exists.

        • Freethinker

          As the people constantly pushing this agenda are insatiable, there will be no end to their tenacity in exploring the data outside the scope of the test, making constructs of different parameters for which there is limited, incoherent data, aimed at “explaining” that which cannot be explained, because there is just conjecture and confabulations, and it will explain nothing.

          Some critics drive an argumentation that the output from the control box is necessarily 3 phase that requires any normal 3 phase AC handling. As the figure from the report indicates, the output is likely a square wave pulse train, or close to it, having one, or more likely two lines, going at the same time, with the intermediate time within a cycle there is no output (infinite resistance) on the lines. The calculations of the joule heat may be wrong, but is not very far off, and the purpose of it was to indicate that it will not contribute significantly to the COP. It is also like you say, a joule heating assumed to be zero would only make the COP estimation more conservative.

          It if more than sufficiently concluded that the input power was measured correctly. Thanks to Bob and the team at MFMP, there is now a coil alloy candidate, that with clarity eliminate several questions e.g. around the visual appearance of the active reactor. (Again, MFMP, thank you 🙂 )

          At any rate, anybody with an insight in em radiation, optical scatter processes, radiative transfer, black body, thermodynamics, material properties like transmission, reflection, emisivity, and that has looked up the materials, will find that the measured temperature is reasonable enough. If anything, now in light of possibility of a higher thermal capacity with the coils, there is the possibility that the very high transmission of the alumina casing, may in fact leave a leverage for speculation of the under estimation of the temperature. That leave of-course to explain how the Ni powder survive inside the core, but there is no lack of ideas of that either, albeit it s conjecture and definitely inside the black box.

          What is important is to draw a line in the sand. What is the factual standing, what is the scope, and what is conjecture. If we can conclude that the temperature is reasonably measured, and the computation of said temperature to power make sense, then the claims in the report stand, as the input power is settled.

          With all that said, if MFMP is making a full replica of the reactor, runs it like a dummy, and still get 1400C, at the same input power as in the TPR, then there is likely something wrong with output power computation. Until then, I bid anyone good luck to find anything tangible wrong in the output power int the TPR.

          • Josh G

            Except that SiC is very brittle and not a good candidate for a coil wire. Can be fashioned into a heating element, though.

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes

          • ivanc

            Why if you could make an ecat work with gas, you will go to the inconvenience to wound 3 resistors made of crystal (if you could wound them), and then apply 3phase to them?, You could achieve all this with no issue with one phase. and all your measurements will be simpler.

            Bob. could you fit 3 coils of silicon Carbide inside that little reactor? and connect also inside that little volume to inconel?.

            Do I have the right to think? or just have to accept and nod.

            Are we hipper forcing an explanation?

          • Freethinker

            “Do I have the right to think? or just have to accept and nod.”

            Certainly you have the right to think! Certainly not shall you accept and nod! I just happens to disagree with you very vividly, and find you line of argument ill informed.

            We are no more hipper inventing argument, based on poor data and out convictions things cannot work.

            If the basic criterias of the the performed tests are met, withing the scope, and the data are within reasons, then the claim is also within reason.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes, but it would be custom, we have be quoted $5000 per coil for Ultracoil, $2200 for Maganacoil from MHI – and we would need 3 per reactor – these are patent based alloys/ceramic based conductors – mostly MoSi2.

            It would very possibly be cheaper to do this with SiC as there are no fancy patents to pay for – can be made in India – they can make two start spirals, so 3 start is not inconceivable. Bit more work at the end – but there are the end blocs of the dog bone to hide that all in.

        • ivanc

          You have not seen my calculations.
          Please read and then comment.

          https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tuKwWUxC2Gq_MtEED4_XYYIqehpOv47mGVx9yio-GKs/pubhtml

          • Obvious

            Have you balanced P = IV with P = I^2R yet?
            These must give the same answer for each extrapolated data point, without changing V for phase relative to V Line, because VL and Vp are the same value in a real delta configuration.
            (We can chat about this on the other thread in detail.)

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I have seen them, invanc. What I have tried to say is that a correction of the supposed error in the calculation of joule heating in the C2 wires – the “sqrt(3) issue” – does not imply that the COP is 1. Up to now, nobody has documented a mistake made by the testers which would lead to this conclusion.

      • Obvious

        IMO, there is NO real 3.X times power increase.
        This is bogus artifact of ignoring voltage while extrapolating linear power increases.
        I won’t comment further on this page regarding this “issue”.

      • Dr. mike

        Bob,
        Even heavily doped SiC has a resistivity that is about 3-4 orders of magnitude too high to form the three 1.23 ohm resistors on the Lugano reactor. Also, heavily doped SiC could have a 3X resistance drop going from room temperature to 450C, but would not drop another factor of 3X going from 450C to 1260C.
        Dr. Mike

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have been sent this report about 100 times, everyone has emailed it to us, and we have seen it posted everywhere!

    We have also been told that the authors of the report have categorically ruled out the “reversed clamps hypothesis” by data and photos. Assuming that is correct, I went on to try and solve the 1/3 question.

    In my research, I have found that the only conductor running over 1400ºC that will fit into a 19mm diameter cylinder, have close coils, run in free air, and have up to an 8X negative resistance coefficient in the 0-600/900ºC range and barely show a change between 1200ºC and 1400ºC is

    Doped SiC

    I think that an element was made that has dumbbell cold contacts and off these were attached Inconel rods/wire, which has appropriate thermal, conductive and structural properties to sit in and out of the cartable refractory.

    All the data you need is on our Facebook page.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Josh G

      Bob, Kudos to you and your MFMP collaborators. We are all in awe of your courage and tenacity.

      I spent the better part of the day turning this over in my mind. It seems to fit the missing pieces of the puzzle on a number of points, but it does raise some questions. I am not on facebook so can’t post directly to that page. Feel free to answer them or simply take them into your considerations (if you haven’t already), though of course inquiring minds want to know.

      1. The latest patent application and the ITPR-2 report both indicate that there is coiled wire around the reactor core. SiC is too brittle to be a wire. And that is how you are building your prototype. If you used these SiC heating elements, then there is no more coiled wire. It might not be a problem, but it is hard to square with what we have been told about the E-cat’s design.

      2. Rossi has said that the inconel is doped. Is it possible to dope inconel with SiC to produce a wire with similar properties?

      3. According to the whole 3x COP joule heating mystery, the resistivity of the wire at 450C should be 3x the resistivity of the wire at the 1250-1400 range. The typical curve shown in the kanthal brochure, as well as the curves diagram posted on your facebook page, seem to show that at 450C the resistivity is close to its minimum but in any case much less than 3x the resistivity of those higher temperature ranges. It seems that the 3x resistivity is only true for much lower temperatures of the heating elements. Am I misinterpreting those graphs? Do you think that the slope/curve can be altered via dopants?

      4. Also, you wrote above that this is the only conductor that requires careful control especially on heat up. Can you elaborate on why that is so? Is it because rapid heating can damage the element?

      Thanks again for all you do.

      • Sanjeev

        Check this out !
        http://www.jinyuco.com/product.asp?id=8&idn=1158&name=SG-type-silicon-carbide-heating-element

        Btw, can this explain the dark spirals on the hot cat ? (which everyone thinks are shadows of the wires)

        • Bob Greenyer

          When I went to the Heat Treatment congress I saw SiC elements – and I thought – wow, that would look like the lugano reactor if it had a bit of Alumina on the outside. The shot of the Indian made element on FaceBook even has a similar number of turns.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Josh G.

        Thanks Josh, we are doing it because the truth matters, whatever that may be.

        This is a learning exercise, it is also an exercise in explaining observed data. As several of your questions are answered in the links that were posted on Facebook, for those that don’t have Facebook, I have arranged for the post to be copied to the main site here

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

        1. The latest patents are based on much older (in the history of the E-Cat) designs and were targeted at lower temperatures and so used different technology than what the data in the Lugano report points to.

        2. You can dope SiC with a range of metals some of which are in Inconel, my own interpretation is that

        a) Inconel connectors are part of the design

        b) The SiC is doped and this accounts for the resistance drop

        It could be that it is a wire coated in SiC – but that is only speculation based on some other manufacturers comments about their patented coils.

        3. From one of the links “In addition to temperature dependent resistance, silicon carbide heaters also increase in resistance with age.” So you can possibly double these resistance figures depending on the age of the wires. Additionally, depending on the doping the resistance can vary by 4 orders of magnitude.

        4. I said that it was the only conductor that had all those combined properties (including negative temperature coeeficient), when I can do the reveal video, there are other types like Magnacoil and Ultracoil that, some based on MoSi2 that need to be raised carefully (so the SiO2 layer forms – protecting it from oxidation.

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,
      I have already posted this comment below- I will repeat it here:

      Even heavily doped SiC has a resistivity that is about 3-4 orders of
      magnitude too high to form the three 1.23 ohm resistors on the Lugano
      reactor. Also, heavily doped SiC could have a 3X-4X resistance drop going
      from room temperature to 450C, but would not drop another factor of 3X
      going from 450C to 1260C.
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Dr. Mike,

        For convenience I have had the post copied to the main blog.

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

        In one of the PDFs, it says that doping can vary the base resistance factor by up to 4 orders of magnitude.

        The Resistance of SiC varies with time and treatment and by up to double, the chart from Practical Control Solutions is a snapshot of various products resistance vs heat response.

        The PDF from Kanthal shows some variance of curves. Some products like HotRod have a much bigger negative coefficient than Kanthal Globar.

        It might be that the effect flattens out the negative temperature coefficient as the heaters age.

        Note that the control was done first. If the control was done afterwards – I predict the resistance of the coils would have been much higher.

        Since there appear to be near infinite doping combinations and we don’t know what happened to this reactor before this test, it is difficult to be certain, but there is material that shows significant negative resistance coefficient that will operate in free air and this is interesting.

      • SG

        Although you explain this in additional detail above, since you repeat this often throughout the thread, I thought a counter-point should be provided here as well. There is a problem with your analysis above in that you
        assume that SiC cannot be engineered to have a resistivity that is less
        than 1 ohm-cm. Indeed, some outfits are doping SiC to have as little as
        .01 ohm-cm resistivity. See, e.g.,

        CVD Materials has engineered the electrical properties of Performance
        SiC to provide material from less than 1 ohm-cm to greater than 10 4
        ohm-cm.

        Performance SiC Grade
        Resistivity (ohm-cm)

        Engineered Low Resistivity
        10-2

        Nominal Resistivity
        10-² – 10² – 4
        http://www.mtccvdmaterials.com/materials/cvd-silicon-carbide/sic-properties/

  • Andreas Moraitis

    This would only be correct if the resistance of the coils were approximately constant. But where do you take the certainty from that this is the case? There are several possibilities to explain the reduced resistance. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to wait until MFMP have carried out their replication attempts? We should be patient, otherwise we might get lost in endless speculations.

  • LuFong

    It would interesting to find out on what basis the authors of the Lugano Report have made their claim that the resistors are Inconel wires. This is not just a passing comment as they also talk about the Inconel wires shielding the IR in Figure 12a/b. Since the resistor is encased in alumina there doesn’t appear to be a way to determine the exact nature of the resistor from examination. Was it an assumption on their part or were they given that information?

    The possibility of the resistor element being made from a doped form of silicon carbide is very interesting and strengthens the data in the report despite the questions about the resistivity curves found not matching those in the report. At least we now have a material that behaves similar to that required by the data in the report, is commonly used in high-temperature heating applications, and whose form could match the “shadowing” seen some of the pictures. Progress!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Depending on the doping, the base resistance can vary by 4 orders of magnitude and the dopants can infer very different properties such as different kinds of magnetism to the SiC. Also, the resistance varies greatly over time and based on conditions. This reactor is NOT ideal for a heating element, as heating elements are normally allowed to emit their power freely, these are encased and so may not behave in the same way as “perfect case scenarios” presented on snapshot charts.

      As you say, there is no way of knowing what was inside, but the reports authors could have been told that the “wires were inconel” i.e. the contact wires on the outside, they could have even taken a sample to test that and confirmed it – but maybe they assumed it was the same all the way through the reactor.

      • LuFong

        Thanks for your response. Some more questions of a general nature for anyone:

        In the Lugano report the authors state, “In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature.” Does this apply to all Inconel wires or just something that might be based on SiC?

        Also there is an interesting behavior mentioned in the report: “After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W.” [From 810W]. Could this be the result of the SiC heater’s resistance increasing (as it is said to do) over time?

        • US_Citizen71

          The resistance would be decreasing in order to cause a power decrease. Power and resistance move in tandem directionally.

          P = R x I²

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is due to a feedback loop based of a set point temperature on the temperature controller. The point the report writers are making is that the COP is going up, this is because less feed power is needed to achieve a target temperature.

  • Bob Greenyer

    SiC is basically a semiconductor. At high temperatures it becomes more of a conductor. This varies with age. The level of base conductance and even type of magnetism can vary a large amount with the type of dopants.

    This is not your average resistor.

    It is very common in furnace heater elements above 1250ºC

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,
      If you calculate the physical dimensions of three 1.23 ohm SiC resistors at Sic’s highest possible doping level to achieve a minimum resistivity of about 1 ohm-cm, you can easily determine that SiC could not have been used for the Lugano resistors..
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        I admit to being no expert, Perhaps you could talk to this Indian company (i like slide 6 and 7) and see what is possible with their tech – it would be very helpful.

        http://www.slideshare.net/silcarbrecrystallized/reaction-bonded-double-spiraled-si-c-heating-elements

        What I have found is that there really is nothing like standard SiC – there are all kinds of formulations, ways of forming, making cold contacts etc. and some element manufacturers coat in many ways their elements to give them other properties. There are literally billions of possible combination of materials and structure and processing. Without a big data system to analyse everything that is known and simulate yet more, I couldn’t give you a straight answer – this is a space that is extremely challenging for people that do this every day!

        The point of raising SiC is that variations of it are widely used as a high temp heating element and is the only thing that I have found to date that has this combination of properties, operates in Air at 1400ºC, has any form of meaningful negative resitance temperature coefficient, needs to be doped, can have its magnetic properties adjusted, uses a different metal for external electrical contact, can be formed into very regular uniform “coils” with a small internal diameter.

        In fact, if IH is not using it, they should consider doing so if heat is the only think required because SiC is much cheaper than some of the alternatives to achieve this temperature in air.

      • SG

        Dr. Mike, Although you explain this in additional detail above, since you repeat this often throughout the thread, I thought a counter-point should be provided here as well. There is a problem with your analysis above in
        that you assume that SiC cannot be engineered to have a resistivity that is less than 1 ohm-cm. Indeed, some outfits are doping SiC to have as little as .01 ohm-cm resistivity. See, e.g.,

        CVD Materials has engineered the electrical properties of Performance
        SiC to provide material from less than 1 ohm-cm to greater than 10 4
        ohm-cm.

