Live Video Feed from MFMP, Feb 5th — Experiments Planned [Update #2: Bang! (in HD)

I am adding here a YouTube embedded video of a live feed from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. I chatted with Bob Greenyer and he explained upcoming tests that they plan to do:

Here’s what he said:

“Ryan and alan are putting fuel in 3 cores, one for a Parkhomov-style leak test in a glass jar, if that works – we will put a core in the SiC element.”

“We then have two GlowSticks one will be fueled and the other not I will post some images of the glowsticks
One will be a control for the other.”

“We hope to do two more live experiments, One will be the Parkhomov Leak test – if that works (ie no H2 is seen in the glass jar when we go to 200C – then we will show a radically easier way for people to build reactors
Also – if it works – we will then run a separate core in the SiC element that is currently doing a low temp calibration”

Bob said the first test will be the Parkhomov leak test. Not exactly sure when that will begin. The second test is partially dependent on the first.

Anyway, here is the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9l356ymg8

And below is the video stream:

UPDATE: (Feb 6, 2015) The experiment abruptly ended when there was an explosion in the reactor after it was heated to over 1000 C. You can follow the event at about 1 hour before the end of the video above. Here’s a blurry screenshot of the data:

mfmpfeb6

UPDATE #2: (Feb 6, 2015)

Here’s a higher definition video of the Bang!

  • ecatworld

    MFMP just about to do a leak test on a fueled reactor.

    • US_Citizen71

      Have a link?

      • ecatworld

        The live link has disappeared
        I am trying to get news from the MFMP

        • US_Citizen71

          I was watching it I was hoping they would put a link up somewhere.

          • ecatworld

            Same here. They switched the camera to a new view for the H experiment, and the live video dropped. Still trying to contact them.

          • ecatworld

            Ok new video link posted above

    • Bob Greenyer

      @All

      Leak test of swagelok based reactor – Parkhomov style

      youtu.be/eP9l356ymg8

  • Frank Acland

    MFMP just about to do a leak test on a fueled reactor.

    • US_Citizen71

      Have a link?

      • Frank Acland

        The live link has disappeared
        I am trying to get news from the MFMP

        • US_Citizen71

          I was watching it I was hoping they would put a link up somewhere.

          • Frank Acland

            Same here. They switched the camera to a new view for the H experiment, and the live video dropped. Still trying to contact them.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok new video link posted above

  • Bob Greenyer

    @All

    Leak test of swagelok based reactor – Parkhomov style

    youtu.be/eP9l356ymg8

  • ecatworld

    @bob Thanks — they are going to heat up the reactor to 200 C

  • Frank Acland

    @bob Thanks — they are going to heat up the reactor to 200 C

  • ecatworld

    170 C, no leakage yet apparently

  • Frank Acland

    170 C, no leakage yet apparently

  • Bob Greenyer

    Are there any questions?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Are there any questions?

  • ecatworld

    202 Degrees, estimated 300 PSI with no discernable change in the hydrogen detector

  • Frank Acland

    202 Degrees, estimated 300 PSI with no discernable change in the hydrogen detector

  • ecatworld

    They stuck a flame in the jar and there was no flash, so that’s a sign of no H leakage

  • Frank Acland

    They stuck a flame in the jar and there was no flash, so that’s a sign of no H leakage

  • ecatworld

    Next step is to put this reactor inside the silicon carbide element for a fueled reactor run

  • Frank Acland

    Next step is to put this reactor inside the silicon carbide element for a fueled reactor run

  • Hank Mills

    My questions:

    1 – What is your thinking on the surface features and surface area of your nickel vs. Parkhomov’s?

    2 – Do you plan on cutting of the input power at very high temps to see if self sustain or HAD kicks in?

    3 – If your reactor goes into run away and soars to over 2000C, do you have a plan to evacuate the room?

    4 – If a period of self sustain does happen and then ends, will you try to heat up the reactor again to see if the effect will take place again?

    • LuFong

      MFMP addressed your questions starting around 3:00:00 (3 hours exactly) into the live feed video.

  • Hank Mills

    My questions:

    1 – What is your thinking on the surface features and surface area of your nickel vs. Parkhomov’s?

    2 – Do you plan on cutting of the input power at very high temps to see if self sustain or HAD kicks in?

    3 – If your reactor goes into run away and soars to over 2000C, do you have a plan to evacuate the room?

    4 – If a period of self sustain does happen and then ends, will you try to heat up the reactor again to see if the effect will take place again?

  • ecatworld

    Alan said they are using a $25 reactor you could build in an hour

    • Alain Samoun

      Like to see how to build it

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will upload some videos in the next week showing various stages of construction. It is really simple and affordable.

      • Alain Samoun

        OK thanks Bob

  • Frank Acland

    Alan said they are using a $25 reactor you could build in an hour

    • Alain Samoun

      Like to see how to build it

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will upload some videos in the next week showing various stages of construction. It is really simple and affordable.

      • Alain Samoun

        OK thanks Bob

  • Alain Samoun

    What is the composition of the fuel that you are testing now?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Ni+LiAlH4

  • Alain Samoun

    What is the composition of the fuel that you are testing now?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Ni+LiAlH4

  • Sanjeev

    Is the calibration data from 16:00 to 21:00 (05 Feb) ?

  • Bob Greenyer

    @All

    Link to shared image folder

    http://bit.ly/1zlQauY

  • Bob Greenyer

    @All

    Link to shared image folder

    http://bit.ly/1zlQauY

  • Omega Z

    Thank Scottie for getting the Shields Up just in time.

    Big Bada BOOM((((

    Hey Guys. I don’t think this will get UL certification.
    Glad no one got hurt.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      it looks like the nickel didn’t load properly, or did not have time to load. when heated the pressure vessel lost integrity and exploded

      • Andreas Moraitis

        That’s the most likely scenario. It’s surely not a coincidence that Rossi booted the Lugano reactor himself – obviously, this part requires some experience