        Performance SiC Grade
        Resistivity (ohm-cm)

        Engineered Low Resistivity
        10-2

        Nominal Resistivity
        10-² – 10² – 4
        http://www.mtccvdmaterials.com/materials/cvd-silicon-carbide/sic-properties/

  • ivanc

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tuKwWUxC2Gq_MtEED4_XYYIqehpOv47mGVx9yio-GKs/pubhtml

    The analysis is based on V=RI and P=VI. so is independent of temperature. and only concern with input power.

    is purely electrical, as each element has individually and in group follow these laws, the resistivity changes has entered in the discussion as a result of people like Dr. Mike, Thomas Clarke, IvanC and others who have review the data. and found an anomalous behavior.

    The data show two kind of measurements Input power, and input current ( the input current is encoded in the calculation of the joule Heat)

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sorry, I am not sure I follow your analysis, I see a few words and a little soft attack, but nothing that indicates you have read all the data presented on the links, correlated that with the differing structure of the Lugano reactor ( it is encased in Alumina so will not follow standard optimal curves)

    Please, analyse the data in the sites linked off the Facebook post and come back with a reasoned response, what you have written here is meaningless.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Obvious

    From the viewpoint of each two-line (corner to corner) V measurement, the three resistors are in series-parallel. Note the “phase Z” in the delta, in the web link with formulae I provided earlier.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes

  • Bob Greenyer

    Actually, Rossi brought up doping, then when I was uncomfortable about the resistance drop issue and the high temp issue and the fact that the SiC elements just looked like the HC ITP2 reactor (minus alumina) I started looking at SiC remembering they started off high resistance (relatively). Only then did I see the word doping as a way of modifying their conductivity by a factor of 4 – (10,000 times variation).

    Then I discovered that their resistance can permanently double in use.

    All of this is not exotic in any way – but there are infinite ways of doping – so an exotic conductor is very possible.

    Also In my exploration and talking to MHI – they say their patented coils have coatings – so they can run higher – and this is patented. There is a great deal of research going into alloys in the world of furnace element design.

    One more thing the coil, whatever it is – is in a casing of alumina, this is exactly what heater coil manufacturers avoid and their published curves are not based on that kind of scenario.

  • Obvious

    I am currently using 1.852 Ohms for each resistor, but still having some second thoughts about that. That seems to be the wires-off value.

  • Bob Greenyer

    You are missing the context. The nominal resistance curve gets higher as the wires age, with the right voltage the same power can be achieved until the wires fail.

    From the practical control site

    “In addition to temperature dependent resistance, silicon carbide heaters also increase in resistance with age.”

    and they say that in free air, this is seen as a drop in resistance to a minimum at 600-900ºC.

    There will always be a drop. How that effects the specific doped wire over the full temperature range would need a lot of study. Perhaps it affects the starting resistance more and the minimum less.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please understand that SiC can have a resistivity vary 10,000 X depending on dopants – see here:

    http://accuratus.com/pdf/sicprops.pdf

    And here is a lot of detail about how to drive SiC elements

    http://www.practicalcontrol.com.au/silicon_carbide_control.html

    There is also “snapshots” of different standard commercial SiC elements running optimally in free air.

    On this site you can see a typical way a SiC coil contact can be connected

    http://www.silcarb.com/campaign/sem2/index.php

    “Dumbell Shaped Alpha SiC rods

    It incorporates advanced technology to keep the terminal ends cool by virtue of the decreased resistivity of the lower resistance cold end material used in the manufacturing process.”

    This explicitly states having a different metal for attaching contacts too… It is not convoluted or unordinary to have different contact wires for SiC heater elements – it is what is done.

    Here also in the Kanthal brochure, they are using sprayed aluminium and aluminium contacts.

    http://bit.ly/1v4baUM

    There is also a lot of detail about the effect of “wear” depending on control method, including resistance changes.

    This site shows that a non-coiled SiC rod 20mm diameter can have 300mm length, 200mm hot zone and resistance variation of 0.6-5.0 Ohms. Presumably spiral cuts would increase the resistance.

    http://www.shibo.net/en/product/20130522/39.html

  • Bob Greenyer

    As far as I understand it, the authors will make updates to the report, but in what ways I do not know.

    What I am discovering is that it isn’t just a matter of shadows being shadows… look at this research on the IR emission spectrum intensity at different wavelengths. Depending on the material chosen, shadows may or may not appear at various temperatures.

    http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/59/jresv59n6p405_A1b.pdf

    In addition, whilst we are told in the report that the “fins” are alumina (pretty much pure Al2O3) what if the filler between the coils started to conduct as many dielectrics do, something which is is more likely at higher temperatures.

    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Dielectric+materials

    Additionally, as Alan Goldwater found out in his second test of the dummy LENR core, a temperature related change in resistance of 1 ohm resulted from a bad contact. In the powder cell, we have something physical that means the temperature of the heater coil is incorrect over a range until it physically connects due to high temperature expansion. Could there be a simple physical, temperature related artefact that results in a resistance change?

    This is a very nice descriptive document by SilCarb

    http://www.furnacemanufacturer.net/silicon-carbide-heating-elements-brochure.pdf

    SiC can be formed into any shape from particles (sub micron say) and then sintered together at high temperature >2000ºC say. It does not need winding.

    SilCarbs “cold ends” can have their resistivity reduced to 1/40th of normal SiC based heater element by impregnating the SiC with a metal – but the cool ends still produce heat. What if the heater coil is selectively impregnated with Inconel before being fully sintered?

    Whatever the reality, it may not be necessary to worry about these things if it is just a temperature related thing.

  • Mark E Kitiman

    ivanc said:

    The testes saw inconel protruding out of the reactor.(SiC)

    Which seems rather inappropriate ;0)

  • Freethinker

    I am surprised nobody commented on this already (if someone have, then my apologies):

    Taking the W/T graph or rather the table on which it is based, making some extrapolations on the effect and the temperature, if fits well with the result of the report. My example would be imposed 923 W, temperature 1400C, and measured output power 2300 W (numbers are rough, not exact, need not be). Extrapolating data give at hand that the MFMP would require about 2300W to reach 1400C whereas in the Ecat in the TPR it needed 923W. The TPR has a computed power value for 1400C to be 2300W, meaning the MFMP dummy would have a COP of about one, for the Ecat it would be 2300/923=2.5 for the reactor body.

    It means the TPR is confirmed, unless ofcourse some creative individual in this forum can point at the temperature measurements are anything but correct and conservative.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think I see where you are going… and it is not a bad thought.

      If I read you right, you are saying that if you look at what the core is claimed to produce and try and achieve that from the dummy core Alan has ben doing preliminary tests on, you are saying that you would need to put in 2300W to get to 1400C?

      Need to be aware that this is in free air and the coils are able to radiate freely and there is not the rest of the reactor acting on it – so I am not sure we can be very clear about any conclusions.

      Also, the TPR2 output is calculated and that is something we have to verify… basically, if we put X amount of power in, what temp does the alumina actually get to based on a high temperature thermocouple.

      • Omega Z

        To do what I think FT is describing, you would need your reactor to be identical as possible to the E-cat. dumbbells & all.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Which it will be. As much as possible, at least from the physical shape, radiative/convective design and external materials.

          • Sanjeev

            Fluorine was not detected as far as I know.

            The secret of the secret sauce lies in the Rossi’s old job, if one can retrace it.
            Anyway there are only about 100 elements to test and one can shortlist only a few with some intelligent guesses.

      • Freethinker

        Yes.

        It is of course a bit of a stretch, but if the MFMP device consumes 923 W to generate a temperature of 1113 C and the ECAT uses the same amount to generate 1400C, it may make you think. Both are in open air. Both may be approximated as black bodies. By an extrapolation of the MFMP data (computing delta Pin and delta of the delta – slope and second derivative), one get a rough value around 2300 W for 1400C in the MFMP device, which is the same power as the TPR2 list as the estimated output power due to radiation from the generator body surface at 1400C.

        It is in any case an indication that it take much more power to have the dummy do 1400C.

  • Bob Greenyer

    sorry – i did not put that across as I should have done, pulse on single coil.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The ends are normally metalised to form the contacts but the cold ends (and any other part) can be ‘impregnated’ with any metal/alloy etc.

  • Freethinker

    It is not the data itself that is poor. It is the fact that you use it where it lack the relevance you which to attach to it. In that context the data is “poor”.

  • LuFong

    A great interview with Bob Greenyer about MFMP, their projects, and the Fusion Fund over at VESSY’S BLOG ON E-CAT:

    http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/mfmp-fusion-fund-interview-bob-greenyer/

  • Bob Greenyer

    Actually Frank, it is worse than 3000 euros, assuming the Italian distributor is willing to part with their 900ºC Pi160, there is nearly another 1000 euros to have it sent back to Germany and re-calibrated to 1500ºC

    • Ronzonni

      Couldn’t you get a reasonably good approximate calibration by comparing it to surface mounted thermocouples? Perhaps on a heater especially made for the calibration of the camera? How much accuracy do you need to verify a COP > 3?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are going to do precisely that first.

  • Chris the 2nd

    Hi Bob, as you are British, are these replication taking place in the UK or a lab on mainland Europe?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We hope to have []=Project Dog Bone=[] screening of “fuels” in multiple countries once we have established how to economically make the reactors and the veracity of the thermal assessment method used in the Lugano tests is empirically tested.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ryan is EXTREMELY pleased with the latest casting attempt

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • LuFong

      I’m impressed he didn’t get any of that gunk on his lab coat or hands. Looking good, better in fact than the actual E-Cat!

    • Omega Z

      If Rossi should make any favorable comments on this, Would that invalidate your independent test status? he he he

      @ LuFong
      Ryan is just that good, with Photoshop.
      😉

  • Ged

    Incorrect.

    See page 8 and 9 of the report. The dummy run was used to calibrate against the known alumina emissivity curve. What’s more, they did an iterative area calibration, correcting for differences in the physical topology of the device across its surface in small area steps — correcting for roughness and other parameters. So, the issue you state was explicitly addressed and properly accounted for in the report.

    There was no failure to calibrate, and they calibrated it quite well.

    • Anon2012_2014

      And a comment on my comment and GED’s comment.

      If the thermal detector detected ALL radiation (beyond its spectral range) then I do believe that the Stephen-Boltzmann law would cancel out mistakes made in indicated temperature for estimating radiated power. But the peak of the radiation shifts to lower wavelengths as the object gets hotter than 500 C to the estimated operating temperature of 1400 C. From Optris http://www.optris.com/tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Zubehoer/IR-Basics.pdf page 8:

      U ~ εT_obj^4

      As the reflected ambient radiation and the self radiation of the infrared thermometer is to be considered as well, the formula is as follows:

      U = C ⋅ [ε T_obj^4 + (1− ε )⋅T_amb^4 − T_Pyr^4 ]

      U=detector signal
      C= device specific constant

      As infrared thermometers do not cover the wavelength range as a whole, the exponent n depends on the wave- length λ. At wavelengths ranging from 1 to 14 µm n is between 17 and 2 (at long wavelengths between 2 and 3 and at short wavelengths between 15 and 17).

      U = C ⋅ [ε Tobj^n+ (1− ε)⋅Tamb^n-Tpyr^n]

      Thus the object temperature is determined as follows:

      Tobj = [(U − C ⋅Tamb^n + C ⋅ εTamb^n + C ⋅Tpyr^n)/(C ε)]^(1/n)

      The results of these calculations for all temperatures are stored as curve band in the EEPROM of the infrared ther-mometer.

      ————-[end of excerpt from pdf]

      My point is that the device was not have calibrated at 1400 C for the different emissivity of rough and cut surfaced alumina, and that this error could produce different estimates of the amount of energy radiated outside the measurement bandwidth of the IR sensor in the camera.

      • Ged

        The device was calibrated for 1400 C. When they calibrated it to the curve of alumina that was all they needed, as that normalized their data to the alumina curve which includes the known emissivity for 1400 C. It’s that easy, the curve is never going to change. That’s the beauty of material science, it’s predictable. This is
        standard practice, and their iterative area mapping for topology goes
        above and beyond what was necessary.

        Read page 8 and 9 closer. The camera itself corrects for the changes in wavelength, as long as we are talking about temperatures (wavelengths) within its operating range, which 1400 C’s corresponding IR wavelength is. The wavelength of IR per unit temperature (i.e. energy) is a known quantity. They talk a bit about the technical details of the camera (which you took a small excerpt of) and give a reference for where they go in much deeper detail of this method. The camera itself already compensates for the changes in wavelength peak emissions per change in temperature via well defined and known algorithms, so that is a red herring.

  • Ged

    Absolutely agreed. That is the true test.

    I just hope they can get that camera without breaking the bank. Those things are seriously pricy.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We keep trying to be clear that we are not and cannot replicate. That is self evident.

    No one can deny that what we can do, at the very least, is test the biggest criticism of the Lugano report and that is the method of thermal assessment where they used an Optris PI160, 1500ºC / 48º lense with empirically derived data to infer temperatures and therefore power output.

    We can do that by having a structure of the same volume, morphology, materials and have a heater(s) that will allow us to put as much power into the body as was claimed to be produced by the reactor – or as near as possible. By using highly accurate thermocouples and simple sine wave full AC, we can produce a temperature vs power input curve and see if that supports or otherwise the report.

    In addition, we had planned since March to run Nickel with partially reduced Fe2O3 (thermo-chemically bonded to the surface) with a Lithium Hydride in an Alumina vessel with a magnetic field inducing coil around it as a heater. This was due to the sheer weight of published historical evidence pointing in this direction, and our own work some of this reasoning and data we have discussed on our Facebook page.

    In addition, there is clear information presented in the Lugano report that supports this plan, and even helps clarify on the choice of Lithium Hydride to use (LiAlH4). We will still be stabbing in the dark, but if it is actually possible, we are not starting from zero.

    As an example of costs, the 1500ºC optris camera could cost us around 4000 euros – we are working on that with Optris head office in Germany. The high temperature thermocouples did cost $900 and whilst we got a killer deal on the PCE830 by promising to supply them with a copy of the report of its use and photos (saving $730), it still cost over $1700. These are just a few of the costs. We don’t have the funds to donate time, resources and pay for materials and equipment, so yes we are asking for interested people to help us with the research.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The really good news is, everyone can replicate whatever we do, because we publish what and how!

      • jousterusa

        Thanks, Bob! I have a far better understanding of the motives for MFMP now. I am not sure who introduced the term “repl

        • Bob Greenyer

          For those that missed it, here was the bounce google stream recording – sorry, there is no sound. We know how to do it properly now so everyone can watch future experiments.

          http://youtu.be/hOKErbL3_1A

          • psi2u2

            Bob, when do you project your first fully fueled run?

            (we are all, of course, on the edge of our seats….)

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will message on that later, we are trying to secure the funds, resources and equipment to both do the coming series of tests both properly and broadcast them effectively so that there can be massive participation.

            We have to build more dog bones for a start – and we are limited by when we can receive the thermal imaging equipment – but we pretty much have those sorted now ( look on FB for up coming news on that )

          • psi2u2

            Can you please repost the donation link? I’ll send you a few more bucks, and maybe others will chip in also (sorry I am not a deep pocket donor).

            Also, does anyone have good creative fundraising ideas? Are you working with the crowd source funding platforms? Does that make sense, or do we not yet have a big enough wave to take advantage of it?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Psi2u2,

            Every bit helps!

            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/donate/donate-2

            If we do go down the crowd funding route at this stage – we would need full on mobilisation of everyone who can spread the word, because – historically – LENR has not done well on these platforms and that is because it needs a massive social media push to happen.

          • psi2u2

            Done.

  • Bob Greenyer

    As detailed on our experiment proposal and published drawings,

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

    we are going to first use Kanthal A1 (all data for this is widely available) this will be able to go to 1250ºC comfortably and may go to 1400ºC for a brief period.

    Reasons

    1. Affordable

    2. Easy to acquire and work with (now we know how to do it!)

    3. We can fit it into the volume

    4. resistance level we can drive with simple variac – which will also make the power input assessment a doodle.

    5. We can (and have) built a dummy/fake LENR reactor core that will simulate heat coming from the centre.

    These phase one experiments will be about verifying the thermal assessment method used by the Lugano reports authors, not by guesswork or reference to a combination of historical data made before the existence of the thermal camera used, but by actual measurement first by high temperature thermocouples and later correlation to the same camera type.

    As relates to the actual winding used, we have no certainty and whilst the reports Authors state/suggest that the type of wires used internally are “inconel” there is no way they can know that or test for it. We have done extensive research with furnace wire manufacturers across the world and have learnt a lot in the process.

    What is known

    – All types of Inconel available would likely fail at 1412.1ºC if there for the kind of time they were

    – Inconel is an alloy

    – Inconel could be tested and confirmed as being used as feed wires, but this was not actually done in the report.

    When there was a challenge to the resistance issues in the report, Rossi said 2 things

    1. There was a negative resistance coefficient

    2. That Inconel is only a dopant in the heater element

    You would not “Dope” inconel with Inconel – it would still be inconel.

    We had found suitable wires for the operating perimeters, but they were based on proprietary materials and thus ridiculously expensive. What is more, they contained no “inconel”, though we believe they do have some of the same elements and did not have a matching NTC.

    So, that lead us to consider SiC – very commonly used in high temperature furnaces that need to run in air. Has a NTC, can be formed into pretty much any shape and via combination with other metals etc can have an infinite range of properties. They also need a different material for the electrical contacts.

    Metals are regularly made part of SiC element and the method is actually called “Doping” and logically, you could “Dope” SiC element during its manufacture with Inconel. Then it would be a question of semantics, at what level of metals content does a SiC heater element become an alloy – steels for instance have carbon in them.

    From wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy

    The definition of Alloy is

    “Alloys are made by mixing two or more elements; at least one of which being a metal.”

    Under this definition, SiC doped with Inconel (whatever one, they are all alloys themselves) would be an Alloy.

  • Curbina

    I hope that “naysayers” look into the hard work performed by the volunteers that work in the MFMP and realize that is absolutely no game to perform this kind of experiments, just to have a
    proper “dog bone” model is a challenge on it’s own when you can’t go and buy one mass produced unit. I commend and praise their great effort and their totaly transparent and open approach to science.

  • bitplayer

    “The sausage is not for the dog and MFMP will not get a bone when it is time for the feast.”

    I guess you’re having a little trouble wrapping your head around the idea of “altruism”, or “doing things for the good of others, without expectation or desire of personal reward, other than the sense of having done good”.

    Not a concept you’ve been exposed to?

  • bitplayer

    An interesting fact is that feeling intensity increases with the degree to which we think things are real. If you see a stick on a path and think it’s a snake, you might experience fear. But once you see that it’s a stick, the fear fades. That’s good, because otherwise we would not be able to release emotions, and we would quickly lose ability to function effectively.

    Also interesting is that this relationship works in reverse. That is, when there is a strong feeling about something, we tend to believe that it is real. At that point the emotional energy overwhelms the ability to analyze the situation, and we stay trapped in the illusion entailed by the emotion.

    Skeptics use this promote their agenda. When they can no longer present logical arguments, they resort to strong emotion-evoking wording. This induces a sense of “might be real” in the people exposed to those words.

    But analysis quickly exposes that there is no reality behind the words, only emotional energy, which can be seen as a potential indicator of the state of mind of the skeptic.

  • SiriusMan

    Even if the FDA does move to regulate LENR technology, that does not affect its uptake in other countries.

    What will stop China from building a LENR-powered hyper-economy, while the USA sits around twiddling its thumbs, waiting for FDA approval?

    .

    • Obvious

      Nothing. Include them as partners, or be excluded by them.

  • Bob Greenyer

    More updates on Facebook…

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    – post bake weigh in
    – detailed photos of the casting of a REAL 3 phase Dog Bone
    – attaching a thermocouple to the previous Dog Bone

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

  • jousterusa

    Presuming they do not have the proprietary catalyst Andrea Rossi discovered, I can’t see the point of this exercise. If they do replicate his results, the catalyst is insignificant, no? Can someone please enlighten me further? Thanks!

    • There is the possibility that they will get lower results. Not kWs, but maybe a 5-10 Watts would be impressing, exciting and revolutionary. Also there is the possiblity that the “catalyst” isn’t a substance, but an electro magnetic stimulation to the metal lattice.

      What I don’t understand at the moment is: Why they invest so much time and money into the optical design of the reactor? They first should try to see an effect with a general simple reactor chamber. I think for the first step it is important that the fuel is as near as possible on the lugano fuel, not the “bone”-style design. When they see an effect with that fuel, they could try in a next step to re-engineer the chamber-design as well, to see if they get better or similar results as in the lugano test.

      • GordonDocherty

        I believe the coil, in particular, is an important, integral part of the design – think electromagnet. The field produced by the electromagnet appears to be used in combination with iron grains (or partly coating the nickel grains given the nickel appears to have been produced using the nickel carbonyl process) in the “(nuclear) catalytic powder” to concentrate the magnetic field (“the magnetic flux”) affecting adjacent nickel grains, especially their surfaces. In fact, it would be interesting to see what would happen with iron absent in one powder load and present in another…

    • Freethinker

      It does make good sense in atleast one way.

      As already indicated by their heating of the “core” of the dummy, they will not be able to reach the temperature 1400 on only 900-925 W, as the ECAT did. It will likely require rather >1900 W.

      So it can be uses as a dummy but with higher input power than the dummy in the TPRII report to show that the output of the ECAT is not in line with a COP of 1 but rather has the COP as described by the authors in the report.

      When that is done, one can always put any old powder in the core to see if it can generate over-unity.

    • US_Citizen71

      Remember this first dog bone will not have powder inside. The coil is to take the place of the powder. The test is meant to check the thermal imaging and nothing more by heating the dog bone as close as possible to the temperatures measured in the Lugano tests. They will be able to check the electrical input required to reach the temperature as well if the thermal imaging is found to behave as stated in the report.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are aware of that – this is only a design that will have a better chance of getting the power we want into the reactor to simulate an active reactor.

    We have been working with several manufacturers in 4 countries on other types of coils and a pair should arrive today from Germany (variation on the same theme). These coils however are only rated to just over 900W, so are more like the power that the active Lugano reactor coils could get in. This will be to test the “shadow” questions in combination with the Dummy LENR reactor core that Alan Goldwater has built.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We wish to stay independent, there should be no means by which we can have our data brought into question. If there is anything they or others wish to put into the public domain, we can, of course, use that (even spoof documents serve a purpose!).

    We did, via a degree of separation [Mats Lewan], request to purchase the exact same high temperature PI160, 1500ºc, 48º lens imager that was used in the Lugano test, we felt that would be a good thing to do. They responded to our request by proxy via Mats near immediately, saying that it was currently in use on another experiment (not related to IH) and forwarded details from their Italian supplier. On further investigation, the Italian supplier did not have a 1500ºC unit – but that is part of a whole other story – there are none available, anywhere. We are resolving this.

  • Hi all

    In Reply to Jack:

    The E-Cat has already been CE certified and tested for radiation as part of that. No Radiation.

    CE certification applies by mutual treaty to the US too it is why FDA approved products can sell in Europe too. So FDA approval is already there.

    Kind Regards walker

    • ronzonni

      The ecat has been CE certified? Do you have a link for that information? Thanks.

      • Sanjeev

        There was a safety certificate by SGS. You can search this site for that keyword, and you will find it.

      • Hi all

        In reply to ronzonni:
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/13/andrea-rossi-makes-available-safety-certificate-from-sgs/

        The CE certification was done at the same time as the main testing of the E-Cat and its sale to Industrial Heat LLC(IH) It would have been required as part of IH/Cherokee Investments’s Due Dilligence.

        The third test, the recent one at Lugano, was just an addendum to the previous set of tests, which were more detailed as was the report see for your self:
        http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

        Discussed here:
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

        The purpose of the Lugano test was to answer those sceptics who said Rossi controlled the lab so there must be wire’s hidden within wires, or a separate DC current along the same wires, or a hidden AC phase. Hence why the Lugano test was conducted at low power and without the beneficial power switching that creates the higher COP, so as to exclude any such factors being possible. And to run the E-Cat longer to show the reactor could run for a commercially significant length of time.

        You need to read both reports and the sceptics queries to understand the E-Cat better.

        Kind Regards walker

        • psi2u2

          The temperatures seem to be close enough to establish the validity of the baseline for the Lugano report.

          “3. A dog bone at 1400ºC will be very hard to look at (will almost certainly need filter glass)”

          Anyone care to comment on the implications of this? Does that suggest that the thermal imaging at Lugano reported values that were too high? Was filter glass used at Lugano?

          • Ged

            The IR camera the Lugano report used and MFMP is getting can be calibrated to properly read and view up to 1500 C, so that’s completely fine, no problems there a priori.

            For visible spectrum imaging, however, a filter cap would be needed, or a camera made to balance such high luminosity (cameras used in real and hobby astronomy do this, and some are very cheap which you can find on Amazon). So, it’s not that big an issue technology wise, just the human eye wise.

            Did Lugano use filter glass or such a camera (they had two different IR ones) for their visible spectrum pictures (i.e. figure 12a)? Don’t say that I can find, but the colors of everything are oddly muted while the reactor contrast is much higher than MFMP’s unfiltered images, so it’s possible.

          • psi2u2

            Thanks.

          • US_Citizen71

            The Lugano report images were all likely taken with a smartphone camera which would explain the image quality. A good quality DSLR could take images of the reactor at temperature as well as a camera phone but the background would be darkened due to difference in light levels. An IR filter would not be needed for snapshots just for extended video recording at medium to close range to protect the sensor. You can aim a camera at the sun for pictures (sunset photos) without damaging the camera for example.

            The picture in the report was likely taken at a low temperature in order to provide a good photo quality. If you need further clarification take a picture of the working end of a LED flashlight with it turned on in a brightly lit room.

          • Freethinker

            I mainly agree.

            Note that the pictures in the Lugano report are rendition by a detector array. It is not how you would perceive it in real life. Note Ryans comment from MFMP:


            Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project They
            got really bright – Ryan’s comment was – “jeez, if they are this bright
            at this temperature – what are they going to be like if we can get
            close to 1400ºC – answer may be that we need to use filter glass.

            Some of the photos appear less contrasty because Ryan used a flash on the camera – like the top photo here”

            Then go to their facebook page and look at the picture where a flash was used. https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/pcb.881440191886681/881430968554270/?type=1 . Then compare to the lit up picture in the Lugano report.

            Naturally, the pictures in the Lugano report could be at a lower working temperature, or obtained during the dummy run, but I do think a picture could be presented even at 1400 C giving the same impression on the viewr as do those in the Lugano report.

          • Ged

            All of this is just handwaving in the end though, as we don’t know what was used or what signal processing was done. It doesn’t actually matter either, as it isn’t important to the data (which is all in IR camera measurements). But, I’ve seen high brightness processing that could prevent too much dimming of the background while dimming out the main light source (an IR filter can help this for some cameras). Such tricks are common in film making, industry, and astronomy. But, while it’s possible (and there is some noticeable background dimming of the Lugano picture) we just don’t know what was done to take the images, or how the images were saved and handled.

            We cannot say one way or the other with the lack of details we have about that photo, just possibilities. Low amounts of spectacular highlights is the biggest evidence for this being a startup/shutdown low temp pic, to me.

          • US_Citizen71

            I work as a photographer. The only methods to prevent the background from darkening is one to increase the ambient light in the room and two if the camera can meter the lighting off a dark area of the frame you can select the darkest spot to setup the light metering. Ryan’s use of a flash is method one. Without a good digital camera method two likely won’t be available and would still leave the bright area as a bright non-detailed blob.

      • Obvious

        Rossi has said, and I know from experience, that this cannot be used for advertizing purposes. You get (at least) provisional certification, after tests show safety within established guidelines.

        “Thank you, actually I could not publish this certificate, we cannot use it for commercials, I asked the permission to do this, explaining that I had to defend myself from the accusation of having said not truly that we had it . It is a Voluntary Safety Certificate, it enables us to put the CE mark on our 1 MW plants.”
        – JoNP Sept 13, 2012.

    • Obvious

      (agreeing)
      As I have said before, I use radiation-emitting devices as part of my job. As long as the radiation doesn’t see the general public, or the operator, then certification is no big deal. (OK, it is a PITA for a new product)
      Microwave ovens make dangerous radiation, if you are IN the oven, but not outside, when they work properly.

  • colodude

    I saw that, too on the graph, but this is the non-fueled version, so I was expecting what the graph shows; namely, as one gets closer to the rated wattage, some minor loss occurs; resistance loss?

  • bkrharold

    I think it would better to try and replicate the Pons Fleischman experiment. There is a lot of information on how to do this thanks to Mike McKubre and others. We know for example that the platinum needs to be loaded with Deuterium for several days before the anomalous heat can be observed. Without access to Rossi’s propretory method there is little chance of replicating anything more than the dummy run with no powder.

    • bitplayer

      “Without access to Rossi’s propretory method there is little chance of replicating anything more than the dummy run with no powder.”

      What is the basis for that assumption? The Lugano results greatly narrowed the range of possible powder forumulas. Maybe it’s not that special. Maybe it’s precision is not that sensitive. If MFMP defines a domain of powder parameters, divides it into ten sectors, and runs ten tests, they might hit it. And if they even get the tiniest bit of positive result, they can focus in on that sector.

      Do you think that Rossi’s power formula arrived in a dream?

      • bkrharold

        From what I have read about other successful replications, a pulsing electromagnetic field is also necessary. There are an infinite number of combinations of frequency and duration for the pulses, plus all possible mixtures for the powder. Rossi took years of experimentation to arrive at his formula, and he had the help and advice of Professors Focardi and Levi.

        • bitplayer

          I agree that there are a lot of variables. I appreciate that there are different understandings of MFMP’s purpose. I would like to think that they are dedicating their work to the memory of Martin Fleischmann in the sense of proving that “cold fusion” is real in *any* way, not necessarily in the specific way that Fleischmann and Pon’s pursued it. Since the best currently available information on how to do that may be the Lugano experiment, that may be the best way to achieve that purpose.

          Maybe Bob can comment on this.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Palladium is NOT cheap, and as the then Director of BARC said to me in 2013 – the results were interesting but not practical. We were working towards this as one of our threads of research and one of the most successful experiments to date involved the super-wave, when we got to the point of being ready to move on that idea we were told that the super-wave is proprietary (yes, despite SKINNER) and so we cannot do that experiment.

      We have access much published material that points in similar directions, some going back a very long way. The Dog Bone, in the way we are making it, is turning out to be a very affordable piece of apparatus when compared to the very high costs of some of our other experiments. Frankly, a success in a powder mix test would be a melting reactor, fine calorimetry can follow a macro event like that.

      Before we get there though, we need to demonstrate the validity of the thermal assessment in the Lugano report and so we will.

      • bitplayer

        Bob, when you say you “cannot do that experiment” because “the super-wave is proprietary”, do you mean that you are forbidden by law (or some such) to experiment with known and established proprietary ideas, or that you do not want to include proprietary ideas in your “cookbook” replication protocol? I’m assuming the latter.

        • Bob Greenyer

          They will not and cannot release the NI Scripts

          • bitplayer

            Got it, thanks.

      • NT

        Hi Bob,
        With the new “Dog Bone” it appears you will be able to load hundreds of experimental powders quickly and easily thus you may just hit on a formula that melts the bone – that would be truly wonderful. keep up the great works.
        Good luck…NT

        • Bob Greenyer

          That is the hope, IF we show the thermal assessment method valid in the report, then – with the Kanthal design, IF it is purely thermal, then we can Heat up and cool down on fairly quick cycles, and so could others.. with just a thermocouple based temperature measurement and a variac.

          As we have said before, we predict that the heat up will need to be carefully controlled as the LiAlH4 goes through various phases of breakdown, and then combination into Al2O3 and Aluminium Nitride, removing Oxygen and Nitrogen from the air.

      • bkrharold

        Bob I’m afraid I misunderstood the purpose of this endeavor. I thought that it was meant to demonstrate the feasability of LENR in a very well documented and public way. Of course it would be wonderful to have a practical device in the public domain, it would be a real game changer. Good luck to you in your efforts

        • Bob Greenyer

          Regardless of our purpose, we cannot have access to the Superwave, maybe if we signed an NDA but that is against the MFMPs DNA.

          You are right on your first assumption, we do aim in the first instance to demonstrate the feasibility of LENR in a very well documented and public way. If in doing so, we openly show a novel approach that yields a practical device, then we in effect release a device into the public domain. With Celani and Ahern – the approach to getting materials/stimulating them are subject to patent application. In the case of []=Project Dog Bone=[] we have an idea of what would like in the reactor and no doubt many ideas from the crowd, if they are subject to prior claim remains to be seen.

  • Jack

    Bob now you are sounding like that guy telling me to be altruistic. You might even convince me but you will not convince those that matter. There is a small industry built up around FDA approval. They are not going to go away. In my opinion the process is corrupt. Does the dogbone produce rays? Nobody can tell you definitively. One day Rossi says it might. The next day he says it does not. If it does you need FDA approval. Shielding or not. The “Let’s get MFMP to clear up this mess!” approach is misguided If you want to get at the truth MFMP is not going to help. What value added is MFMP to Rossi and IH??? If as Logic 101 has it if “1) Rossi is real” you need to put yourself in the shoes of the small R&D company that brings prototype to market and the big publicly traded colossus that will buy it and subsequently rule the industry.

    • bitplayer

      Somehow you’re not getting the bigger picture here. The goal is to create mainstream commercial LENR results as soon as possible, for the altruistic benefit to the entire world of lower cost less polluting energy.

      MFMP is not merely trying to replicate Lugano-like results *once*. They are trying to produce a “cookbook” which will allow *anyone* with the proper resources to replicate those results.

      Since MFMP is basically a volunteer, shoe-string operation, the *anyone* could include a very large number of groups in academia and industry who have more money to work with.

      If even a few such groups successfully replicated, it could encourage people and companies with even stronger more commercially competitive motives to attempt to build commercial products.

      The analogy would be the early automotive or airplane inventions. Once Benz and the Wright brothers demonstrated it was possible, many people developed many different variations. Most failed, however, we seen the eventual outcome.

      Once commercially valuable LENR is demonstrated, the issues with patents and intellectual property will be mostly irrelevant. The potential amount of money and benefit involved will drive development regardless of the threat of lawsuits.

      And of course the entire effort could fail. But the potential altruistic benefit, as perceived by the MFMP team and their supporters, apparently outweighs that risk.

      Do you really expect “logic” to overcome that determination to proceed?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Bitplayer has it right, our first goal is to stimulate the emergence of proof that LENR is real. If you have ever tried to convince anyone about the reality of this technology, you will know that there is currently not enough hard *tangible* evidence available.

      Once proof is incontrovertibly achieved, this technology will evolve rapidly regardless of what one nations regulatory body thinks should happen. In fact, the MFMP was set up specifically with people in multiple countries, publishing data and know how as we go so that there is nothing that can be held back from the public benefit. We are a Community Interest Company and there is overwhelming public interest and support for us to test what findings we can in the Lugano report, should we sit back and not do that would be a dereliction of duty.

      We are not interested who does it, if we develop the proof, or we assist/encourage others to, or others do of their own accord – we are interested that, if possible, this technology develops sooner rather than later. It is very important that the technology is available to all, because throughout history, when one nation had a game changing technological advantage that other nations didn’t, they ended up subjugating nations. The Chinese did it, the Romans did it, the British did it etc. If valid, LENR is potentially the most important discovery ever.

      Already in just []=Project Dog Bone=[] we have demonstrated how to create an affordable reactor that should (with a little tweaking) reach 1250ºC (materials wise, we’ll see if it can reach that temp in coming period), we need to get the core able to be vacuum tight and then materials can be screened. From a research point of view, we will have saved groups that want to aid the development of LENR 1000s of hours of similar work. Members have also developed and published circuit simulations, wire spiral resistance calculators and 3 phase phase angle google doc based power analysis tools, things that we could not find readily available in the public domain when we started.

      We are not replicating the Lugano reactor, we obviously can’t. IH has no patent until their effect can be replicated – when they do have it replicated and they get their patent, they still could not stop research.

      We can’t replicate it because they have not released key information in patent applications published to date, BUT we could remove the objection by the patent office to LENR as something deserving of consideration for patent just by repeatedly and openly showing some effect by any other means. In that case, we will remove a significant barrier to their success. Remember, we want this field to be successful.

    • bitplayer

      Hey jack, in your other post, you said “A large company will not want to buy the device for big bucks not knowing if they can sell it”. But now you’re talking about the “the big publicly traded colossus that will buy it and subsequently rule the industry”. Can you offer some way to reconcile any possible perceptions of contradiction in your mental model?

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVRLcC21F14 – YouTube interview

    This is an interesting YouTube interview with Lewis Larsen, President of Lattice Energy LLC, about the Widom Larsen theory. This is an old interview from 2011, but new to me. They also have a slide show pubished in November of 2014 at http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen

    As far as I know, Lattice Energy LLC has no real website. Their theory has been around a long time. Which theory is correct? The YouTube interview is interesting because Larsen goes back to the beginning of the theory that started before World War II.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Finding out which of the countless theories on LENR is true would presumably require much more basic research. Basic research is usually made by universities or similar institutions, since it does not lead directly to economical advantages. People like Rossi are forced to reach their entrepreneurial objectives, thus they cannot occupy themselves too much with the clarification of theoretical details. Mills (not LENR, but comparable) has sacrificed an enormous amount of time for his theory, apparently at the expense of his practical work. Both ways are not optimal; best would be a collaboration of companies with public institutions in order to distribute the burden on different shoulders.

    • Ged

      We need a reference repository of all these different theories, their predictions, and his they stack up so far.

  • Hi all

    I Reply to Jack

    Industrial Heat are part of Cherokee Investment Corp. A 2 Billion Dollar private US company with even bigger backers.

    GE, and Siemens may well already be involved, their strategic moves, include: The fact that Siemens have have dropped not just all their Nuclear Power plants but also all their attached industries ie stuff that will be needed support any existing nuclear power plant that other companies own, they just sold it off like it was nothing.

    As for Green Energy Siemens also sold all of their green power industries assets where they were a world leader, including a multi billion dollar project to place their solar cell technology in the Sahara to provide electricity to Europe it too was just cancelled like it was nothing, despite millions already invested.

    Then they went and tried to buy a small marine Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant company in Italy, linked to Rossi, originally worth a few million but Siemens put in a bid for it of 1.5 billion dollars and were outbid, by guess who? GE!

    Since then Siemens and GE have been on a CHP manufacturing company buying spree. Use Google you will see it is so.

    Consider also STMicroelectronics a leader in mobile phone electronics and former owners of Ericsson mobile did a replication of another LENR researcher Celini’s experiment and have since dropped all that mobile phone technology, to manufacture, would you guess it, electronics for CHP?

    This is all good strategic stuff, based on the business model that the real business that makes money in gold rush is the pick and shovel salesman.

    I could go on filling this thread with masses more evidence, how about the SEC are being refused financial data from all the big oil companies, and how about the White House rumours of a secret meeting with Utility company Execs, where they were so incensed that the words they used were ones that could not be entered in White House Minutes, or the later meeting with the rest of the of the power company execs where the White House explained that Federal Government would be going Off Grid, the glum faces at that meeting are a sight to behold, though President is trying to keep straight face.

    Strategy in business is all about information, those who ignored information about LENR in the oil business are now experiencing what their lack of information means.

    By the way most of Big Oil started getting out of the Oil Field business when Rossi did the first public demonstration, but that is a whole other story.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Daniel Maris

      A very interesting post.

  • bitplayer

    Just as a friendly advice, you might reconsider use directive language (i.e. “Do not” do such and such) when addressing people that you wish to have a respectful relationship with. It might be mistaken for being nekulturny.

  • bitplayer

    China is unique because is has a legislature, a judicial system, an internal state security force and a sovereign wealth fund worth over $500 billion under the control of a handful of people. It doesn’t need a market, cohesive or otherwise. So SiriusMan’s point about China ignoring the FDA is still valid. And your latest attempt to identify a fatal flaw in LENR development is failed.

    Another round?

  • Obvious

    There is barely any drop in resistance. Far less than the range of experimental error (if real at all).
    Wasting time on the “red herring” negative resistance of ~3x is a a waste of time, and a distraction from the rest of the experimental results.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bob Higgins is working on that, as is Mathieu, Mathieu did a first calibration of the re-conditioned Celani cells last week, but is currently on Maternity leave, but will be back in the lab next Friday.

    We cannot test for gamma in Rossi experiment, as we do not know his Fuel.

    • Kevin O

      Rossi’s fuel is H1 gas, plus a little bit of heat from transmutation of the lattice. What you don’t know is his catalyst. Focardi said long ago that the catalyst changed H2 gas into H1 gas, so all you’d need to do is load the matrix with h1 gas.

  • Bob Greenyer

    That’s wikipedia for you!

  • Obvious

    Well, considering how little time I have spent on my equations over the weekend, I would say that now my equations are very much advanced.
    Proper use of P = RI^2 and P = VI and V = RI indeed…
    Proper use of three phase equations.
    Proper use of P for phase.
    Proper use of VL = Vp for phase. Not Vp < VL. Once I got this nagging problem out of the way, the rest works itself out rather well.
    Please explain again how the Vp is lower than VL.
    Explain this to me, and I will help you fix your equations.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please not that the “fake LENR core” being developed by Alan Goldwater is about 6mm in diameter, unlike the full reactor that is approximately 20mm and 40mm (for centre and “end caps”)

    Also, this temperature is measured from the inside.

    • psi2u2

      Bob,

      For those of us struggling to understand the science here, can you explain the significance of the results found update #4? Does this tend to confirm or possibly to contradict the Lugano report, and if so, how? Thanks.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Much to early to say, what it does say is that coating a coil with alumina forces heat into the centre. We have expected this all along – IH would need to force a proportion of the heat into the centre presumably to activate the reaction.

        This coil is merely going to be inserted into the dog bone you have seen being made in Minnesota.

        What it is telling us that it will be difficult to get into the fake LENR core much power unless the rest of the bulk of the reactor is very good at extracting the power put in.

        You can also see that what appears simple at first, is actually quite complex.

        • Anon2012_2014

          Bob,

          You really mean coating the coil with alumna KEEPS the heat in the center (the coil). This makes the oven an oven.

          It also tells you that the temperature inside a working LENR ECAT/Lugano reactor is far hotter on the inside than on the outside. I question then how a 1400 degree surface temperature on the outside of the Lugano reactor could not have melted Inconel coils on the inside.

          It follows that we are almost certain that the coils on the inside are a high temperature resistive heater like SiC and not Inconel.

          I also question how the Ni in the reactor could not have melted.

          This finding, that the alumina is both a good insulator and a good blackbody radiation container raises more questions than it answers about the Lugano experiment.

          • Ged

            Those are really good observations. I also am unsure how the nickle would remain solid, but we don’t know yet if the core hits 1600+ when radiating 1400, even if it seems likely from this. The hot core may actually support the earlier ideas of a semi-moltan conductive flow of the nickle and lithium as a driver of the isotope purity in granules (e.g. that the liquified, reacted material would flow to cooler regions where it would solidify into nearly pure material). Hm, we’ll have to see, but as you say, it raises a lot of questions, especially about the idea that the reaction is stopped by melting.

          • Obvious

            The radiative heat rate can exceed the rate the material raises its own temperature, if the heat comes from the atoms of nickel itself.
            q = ε σ T^4 A
            Note the 4th power of T in the grey body equation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Alan Goldwater has some more perspective that has been added as a comment to the FB post.

            In his comments he notes

            “Based on my test, I doubt the [fake LENR] core heater can be pushed much beyond 800 watts, with obvious consequences for our testing.”

            We have ordered a selection of the highest temperature Inconel wires as an alternative resistor choice.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Bob Greenyer,

            Your team at MFMP is doing the best they can with incomplete information from Rossi’s team. I wish that Rossi’s team would be less selfish in sharing basic information to make the replication work meaningful.

            -Anon12/14

          • Bob Greenyer

            They must apply for priority with a properly descriptive patent application and then share the same, that would be helpful. The risk is that we find a better way of making a reactor, even if it does not produce LENR – however, the good news is, because we are open, they can just use the fruits of the labour.

            What they did is actually not trivial, and if all the heat did come from resistive heating, then they did very well to make it last so many hours at >=1400ºC in such a small package.

          • Observer

            That is because the primary energy output of the e-cat reaction is not heat; it is x-rays. The alumina servers two purposes: thermally insulate the reaction chamber and convert the x-rays into heat a distance away from the reaction chamber. The e-cat is like the Sun; the outside is hotter than the core.

          • Anon2012_2014

            1) I have not read any report of any prompt radiation from the ECAT, other than mildly elevated (but not statistically significant) readings from the Lugano test.

            2) Al2O3 (alumina) is a poor choice for Xray absorption unless the xrays are of very very low energy (i.e. < 25 KeV, i.e. an old CRT type Black and White TV set). Go look at the Xray absorption cross section.

            The best guesses I have read about what is happening in the reactor indicates that any high energy particles, i.e. alphas, neutrons, betas, or gammas (i.e. high energy photons) from the reaction are being absorbed directly in the nickel matrix and being converted to heat there. I'm guessing that the alumina is being used to lower the amount of external power needed to set off the reaction.

            I'd like to see a working reactor with a very thin walled/sensitive radiation detector that has a view into the reaction chamber itself not shielded by chamber walls so we can see if there are low energy alphas, betas, or low energy xrays coming out of the reacting fuel.

          • Observer

            From Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics comments section:

            Andrea Rossi:

            June 3rd, 2013 at 1:23 PM

            Herb Gillis:
            Thank you.
            Yes, will be good surprises.
            Other nuclear reactions need millions Celsius ( fusion) and emit radiations in the order of MeVs, we emit 50-100 keVs ( inside the reactor).
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • ivanc

            even if inconel is just a connector the point of conection will also be in that temperature so should melt.

          • Obvious

            I agree. If it is some Inconel variety, it must be a novel formula. No standard variety of Inconel can take that kind of abuse.

            Also, Ivan, you have appeared almost instantly on the thread this time.
            Most excellent. Waiting hours for a reply that you make right away was getting tedious.

      • Ged

        Recall that this fake they are building is to -simulate- an active LENR reaction solely to see what that looks like from the outside, and to know how much power they are putting in to get that effect, without actually doing LENR. It’s all to test the thermal imaging results.

        So, the trick here is this is a simulation, a fake meant to look like the real thing only for comparison purposes, and that’s why it’s confusing.

        The dummy run won’t have this fake core active, from what I understand, and their simulated run of the real Lugano report reaction will use the fake core in a “if there is LENR going on, it should look like this; and how does that compare to the report with active LENR vs. dummy?”

        Takes a bit to get the head around, but makes perfect sense as the imaging method is what’s under evaluation.

        • psi2u2

          Thanks. I think I got that.

        • Bob Greenyer

          What Ged Said

    • Sanjeev

      Its going to be a nail biting finish. There is not much margin left I guess. The bigger tube will radiate more but it will also insulate more. Lets see.

    • US_Citizen71

      I saw this http://www.silcarb.com/campaign/sem2/index.php over at your website. The appear to make their product by cutting a tube of SiC into coils. Have you asked them if they could make a spiral cut that produces three coils for three phase use? Your initial tests with the dummy core make me think that the reason Rossi uses three phase is to spread the heat around to prevent overheating of the coils. The short pulses he has alternating between coils would likely give better control and allow the heaters to higher temperature wise as the thermal input would be spread and not constant.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes we have, and whilst it is possible, they, lie many heating coil manufacturers we have asked to make custom parts, they basically don’t want to do it.

        They have offered an “open delta” solution, basically, one of their standard single phase units with a contact made at the end where the two parallel coils join… this would be two phase and neutral effectively.

        We have had another manufacturer quote for a solution that would work in their patented wire, but that is $6600 for the 3 coils, hence looking for other solutions.

        We may need to look at china.

  • Obvious

    OK. Fair enough.
    Then please explain the 10.62 V drop from VL to Vp.
    For the dummy, VL = 486/19.7 = 24.67 V
    You have 14.05 Vp for the dummy.
    The 10 V drop in your sheet cannot be adequately explained by either the reactor resistor or Joule heat. Especially since the resistance in each phase is directly across two feed lines.
    Your “improved” part has even a lower Vp for much higher output in the active runs.
    Your run 6 has only 10.28 Vp, and 1/3 the resistance, but now makes 3020 W of total power. I want one of those.

  • Bernie777

    Don’t understand why they are making such an effort to make the “dog bone” look like the E-Cat? Couldn’t the dummy test be made a lot simpler without duplicating the “look” of the E-Cat?

    • Ged

      Without the “look” of the e-cat, you can’t replicate the thermal imaging results, which is important and what they are doing.

  • Obvious

    My calculation of VL is fine. It is how VL is calculated.
    I am using total power for the whole thing, the same as getting R for the whole thing.
    If you are dividing everything by 3’s, then of course R will be 1/3, but then so must be current.
    Then 486/3 is 162 W
    1.234/3 is 0.411 ohms
    24.67/3 is 8.22 V
    19.7/3 is 6.56

    24.67 *6.5666 = 161.9999

    hold on…was still typing when that posted….

  • Bernie777

    I assume Dr. Edmund Storms reads this blog. Dr. Storms, when can we expect your opinion about the last third party testing?

  • Bob Greenyer

    You make some good points.

    It is going to be an enlightening journey.

  • Obvious

    Yes.
    I am demonstrating that now in reverse.
    Actually, I have calculated that the Joule heat for the active run is 3x too high, and the dummy is fine, as long as the measurements reported are correct. This leaves calculation errors or data transposition as the source of troubles.

    If we assume the reported measurements are in error, than all of this is a waste of time. There can be no real solution in that case.
    However, the calculations all flow equally well for each run, so this leaves systemic data transposition in the active run as the most likely error type.

  • US_Citizen71

    The research to build the Dog Bone is proving out to be a good indicator that something beyond an electric heater is behind the Lugano test reactor. If you look at the difficulty that MFMP quantumheat.org is having in simulating the active core then you have to realize how difficult it would be for it all to be a fraud. Boiled down to its essence the Dog Bone will be a fake built for the thermal test. I have long asked people who say the E-Cat is a fraud to built a device of their own that gives the same performance. Seeing MFMP struggle to build an analog of the Lugano reactor is a wonderful thing to me.

  • the temperature may be erroneous if the assumed emissivity is wrong.
    this is the main weakness of the paper.

    from documentation and computation, it appears that the IR cam measure something that is proportional to “real emissivity”*”temperature minus 220°C” (it measure the energy between 7.5-13µm, which is roughly R=0.997 linear+constant to temperature
    I computed it by integrating plank law on that bandwidth
    )

    if emissivity is much higher (cannot be more than 2.5x as 2.5*0.4=1, and since it is calibrated 0.7 at 450W it is not more than 1.75x the assumed) than assumed, the temperature is lower, but radiation is anyway higher…

    the temperature can thus be 900C at worst (assuming emissivity was stable at 0.7), but the 1250C temperature would be 810C, which rules out the COP=1 because the ramp from 800 to 900W (12% increase) , at least from 800C to 900C, mean radiation increase from 5 to 7 times the dummy boltzman radiation (40% increase out from 800 to 900W in).

    note also that even the absolute power show a COP of 2.5 to 3.5 on the radiation part.
    Convection induce some correction but the effect is linear not T^4

    even assuming perfect blackbody does not cancel COP>>1.

    however the uncertainty have a strong psychology impact, and can also reduce the estimated performance of E-cat… (COP2 is low).

  • Thomas Clarke

    What would be really very interesting would be to see how transparent is the alumina and how that affects IR camera emissivity and power out.

    So that would need two fake dog bones, one with a low e tape, one with a high e tape. Both coated in two thin alumina layers over the tape.

    The two measurements are then emissivity as needed for IR camera to get the correct temperature (as shown from thermocouple) and difference in real power out and hence, working back from T^4 grey body law – the effective “total” emissivity. The two will not be teh same, and will also vary according to the underlying surface (high or low e).

  • Obvious

    By that logic, the 19.7 A and the ~1.234 Ω are then also meaningless.
    You have three 19.7 A average Line Current measurements (from the report). You have total power, ~486 W with Joule heat W included, or ~479 W without Joule heat W included. Dividing 486/19.7 gives the R everyone likes to use, but this is of course the resistance of the whole thing. And there are C1 lines outside of the delta, and C2 lines within the delta.
    And the reactor resistors are within the delta.

    If you divide the power by three, that is not using three phase rules, either.
    That is just dividing the power by three. This gets the average power made by each phase. That’s fine. It can be done that way, carefully. I was unclear previously that you were doing things that way.

    But then IL/sqrt(3) has no place in those equations using 1/3 power. This equation is part of a vector formula.
    In that case the correct equations are:
    Ptotal = sqrt(3)*VL*IL*cos Φ
    Ptotal = 3*Vp*Ip*cos Φ
    And PL1 + PL2 = Ptotal

  • ivanc

    in that case will absorb heat not give heat. what will be the benefit if does not give heat!, it has to be exothermic if will provide some useful heat

    • Observer

      It absorbs heat and emits x-rays (thus endothermic). In the earlier e-cats the reaction chamber was made of copper or steal, so the x-rays were immediately converted to heat.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Edwin Pell has made some interesting calculations based off the first data point on the main MFMP site. Please take the opportunity to review them, they make interesting reading.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I made some rough extrapolations based on your data point and the data of the Lugano reactor and got a body temperature of 720C (+- 3%) for 900 W input. This may be totally wrong, but at least it looks nice.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thank you Andreas

        It should be a very interesting week next week.

        • bachcole

          What will be so interesting about next week? Did I miss something?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will see how much power we can get into the 3 phase mockup heating coil and what temperature that corresponds to on the outside of the reactor body.

            Whilst this has not got the fake LENR core, and whilst it is not the right size of heater tube or winding type, it will give us good data as we ready for the main set of experiments.

    • ecatworld

      Edwin Pell Writes in part:

      “If the emissivity drops by a factor of 1.7 at high temperature the 803.7K would go to 917.7K=642.7C

      The latest Rossie report claims temperatures in the 1200C to 1400C with 900W.

      There would have to be a large source of extra power to get to that temperature.”

  • bkrharold

    Admin, I am not sure of the correct place to post this, so I am putting it here.

    There is a website named whitehouse.gov. On that site there is a page called “We The People”. Anyone may create a petition, and if it attracts enough signatures, the Administration will respond.
    I have just submitted a petition to the administration to investigate LENR. The petition wqas accepted, and is currently available for signatures. You may sign the petition by going to the following URL:- http://wh.gov/i1pcs
    Please sign the petition and circulate it to everyone you know. We need 100,000 signatures by Jan 6th 2015.

    • bachcole

      I doubt that we will get 100,000 signatures in 38 days. But I am wondering if I want the Solyndra Screw-Ball-In-Chief looking into LENR. I just as soon that they remain ignorant of LENR. I could be persuaded; I am open to suggestions. (:->)

      • NT

        You raise a good point bachcole; our current president has already fumbled this LENR ball big time with his DOE (not interested) appointments and how about that patent department policy fiasco on Cold Fusion? Your suspicions are justified IMHO. I do appreciate “bkrharold” enthusiasm, help and willingness to forward the LENR (Cold Fusion) message. I too remain open minded ‘to be persuaded’ to click that link to the Whitehouse petition…

        • bkrharold

          Thanks NT. Yes we are facing some strong head winds here, and it is a long shot, but there have been some more positive stories in the news lately. Hoping these will change a few minds.

          • NT

            Well, if the president were to come out in his 2015 “state of the union” address, before Congress, with any sort of mention of LENR or Cold Fusion’s awakening, that would be the time to start this sort of petition. Right now he has only shown that he knows how to foul up this New Fire revolution with his bad appointments in strategic areas of this government. Strong winds unsupportive of LENR from DC indeed! Thanks for your efforts though…

        • bkrharold

          NT Its not too late, there are 14 so far, you have the chance to be number 15.

          • NT

            Ok bkrharold, just for you and your sincere efforts here with LENR I will sign this evening, but I have zero faith in any DC politician on either side of the isle or our current president!

          • bachcole

            I agree. Their main thing is not to lead; it is to get re-elected. They are followers. bkrharold, NT, myself, Rossi, etc. are leaders. Politicians are so far in the back of the pack that it requires one of those new mega-telescopes to see the light go on above their heads in their cartoon existence.

          • NT

            Ok I Signed in on your petition – good luck and keep up the push perhaps another like this after his (Obama’s) state of the union address which will show me if he has any interest in the greatest invention of mankind with the potential to solve many of mankind’s suffering and end the oil wars,etc’s – his moment has arrived…NT

          • bkrharold

            NT Thank you, I am trying to get the word out, but it is not looking very likely at the current rate. Anyway appreciate your support. I tend to agree with you about our political system. Maybe Rossi’s approach of just going out there and doing something yourself is the best way to get things done.

      • bkrharold

        Actually Solyndra was not a screw up by our President, but the Legislative Branch. At that time China was dumping solar panels on our markets at a loss, to destroy our domestic manufacturers. Congress refused to act, to embarrass our President. Perhaps you might be persuaded by President Obamas openness to novel science and its practical applications for American Business. Here is a link to an article where the President articulates his approach to science:>-

        http://www.nature.com/news/us-science-the-obama-experiment-1.11481

        “The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing
        resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama
        proclaimed as he made the initial appointments. “It’s about listening to
        what our scientists have to say, even when it’s
        inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.”

      • Bernie777

        Are you sure you are “open”? (:

      • bkrharold

        I just saw this story about the governments green energy program. You will be pleased to know it is making a profit for taxpayers, albeit a small one. The losses from Solyndra have been wiped out by other success stories.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/us-department-of-energy-loan-program_n_6149690.html?utm_hp_ref=energy

    • US_Citizen71

      I wish you luck, my attempt received 108 signatures.

      • bkrharold

        Yes I signed that one. With the latest announcements in the news, I am hoping for a better response. We have 7 so far.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Williamson IR to custom build a dual wavelength Pyrometer with optical fibre probe and send it to us for just 15% of list price on loan, a saving of over $5000!

        []=Project Dog Bone=[]

        There is a voice call recording I made with the engineers permission.

        https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

        • psi2u2

          excellent.

    • Bruce Williams

      I added my signature…..there are now 12. Those of us who do not live in the USA can still sign, you need a US Zip code. I used the code of a friend of mine who lives there in SC.
      VAMOS !!

      • bkrharold

        Thank you Bruce, did not realize people from outside the US can sign, I will call my brother in London.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Are their any better photos of the dogbone incandescent glow? The photo above obviously had the camera moved and is blurry.

    I want to compare to what I see in the Lugano photos of their reactor, particularly for the dark spacing between windings (if any).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Live Google hangout tomorrow… and 2nd data point from rough test

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Ged

      Thank you for posting this data, Bob! Very interesting. Almost spot on to Edwin’s calculated internal, but not external, as measured by the B type thermal coupler.

      Interestingly, Andreas is very close for the external body temp by the not fully attached external K-couple.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The thermocouples were in different locations. I have suggested to ryan that we have a K and a B at the same location (as near as possible. As we move forward we will have more TCs and of course the PI160 and hopefully a pyrometer.

        • Ged

          Ah hah, so we may not be able to compare the model calculations with the B-type?

          I’m honestly surprised Edwin and Andreas’ calculations came out so close, as I was assuming significant alterations to the models’ heat transfer assumptions would have to occur. It may still, but so far those models are close and promising, and could potentially fill gaps (e.g. input power to output temp relations at input powers the system can’t achieve) to give comparisons to.

          Either way, this is supporting the Lugano report thus far, from the look of it, and is exciting to me for the future test prospects.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is fascinating.

            When we can make reactors with the “fat coils” we should be able to answer the shadow questions and the PI160 will settle the main criticisms.

  • Obvious

    Nobody wants to listen in on the junk going on in most people’s minds.

  • Bob Greenyer

    If you are referring to the Dog Bone tests, categorically no – right now these are just tests to determine the validity of the thermal assessment techniques used by the authors of the Lugano report – there is nothing even trying to pose as “fuel” in these tests.

    If you are referring to other previous experiments. For the preliminary powders in the powder calorimeter, Micro Powder, QSI Nickel and Ahern – some signs, but nothing I would stand behind. We are about to start testing Higgins’ powder for the first time, which like Celani’s wire has a structure designed to dissociate H2 at the surface catalytically.

    We had to do the calibration, followed by the powders alone to establish the base-lines, the Higgins powder alone (albeit with catalyst) is the last of these tests. The next phase for Ahern powder is the Stoyan arc discharge. Following these two test we will be adding the lithium based compounds and other additives, looking at the history of LENR, this is where those tests will become interesting.

    In relation to Celani’s wire, well had we never seen anything, we probably would not be doing the Dog Bone and powders now. The fact is, right from the off we started verifying Celani’s claims. The “loading” resistance change – followed by failure of the wire in what might be due to the Quartz of the first reactor tube in US. Followed but the up to 12.5% in France. The cells were never dull and I saw with my own eyes the geiger count going up on demand when loading fresh H2 into the active cell of the dual differential cells in France. This is a test Mathieu is preparing to run again now he has come off paternity leave.

    In the end, we found out several errors that reduced Celani’s results to be broadly in line with ours – but his was still higher. We then made the connection with Lithium / Boron in the borosilicate glass, both of which is not in the quartz of our first failed excess heat test. Then the potential for high amounts of Lithium present in the very old, not available Lithium based Lepidolite Mica in Celanis (we would like to verify) wire supports – could this account for the slightly better results he had – or did he just have a better wire?

    The point is that Celanis excess heat, whilst being something that would make international news if Hot fusion ever achieved 1/10th of what we observed – is just not practical or that exciting for the masses – but it did peak our interest.

    And so here we are.

    • Alain Samoun

      To Bob:
      Since you have started talking about the fuel,it seems that at the start and the end of the Lugano testing,Rossi and the testers do not seem to worry with the powder (No masks and gloves?), supposedly containing nano nickel. How do you explain that?

      • Bob Greenyer

        As I understand it (and we do not know), he does not use nano nickel, but micro-metric nickel with nano-metric features.

        Bob Higgins powder that we are preparing to test in the Powder calorimeter is based on his early patent applications leveraging Bob H’s years of experience of looking at SEM images and cross-correlating to available materials.

        Bob specifically describes his powder as not prone to “lofting” IE, much simpler handling requirements.

      • Obvious

        I don’t think we can infer the lack of safety best practices. There is no description of the removal process, other than that it was collected and put in a test tube, after breaking one of the caps.
        There are a number of things not described in detail in the test.

    • Sanjeev

      The most important thing is that the MFMP team has gained an immense experience and know-how in these 1-2 years of experimenting. I guess you are now all set to develop your own LENR tech.

      Aherns formula is a great start, since there is some probability that Rossi and partners have replicated it successfully.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sorry for the confusion.

    If you go to the google document here

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F12E3BEtjr8PTm7-t-uWDF0OSNrdO9biuD5GJWoHWhE/edit

    you can see the experiment plan we posted here

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

    and you can see the “fake LENR core” (that will be used to fake heat that might have come from a LENR core and is called “core heater tube” in the diagrams)

    and the Heater tube.

    These windings are designed to try an get into the a dog bone – that is of similar morphology, materials and weight – as near as possible the amount of energy the Lugano report claims it is emitting in order to see what temperature that shows on the surface and how that compares to what is seen on an Optris Pi160

  • Bob Greenyer

    Simple test by Alan Goldwater – placing a calibrated “Fake” LENR core heater element inside a 12.7mm alumina tube with very revealing results.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Omega Z

      Bob

      This may mean nothing but- Rossi says DC doesn’t work.

      Thinking about this, I recall having an employee extend a line to a 2nd outlet so as not to need an extension cord. The 1st outlet supplied electricity to a freezer. The 2nd powered a window AC.

      Both worked fine. Until I leaned over the freezer to adjust the AC settings. WoW, What a Shocking Revelation.
      With Eyes wide, 1st thought was he nicked the wire insulation looping it through the conduit & I’m looking-listening & sniffing for electrical arcing or something getting hot.

      As the tingeling resided I realized he had inadvertently reversed the polarity. Tho both appliances worked fine, when touching both it was the same as grabbing the hot in 1 hand & the neutral in the other.

      With AC, A clockwise fan will still run clockwise even with the polarity reversed. DC will run counter clockwise when changing polarity. Rossi is making use of this in some fashion. You have 3 coils, is the middle reversed polarity or causing some arcing effect?

      Another thought I’ve had for a long time. Rossi uses heat to initially activate the reactor, but once activated, Is the additional heat** applied really just a consequence of additional priming of the Rossi effect. (RF/pulses/waves or whatever.)
      **Reasoning being why doesn’t the heat the reactor produces suffice.

      The Gas cat leaves me at a loss, tho I vaguely recall a conversation many years ago about gas heat generating some type of low level wave/pulse or current of some type. May be nothing. I don’t even recall who or what when the conversation was..

      • Bob Greenyer

        I understand that Rossi says the gas cat still needs electrical control

    • Ged

      I’m surprised how low the outside temps of the alumina of the fake reactor core are reaching with such high internals, but it looks to be in line with the dogbone you’ve been testing shown earlier as well without a fake core (with heating closer to the external), and the Lugano report (if one looks at the 500 W input-output part if the curve which is near the dummy run’s max). That is, the external temps between them all seem the same at similar input power–a very good thing to say the least. Externals are reliable measuring points for radiative energy loss for this system according to the data all together.

      Also interesting one can’t even get close to the 1400 external of the Lugano live E-cat run (just how hit was that thing’s internal then? Gees). Both the fake core and heater winds at once should be able to push some pretty high internal temps and should be enough to get the external nearer or to the live E-cat.

      So then, at least the plan to simulate a higher internal temp than the heater can make, to mimic an LENR reaction, should work great according to these results. Full steam ahead!

      • Bob Greenyer
        • Ged

          Thank you guys for setting this up! Wish I could use sound, but I’ll just have to imagine what you guys are doing to get Ryan laughing. Looking forward to watching this data live!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Fortunately, the hugnetlab link works meanwhile as well. (Good for those who do not like accounts.) But where are the data for the electric input?

        • JDM

          This call is full.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are posting updates to Facebook

      • LCD

        At this point the most interesting piece of information would be to find out what the steady state temperature difference is between the core and the surface at the hottest possible temperature closest to 1400 (on surface).

        • Bob Greenyer

          This will be more useful when we are running “Fat Coils” problem is with them, we might not be able to get as much power into the cells.

          In the first live test, the heater coil, of about 88 turns of Kanthal A1 was very close to the heater tube, this accentuated the gradient. With “fat coils” more of the heat loss will have less alumina to travel through.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Here is an additional thought about the energy calculations in TPR2. Rossi wrote on October 29th, 2014:

    “[…] It was winter, and in Lugano winter is pretty cold; besides, the laboratory is in a valley between mountains, where cold intensifies. In the photos you cannot see, but along all the ceiling of the laboratory there was a long and big window, that remained open during all the roughly thousand hours of the experiment, so that the hot air mostly escaped through the upper window; nevertheless, the laboratory ( which was pretty big) has been heated enough to force the persons inside to stay in shirts, with an external temperature between minus 5 and plus 10 °C as an average, in the period of February and March. Inside the laboratory the temperature was about of 25°C, but, again, with the hot air , which obviously has a specific gravity minor than the cold air, escaping continuously, 24 hours per day, through the big window of the ceiling of the lab.”

    According to this description, the heat transfer by convection could have been underestimated. It would be interesting to examine the influence of a slight air draft on the reactor temperature. A significant drop would indicate that the average COP of the Lugano reactor has been higher than 3.5.

    • Obvious

      The COP (coefficient of performance) of the dummy is between 0.93 and 0.96 (depending on calculations), so there is not an insignificant level of underestimation of heat.
      Doing a lazy renormalization to a COP of 1 for the dummy makes a COP of almost 4 for the last run, but that fails to account for the rate of heat increase properly.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I’m not sure if the window was already open during the dummy test. Anyway, the COP in the active run could only be higher than calculated in case that there was an increased airflow.

        • Obvious

          If all the measurements are conservative, then the COP can easily be higher than calculated. The COP of the dummy should be 1, or extremely close to 1, since it is resistive heat. If the convection is higher for any of several reasons, then there is room for even more underestimation, especially since the convection will increase with temperature, like a fireplace draft.

        • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Looks like the reactor gave out at 1100 W, with less than 1000 C external?

      Guess that’s success!

      • Andreas Moraitis

        And, also remarkable, the resistance has dropped by the factor 3.x.

        • Ged

          And she’s immediately blown out again after trying to push 1226 W after restarting (peaking at 1000 C external by B-type).

          Not that the 3.x times resistance drop even matters, as they are running in current clamp (keeping current within a 10 amp window like Lugano before the restart), meaning joule heating of the feed lines changed little across a huge range if input power (cannot be used for back calculation!), and input power was controlled by changing the voltage, like I said was probably the case in Lugano, yet others tried to claim was impossible (hence the resistance red herring).

          Just so happens the resistance really does change that much (?) after the first fail, changing the volt to amp ratio of the power supply.

          • Obvious

            I think you are jumping to incorrect conclusions.
            The Joule heat is directly proportional to current. That is an unavoidable law of physics. Otherwise this test would not work at all. The heater resistors are Joule heating.
            You can back calculate the current from Joule heat values, if the same formula is used every time. That is just math.
            If you change voltage, the current will change: the voltage is what makes a current want to flow.
            I suspect something happened to short the resistance in this test, probably some melting. This is not the same as what happened in the Lugano test, since the “resistance changed” right from the start of the active runs.

          • Ged

            Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking only of the transmission lines, where current is considered fix and voltage is what varies, with the load being what matters as its voltage (relative to ground) is so much greater than the voltage drop across the transmission/distribution line from endpoint to endpoint due to the latter’s much smaller natural resistance (so joule heating is very small compared to the power dissipated by resistors).

            No idea what happened to change the resistance of the circuit so dramatically. I’m assuming something burned or melted, but they did get it running again, so I don’t know until we hear from the group.

          • Obvious

            From the video and commentary, at the least the ends of one of the wires burned off, and then the other end after the first was fixed. I’m now wondering if that cut off two resistors, or if they were working in parallel after the second melt. It would be surprising if only one resistor could handle all the power to finish the test, but not impossible.

        • Sanjeev

          My video is dropping always, but I think there was a re-connection after burning out and this time the connection was better, so less resistance. But it must be checked with a ohm-meter to be sure.

        • Sanjeev

          The coil melted and shorted I guess, this explains the resistance decrease.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Most likely. I wonder if this could also have been the case in the Lugano experiment, where a genuine three-phase supply has been used. The factors seem to be almost identical. I would appreciate to hear the opinions of our EEs.

      • Sanjeev

        There are hot spots on the tube. There is some chance that the TCs are placed on cooler spots. This needs to be repeated with one TC placed on the hotted spot. May be one of the hot spot reached a higher external temperature ?

        • Ged

          An IR gun was also used and seemed similar to the couplers. Integrating the heat across the entire device depends on how well the heat transfers laterally from the internal hot spots to the exterior thermal couplers in such a case then.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sorry for those that could not get in to the live experiment call – we know what to do next time.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    1st live run was a resounding success, producing lots of important data.

    Update and pictures on FB

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    Observations:

    It appeared that their model for estimating power out based on a surface temperature was probably valid. It has yet to be demonstrated that their method of measuring the surface temperature was entirely valid.

  • Obvious

    Very nicely done. Congratulations to all involved.

    Lots learned there, I’m sure.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Obviously, the DogBone becomes hotter than the Lugano reactor:

    (Lugano – dummy) 486W – 450C
    DogBone 456W – 564C (T-ext)

    Therefore, the calculus would have to be adapted – otherwise, we had a COP > 1 without fuel. However, in case that MFMP gets a reaction that produces significant excess heat, complex calculations will be unnecessary. I’m very curious about the first active run.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Those kind of conclusions cannot be drawn for this 1st rough test.

      The thermocouples sat in the groves which were hotter than the tops of fins (this can be clearly seen in photos), the K type, being finer, sat further in the grove accentuating this, additionally it was in a hot zone which possibly had more windings on the heater coil per unit length from this rough three core winding.

      Almost more than anything, yesterdays test showed the validity of a technique that would average temperatures over an area and time – it remains to be seen if the use of an Optris PI160 was the right choice.

    • Ged

      Well, Lugano used thermal imaging to integrate the temperature across the dogbone, while here the thermal couplers are in direct contact to a limited area, leading to some divergence between the B and K type that is similar magnitude to the difference from the report. So, it’s not 1 to 1, but it is very, and sufficiently close with no wide divergence, so we can get an idea. Only way to do 1 to 1 is to thermal image like the report (and from this we see that’s the better way than thermal couples).

      Still, a dummy control must always be run to calibrate with, as different dogbones may behave slightly differently temperature curves anyways.

  • Gerard McEk

    Point 3: “…hard to look at…” That shows to me that the picture of the Lugano test was certainly not taken at that temperature. Do you agree?

    • Ged

      Depends on what visible light camera/filter they used. Their figure 12 has much sharper luminosity contrast than anything MFMP’s seen with their unfiltered cameras so far, so can’t say either way confidently.

    • Ged
    • Ged

      I’d say probably not though, due to lack of much spectacular lighting on the frame and surrounding area. To be fair though, they don’t say what corresponding temperature the figure 12a picture was taken at, and so it could be any point of time, like startup or shutdown.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “To be fair though, they don’t say what corresponding temperature the figure 12a picture was taken at”

        Fair to whom? It is completely unfair that they (Levi et al) did not present more evidence at different temperatures with Optris camera output, conventional camera output, and voltage and current at each part of the heater input leads. The Lugano “report” leaves many questions unanswered, purposefully. So I repeat, fair to whom? The Lugano report is unfair bait to those of us who would like hard evidence on a working LENR reactor.

        • US_Citizen71

          What a sense of entitlement you have. Exactly how much did you contribute to cover the costs of the test again?

        • LCD

          It would not matter without knowing other camera parameters.

  • psi2u2

    For the record it should be noted that the picture is not labelled with any temperature data – it is just presented as the e-cat “in operation.” I just rechecked this point in the report.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to place a fireproof mat or container under the reactor. Anyway, a fire extinguisher which is suitable for electric installations should be ready to hand.

  • Dr. Mike

    Bob,
    At the operating point in the Lugano test where an external temperature of 1400C was reached, what would you estimate the internal temperature of the reactor to be?
    Dr. Mike

  • Bob

    This is great stuff! I cannot see how the skeptos can argue much with this! (I realize nothing proven yet, I am just commenting on the over all test) They certainly cannot suggest Rossi is controlling or pulling a a fast one here! Great job MFMP team.

    On a side note, I would think that the Lugano team would be watching this event with great interest. Has Bob G. or anyone at MFMP heard from any of the Lugano group?

    Has anyone heard of any updates about the Lugano group answering any of the select questions submitted to them? I think these tests and answers the Lugano group could provide to questions could surely put a lot of questions to rest!

    • Omega Z

      No, They can have no contact with the Lugano group or anyone involved with the E-cat.

      The Skeptos would immediately claim it is not independent. Or worse.
      They are in on the scam, brainwashed, pulled into the group-think etc.
      I know, kinda dumb.

      PS-
      A true skeptic would want to find the truth even if it doe not fit there beliefs.

      A Skeptos does not believe in truth. Only that they are right even if their wrong.

  • tobalt

    this is the stuff of the internet atm!! Very transparent study! Keep it up

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have just spoken with Ryan at length and he says that even when the test reached the hottest point, the Dog Bone was still very comfortable to look at with the naked eye.

    My initial comment 3. to Frank last night (which were to be confirmed this evening) were based on a comment that was said during the live test and the fact that alumina based evaporation boats require viewing glass.

    http://www.tedpella.com/vacuum_html/vacuum-evaporation-sources.htm#_84_21

    For remote viewers of the live stream (including me!), the webcam appeared to make the dog bone look extreamly bright, but this is due to the sensitivity of the web cam to IR and its auto exposure. Perhaps an IR filter and or high dynamic range camera is needed in future tests.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut-off_filter

    something like these

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Infrared-IR-Cut-Dual-Filter-DC-3V-for-CCTV-Surveillance-Security-Camera-Board-/381042800424?pt=UK_CCTV&hash=item58b7ebb728

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schott-BG40-77mm-UV-IR-Cut-Filter-Visual-Bandpass-IR-Suppression-Hot-Mirror-/301433190006?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item462ed17676

    in retrospect, I am very happy that the comments were released as they stimulated some wonderful and rich data based debate, especially on Vortex.

    • Ged

      Well, that casts that discussion in a new ‘light’.

      Time for phase two, Bob? With all this great data, I totally vote for phase two :D. We don’t need no camera, these couplers should allow powder testing I think. So eager to see!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Easy tiger, we need to do this right and leave no holes.

    • Warthog

      I used to do research into graphite furnace AA. On occasion we needed to heat graphite parts contained in a fused silica (quartz…..softening point around 1600C) crucible using an RF furnace. Temps were measured with an optical “thermometer” based on a heated wire and filters, (commercially calibrated).

      That temp was very close to 1400C, and it was NOT even remotely close to being “visually uncomfortable”. Now, a graphite furnace at 2500C was a whole other story. THAT was in a water-cooled housing with a TINY sapphire window through which the temp was measured. And even that small window was kept covered except when making temp measurements.

    • US_Citizen71

      If you want to make the webcam video brighter next time, I would suggest a bright light source like a halogen work light and/or a light colored background. The webcam will essentially average the incoming light to set its light sensitivity, so the best way to make the background brighter is to add more light or make the background more reflective of the ambient light.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I was thinking of bringing my kinoflow-type (outdoor white/no heat) studio lights with me.

        • US_Citizen71

          Those would definitely do the job and with better color reproduction. I was just making a suggestion for on the cheap lighting, but if you have much better at your disposal please use them. I prefer LEDs myself due to the increased color and intensity control now available in LED panels.

        • Obvious

          What are the resistances of the individual resistors now, after the test? Are they still all in one piece inside? (Or all they all now one piece inside, etc.?)

          • Bob Greenyer

            There may have been higher resistance at the beginning due to bad contact on one of the power leads – similar to what Alan Goldwater saw with his first tests on the “Fake LENR” core.

            Part of the input lead burnt off.

            After the “blow out” the hot-spot distribution in the cell was very different – cool in the middle, so something is likely to have shorted.

            Need to do better record keeping on the next test in this respect.

          • Obvious

            Is not the dog bone still available to test? Cold resistance should be indicative of shorts or opens, unless they were intermittent heat-expansion-related.

          • Bob Greenyer

            6.5 ohms at start

            7.5-8 at temperature

            2.5 ohms after first failure

            open circuit at end of test

    • psi2u2

      Thanks for the update.

    • LCD

      I think it should not be white to the eye, it should be still orange tint. This is purely based on the black body spectrum at 1400 in combination with the alumina material spectral transmittance and the eyes spectral response. From a sufficiently far distance anyways.

      • Bob Greenyer

        It was not white to the eye.

        • LCD

          So I assume orange tint. Did it get whiter as you moved closer to it. Assuming you can.

  • US_Citizen71

    Unless all of the water had not been removed from when it was cast it shouldn’t do much more than crack. The temperatures involved are much the same as baking pottery and pottery only explodes when fired wet. Alumina has a melting point of 2,072°C, so other than worrying about what pieces might fall on below I think they are safe.

  • Axil Axil

    A suggestion from Alan Fletcher as follows:

    You MFMP guys have started posting photos. But please do the following:

    1. Get a color calibration card, eg

    Kodak Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale (Q-13, 8″ Long)

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=26662&gclid=CjwKEAiAkpCkBRCtstKQo5ia5nESJACsCikR0WtiGGjptERAk_sJ4mJxnfK3nRKGKJyBPBw76JmgVxoCz6rw_wcB&Q=&is=REG&A=details

    Include the card in every photo.

    2. Make sure you use a camera with manual control, and use the same camera for every photo. Turn off Auto White Balance (AWB) and auto ISO.

    3 Optional : also get a grayscale card — and ONE TIME ONLY set the camera to get the white balance off the card.

    Otherwise, just pick a “suitable” value.

    Note the AWB value (color temperature).

    4. Take every photo at the same AWB and preferably ISO. Make sure that no channels are over-exposed.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This will help with post balancing.

      We are thinking of combining:

      1. Colour cards – for post colour adjustment of images/toning – like the one suggested here

      2. IR/UV cut filters on webcams and cameras – to allow only visible light in (should then look like it does to the human eye), these filters act as a mirror to IR and UV

      http://bit.ly/1wBX53I

      http://ebay.to/12y4GlT

      3. A “live alumina temperature ladder” – several alumina rods, coated with dog bone casting material, heated internally with TC control monitoring running at various temperatures. Then what ever exposure is used on whatever camera – there is a live reference in the background

      4. A high dynamic range video camera which will store all those dynamics in a raw format, like this 13 stop one

      https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

      or high dynamic range still camera like this one

      http://snapsort.com/cameras/Sony-A7-specs

      5. fixing exposure and white balance

  • Axil Axil

    There was a unexpected and unexplained drop in electrical resistance in the heater coils as the temperature of the Hot-Cat increased to 1400C in the TPR2 test. Do the experimenters at MFMP plan to verify this observation> Will you provide a resistance vs. temperature curve to accompany each experiment, even

    • Bob Greenyer

      There are several explanations proposed for this, here are two:

      1. A semiconductor based element, something like SiC – but SiC is not normally encased in Alumina, how this affects the resistivity is not known.

      2. Lugano dummy run was connected as a wye, and the active runs as a delta (possibly in combination with 1).

      Currently we are being offered 5.5ohm SiC elements, these are single phase, single ended elements that would look nothing like the reactor other than hot zone length and diameter. 5 units to cost $900.

      We are also being offered a custom 3 phase patented coil which will look like the reactor and contain some MoSi2 – but it is $6000 for one set of 3 coils.

      We can test option 2 with another Kanthal based Dog Bone.

      • Obvious

        You can conceptually test 2 with a three phase generator and some standard incandescent light bulbs. Three 120 V light bulbs in series for each phase will work for a 220/240 V generator and 120 V bulbs, in order to prevent frying the bulbs immediately in the delta configuration. You can’t really change the voltage with a generator (unless it does both 120 and 240), but 40, 60 and 100 W bulbs can be exchanged to change the current.

      • Axil Axil

        There is another possibility that may result in the reduction of electrical heater resistance as the temperature of the dogbone reactor increases. This possibility involves the onset of a superconductive electrical behavior inside the core of the fueled reactor with the nickel powered installed. Celanti saw a electrical resistance decrease with temperature in his wire.

        A dummy reactor may not see this superconductive electrical behavior manifest in the dummy test runs no matter what material the heater is made from..

        • Obvious

          Superconducting resistors are an oxymoron. The resistors are not in the reaction area, or they would become fuel.
          The resistance is almost perfectly linear in the active runs, which also show decreasing input current over each input power period (from run 1 to 5, moderate power applied, and run 6 to 16, high power applied), while the relative thermal input to thermal output ratio is still increasing over these periods. The Joule heat slowly drops over each period, and therefore input current is slowly decreasing, so either resistance slowly increases with heat during each period, or the input voltage slowly decreases, possibly due to Rossi’s controller tying to keep the output heat at a constant (set at beginning of the input period) temperature.

          • Axil Axil

            Qbvious states:
            The resistors are not in the reaction area, or they would become fuel.

            This statement is an unverified assumption on your part. During a reactor meltdown, the entire reactor becomes fuel. We don’t know yet how the reaction spreads through the reactor as a function of temperature.

          • Obvious

            It is a simpler “unverified” assumption than the resistors becoming superconducting, (which would lead to a short circuit).

            Q: Is the heater acting as a cathode or would a flame from a Bunsen burner also work? A: A Bunsen could work too.
            -JoNP May 24, 2011

            The energy we need at the input is also thermal, indipendently from the source: we need heat, not electricity. Should we use a direct thermal source instead of heat produced indirectly we could save consequently. But this fact, in a self sustained mode, which is gonna be prevalent, is not so much relevant, and an electric resistance costs less, saves space and is simpler.
            -JoNP October 7, 2011

            Q: What temperature(s) must electric heaters maintain in standard E-Cat operation? A : 400° Celsius
            -JoNP August 5, 2012

        • clovis ray

          clovis ray Bob Greenyer • a day ago
          bob you guys are doing a fine job, and i completely understand it is a control, i like control instead of dummy, the only thing i might suggest is that the ac current is of much importance, and one of the keys, i believe along with omaga z , that this must be copied exactly, as the lugano report, 3 phase hook up, not sure but there is a connection i belive , and has to do with the reduction of resistance to keep it from melting down or shorting out , i would suggest using 3 phase power in, i believe it has to do with superconductivity, in some way. just my 2 cents, 😉

          Edit

          Reply

          Share ›

      • does someone know other high temperature semiconductors ?
        I’ve heards of Zirconium orxydes, but it need to be heated before it is conductive…
        maybe some hard dopig as rossi said, could change that … I’ve seen few papers but it is not common.

        a change in the schedule of triac triggering may have some impacts…
        impedance, maximum current far from rms… it would be easy with the full log of current and power

  • Obvious

    Ivan, If the reactor was hooked up as wye for the dummy, then it would make no difference for electrical heating. Resistive heat is resistive heat. One side of the C2 cables could be hooked together by a connection block, while the others are connected to the C1 cables, one for each input line. There would still be cable Joule heating, and then also high current for the active runs, which could explain the high Joule heat figures reported (even if not done correctly).
    Yes, this could be construed as leaving out important information. Or a way of obfuscating some IP perhaps.

    • US_Citizen71

      The C2 cables were likely used to keep the C1 wires from getting too hot. With the low resistance of the heating coils the cables would be warm no matter what they are attached to at the power they planned to run the the test at. But since they are attached to a very hot heating element you have the problem of the heat being conducted down the wire as well. The C2 cables serve to spread that heat over more mass and surface area before coming together at the split at the end of the C1 cables. Making the C1 cables cooler. This was likely done for safety and to protect the equipment powering the test.

      • Obvious

        That makes sense.
        The connection at the resistor is a tricky one. Way too much heat there if the connector is the same as the resistor. A larger diameter connector needs to be there to lower the heat. I wonder if a spot weld on the resistor wire would make a weak spot. The ends might be folded over themselves a few times and welded together a few times to make a section of larger diameter and lower resistance for a better connection to the feed wires.
        Ideally, the main resistor section could be drawn or rolled thinner from a significantly larger diameter rod that could be flattened and drilled for a bolt connection at the outer ends coming out of the reactor body.

  • bitplayer

    Your faulty assertions and histrionics damage your credibility. You seem like a smart guy, but you’re apparently not smart enough to figure that out. Why don’t you just try a little harder?

  • Gerard McEk

    Excellent! I hope to see similar results as from the Lugano tests and Alexander Parkhomov. Will you analyse the isotope content of the fuel material before and after? Very best LENR wishes for 2015!

    • Bob Greenyer

      We can send samples to Earthtech from before and after.

      • Ged

        Is it January 30th or December 30th when this is going down?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Tomorrow – frank will correct the title

          Dog bone cast last night and baking tonight in oven,

          Ryan is getting the glove box ready now to mix the powder

          • Ged

            That’s what I had assumed, very excited! Kick butt guys! This’ll be interesting to see in support for or against.

  • LuFong

    When> If excess is heat is detected and run for sufficient long time it would be nice to run in self-sustained mode by cutting power completely as Parkhamov’s test did when the heater inadvertently burned out. I’m only suggesting this if it doesn’t damage the apparatus. Good luck. I’ll certainly be watching.

  • Mats002

    Would be nice with a countdown clock. This is on the magnitude of a deep space launch with humans aboard! Good Luck MFMP!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Mats.

  • Modern Alchemy.

    • Bob Greenyer

      but without the hats, well, except maybe a Fedora.

      We’ll run a kickstarter in January, for a bit of fun, can as many of you as possible, get one of these hats:

      http://www.hats-plus.com/p-1925-henschel-corduroy-fedora-hat.aspx

      The “Tan” brown one.

      And record a clip of yourself saying “[your region, country] … Let’s Light the New Fire” together ASAP.

      Need 1080p, upload to Google Docs or your cloud of choice and send link for download to:

      [email protected]

  • Anon2012_2014

    Ryan, please be careful with the LAH — very flammable on contact with water.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The hazard sheet says it can be in air for short periods.

      Plan is to mix under argon. Seal in container.

      flush glovebox with air. Prepare reactor tube, insert powder quickly and plug with non water based cement/glue. This is where our challenge is as we don’t have any in the shop.

      Thinking of using this

      http://www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/pdf/919%20NP.pdf

      • Anon2012_2014

        I’m not an expert, but I read that it has been known to react with the humidity in the air.

        Fortunately it is winter in the North Central US. Maybe it is enought to simply make sure there is no humidifier running and CRANK up an electric heater so that the relative humidity is low.

        I am reading your cotronics sheet now.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Ryan says it is totally dry there – Minnesota is FREEZE dried at this time of year!

          We intend to mix under Argon in the glove box and place into a syringe like this.

          http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/images/products/large/6ml-plastic-syringe.jpg

          Using scales we can estimate what 1cc weighs.

          then tape the end – ready for simple filling of reactor tubes.

        • Maybe I missed something, but how does Alexander Parkhomov and MFMP know the details of Rossi’s secret sauce? Had that much been revealed in the Lugano report?

          • NT

            A big “GO FOR IT” from this old retired chemist. It sure looks like the MFMP team have their ducks all lined up and have an excellent shot at making this work…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks guys – let’s see what happens first and trust that we will not give up at the first attempt.

            We have only been at this a few short years – some people, like Piantelli and Focardi and Celani and Bazhutov and schwartz and Hegelstein and Mizuno and Takahashi and McKubre and Fleischmann to name but a few, spent a good proportion of their lives on this. They are the ones that in many cases showed what did not work as well as what did to varying degrees.

          • NT

            Agreed, you seem to have learned much from all that history and are now on the verge of a replication with excellent documentation to boot – something that others have not provided (sufficiently) to the mix and on top of that, ALL your results will be completely open sourced to the world. Good luck from a world that desperately needs this breakthrough – I have good feeling for this effort of yours…

          • Bob Greenyer

            On second leg of the calibration.

            []=Project Dog Bone=[]

            Targeting 400W input power

          • Bob Greenyer

            The “fuel” was analysed and found to be Ni and LiAlH4 (and some iron) etc.

            We bought 100g of LiAlH4 day after report and were kicking ourselves as we had planned to test Lithium based hydrides since April in ceramic reactors with heater coils on outside.

      • Anon2012_2014

        And that resistive material good to 2800 C is great stuff.

  • Anon2012_2014

    I am waiting to see the reaction over on ECAT News. Should be good for a laugh if MFMP scores.

    This show may be about to end.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Or begin

      • Or the end of the beginning 🙂

    • Achi

      I’d like to think of right now as a build up to a climax as the fireworks in the media, government and economy start to go off.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Actually we might want the high pressure that Alexander predicts in there – it might prevent the metal from melting???

  • Allan Sterling – where are you?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Many new photos of the latest Dog Bone build on Facebook

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • NT

      Looking good Bob, and a big thanks to Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov for giving you all the powder specifications from his successful experiment (replication)…

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well, we had already selected the powder (Ryan has had it in his lab for over 3.5 years!) because of the size and the frequency at the elevated temperatures. But it is nice to have confirmations and full credit to him for a quick and detailed response – more of this please! If it does not work, then it might need something smaller or larger (on the assumption that something will work)

    • Wow! Just when LENR (via IH) was at a snails pace. Good luck guys.

  • Axil Axil

    Elements with nuclear spin do not do well with LENR. Nitrogen has a non zero nuclear spin, so nitrogen is a LENR poison. I would use helium as a blanket elements. Argon does has a zero nuclear spin, so it might be OK as a basket gas, Even hydrogen is 75% as a spin poison, this includes deuterium. One optimization that one can do in LENR is to enhance zero spin hydrogen as input into the reaction.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bob Higgins Hypothesises that the Al in LiAlH4 forms the refractory materials Al2O3 and AlN taking the O2 and N2 out of the Air that is in the cell after filling. Both melt at temperatures beyond the reaction domain.

    O2 is what kills Ni + H system.

    • Axil Axil

      This comes from Piantelli. I disagree, Oxygen is a zero nuclear spin element and therefore is a good LENR host. It may be better than hydrogen as a LENR dielectric gas. Nitrogen is a LENR poison. Piantelli’s opinion may be based on the way he forms his LENR surface. Oxygen may disrupt the Topology of the nano structures that Piantelli wishes to build on the surface of his nickel reactants. But if these structures are already formed, then oxygen may work OK as a LENR dialectic.

      • bachcole

        Please, everyone, keep in mind that the concept of spin is deeply embedded in the mainstream paradigm, and therefore it could very well be untrue. Yes, I know that Rossi said the mechanism of LENR (or at least his E-Cat) does not violate the standard model, but since when did I care “Rossi says”. Just because he said that LENR+ can be explained by the standard model does not necessarily make it so.

        I am not being a petulent child. I still love Rossi. I just don’t allow what someone else says control my thoughts.

        • Axil Axil

          What is untrue in the standard model is the Higgs field and super-symmetry(SUSY). Spin looks good.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yes

  • Achi

    Hell yesss.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    What a way to end the old year it would be with the MFMP to have a successfull excess heat test!

    If the excess heat would be as expected in the kilowatt range, this would be a huge boost for the MFMP team as they worked so hard for such a long time to achieve meaningfull excess heat. Besides of course the huge boost this would give the whole LENR field with another succesful excess heat replication.

    I feel that with every successful replication the field is accelerated and more world-wide attention focusses on this new fire. Replication seem to be almost childishly simple as far as lab experiments go. I am quietly confident that after a few more replications LENR could go mainstream in the first quarter of 2015 already. Though I thought such thoughts before ;-}.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Steady on, we’ll do our best, but there are no guarantees. Of course, it would be great. Let’s see.

      We see this as a collective effort also, all of you who have helped us in any way, including encouragement, are part of the story.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        The best is all you can do, but i’m sure you guys feel a bit giddy too…

        Anyway, I wish you succes and hope for a positive result!

  • I’m hoping you will use a setup similar to the one shown here. http://coldfusionnow.org/russian-scientist-replicates-hot-cat-test-produces-more-energy-than-it-consumes/ For the mfmp project. It would be much better if your water inlet was from a positive displacement pump to meter the water going in. Use a steam rated pressure relief valve set to 5 psi for the venting steam. A pressure sensor on the vessel will tell you the exact temperature of the steam leaving through the pressure relief valve. The metering pump will tell you exactly how much water you pump into the container. Makes all the telemetry very tight.

    • Mr. Moho

      As far as I understand they will attempt water evaporation calorimetry if they will see positive results against preliminary thermometry with a dummy (without powder/”fuel”) alumina core.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are correct Mr. Moho

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are correct Mr. Moho

        • Mr. Moho

          Nice; the more I look at Parkhomov’s calorimetry, the more I think it was an elegant and effective solution for the apparent excess heat measured (out/in=1.5-2.5x) and input power involved.

          Of course, the more methods used to cross-check the results, the better!

    • ivanidso

      Robert, would a positive MFMP result be beneficial to Bruillion I assume? Any predictions on success based on your experience? Thanks.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have a lot of respect for Robert E. Godes.

        Bruillion also was one of the first $1000 public donors to the project, no strings attached, they, like us, want to see the promise of this technology bear fruit.

      • LuFong

        A rising tide lifts all boats. If there is positive confirmation by MFMP and others this would be a beneficial to all LENR activities from research to commercial development, not to mention every other graduate student in physics would start investigating this. As Piantelli said the first order of business is a repeatable process and this would be it (or something along the lines of what MFMP is doing).

        This is all still a big ‘IF’ though so keep an skeptical mind about this.

      • how tall is your results are beneficial for the entire field. Especially helpful are the isotopic analysis results. These clearly show acumulation of neutrons in the system and result in an enhancement In 65Cu. I predicted this when Rossi first demonstrated his reactor. Rossi knows that heat production drops off after 32 days or the length of the test. 62Ni is the top of the binding energy / nucleon in the chart of the elements. As more of the 62Ni accumulate 3 or more additional neutrons, and decays to 65Cu or Zn the what time shall structure of these two elements are not as supportive of the reaction. heat output begins to drop.

  • Daniel Maris

    What time UTC/GMT is the test starting?

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      I also would love to know when/where I can watch. Although I suspect it will begin while I sleep tonight as I am in New Zealand.

  • ecatworld

    Just received this from Bob Greenyer:

    Hi Frank

    Will be at least 3 hours

    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.

    Attaching radiation detection.

    • Mr. Moho

      The wording on the first sentence is not very clear. Does he mean that the test will start in no less than three hours? Or that it will last at least three hours?

      As for the second one, this implies the powder is potentially compromised, unfortunately.
      LiAlH4 + 4 H2O -> LiOH + Al(OH)3 + 4 H2

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Doesn’t seem fatal since the Li and Al are still bound to non-gaseous stuff. Some hydrogen came out, but it was from the water.

        • Anon2012_2014

          The bonding agent — is it not at the ends of the tube. Unless they held the tube upright to place all the LAH on the water containing material, should be OK.

          Finally, if they sealed it, the H2 is in there somewhere, as is the lithium, i.e. 2 of 3 active ingredients.

    • tlp

      I think there should be a little water, also in Lugano test they (Rossi) used some water in bonding process. Some water means more hydrogen, to convert into hydrinos…

  • artefact

    Here is the Evernote with the baking and fuel loding of the new bone:

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

  • artefact
    • artefact

      The test seems not to have started yet official. The stream is working though

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Thanks Artefact!

    • artefact

      Calibration run will take several hours!

    • LuFong

      To see the actual data, see http://data.hugnetlab.com/ Select ‘View’ for ‘Dog Bone Test’. Check ‘Update With New Data’ to get periodic live updates.

      It seems they are about to start the calibration portion of the test.

  • Mats002

    The pictures in evernote loads vwery slow from top and stops at about 20%. I have IE11. Is that a known problem?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That’s presumably because the images are very large (in terms of pixels and memory). Maybe MFMP want to ensure that everybody can explore the details if necessary. It might be a solution to publish images of reduced size, while providing links to the original versions. But this would require additional working time, so that I think we should not complain – it is valuable enough what MFMP are presenting to their audience!

      P.S.: That the loading stops at 20% might be due to your browser configuration. You could try to change it or to download the images directly onto your hard disk.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have just got permission to release Dr A. Parkhomovs sealing method (which we have so far not succeeded at – he has commented on our efforts)

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • ecatworld

      Great news, Bob! Thanks very much to you , and to Alexander Parkhomov!

      • Bob Greenyer
      • Ged

        So far it looks like the optris runs very close to the b-type, if 10 C cooler in the same area the b-type sits; and both are hotter than the k-type. A good sign so far for the accuracy of the thermal measurements, at least at these 250 C temps. Let’s see if this holds for the whole dynamic range.

        Is the black spot having an effect in the other area?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Please bear in mind that right now, all of the emissivity is set to 1 – except the zone where the black spot is, this is set to 0.95. When we get to 1000ºC, we will start the real calibration for the Optris, using a combination of TCs, the black spot and the Williamson Pyrometer.

          • Ged

            Awesome. It’s great to get to watch this new equipment working and in progress!

      • GreenWin

        MFMP, Parkhomov, Hagelstein, Mills, Rossi, Celani, Piantelli, McKubre, Mallove, Duncan, Boss, Storms, and many many others contribute to the unsung science of LENR. They are now on the brink of begrudging acceptance by the former PTB. The facts are, we (self-informed interests) have known since 1989, the anomalous heat effect confirms low temperature fusion of atomic nuclei. And in spite of grandiose efforts of mainstream manipulators — LENR is coming to full fruition — by way of grass roots garage inventors. Nothing could be more triumphant or indicative of independence than the continued success of these pioneers.
        This story is better than a paper bag full of kittens — though not quite as funny. March on MFMP!

    • Ged

      Hmm, looks like we expect to see some leaking with the current swagelok system listed in the plan? Guess it depends on how fast it leaks to determine if that will have an impact on any potential reactions. We have the data from last time, but will it be possible to do a LiAlH4 or other pressure source only test to determine leak rate of the current dogbone? Otherwise, Alan’a data should be sufficient I think.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Calibrating Lugano…

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    There are three methods suggested by Optris for calibrating the emissivity of a sample with the PI160 as shown in the attached image.

    We will be using a combination of the 1st (comparing to contact thermocouples) and the 3rd ( a known high emissivity paint) across a range of temperatures.

    Going live soon!

    http://youtu.be/0DY4TJmCJS8

    Ask us questions here, Facebook, on the youtube stream and our site.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/446-dogbone-week-live-now

  • Private Citizen

    Frank, on these long update threads, maybe you could put an unchanging link at the top to an unchanging anchor at the bottom: ie “Click here to jump to comments”

    Example (remove quotes around opening and closing bracket):
    ” Click here to jump to comments ”
    ….
    ““

  • As some feared previously, it is possible the emissivity assumed in Lugano is totally wrong, 0.95 instead of 0.4…
    bad news. one more reason to critic the testers not to have calibrated at full temperature.

    we should prepare to reinterpret the experiment with emissivity 0.95. in that case the stop from 800W to 900W may give informations.

    with emissivity 0.95 instead of assumed 0.4 the COP is quite lower question is how is the IR cam compute the temperature.
    It seems from the specification that it is an array of bolometer, that measure energy in the documented bandwidth.
    I’ve tested hypothesis like that in december.
    I estimated the curve of the cam something like output=(T°C -220°C)/240°C with output=100% at 450C with thee-cat dummy (at which it was calibrated with thermocouple)
    does it seems correct for MFMP?

    the emissivity just change the signal proportionally.

    so imagine that the emissivity at 450C is the same as the one at full power (900W)
    then instead of being at 1400C with emissivity of 40% and 450C with emissivity of 70%
    the it is 900C at same unknown emissivity as at 450C
    and 1250C is about 800C at same emissivity

    this does not exclude excess heat as increasing from 800C to 900C

    this 9% increase in absolute temperature should increase radiation by 43%

    convection dissipate proportionally to the temperature difference, so 800 to 900C convection dissipate 12% more, about as much as the increase of power.

    COP=1 is impossible except if most of the heat is dissipated by convection and not by radiation.

    another point is more human, it is impossible that Industrial Heat have let non working reactor to the testers, who could have worked well , used high emissivity fluids, used dots, used thermocouple or bolometers.

    moreover if the test was bad about it’s results, if temperature were impossible , compared to what was expected, sure Rossi and IH would have warned the testers that the results were crazy.

    the hypothesis of an epic failure is not even credible. we are in a painful situation, where we need to know the emissivity of an E-cat at 1250-1400C

    problem with MFMP or Parkhomov replication is that it is not an exact replication, it is not a calibration of Lugano, just yet another test with alumina…

    maybe their alumina recipe is not as pure as the one of Industrial Heat… and thus have higher emissivity? or maybe simply was the E-cat tested at 900C, with COP=1.3, instead as tested at 1250C with a COP of 3

    this is not incoherent with parkhomov who noticed an increase in COP above 1000C

    maybe the temperature is bad, but Rossi accepted the result because it match what he observe, COP>3 at T>1200C.

    bad news for us, there is doubt.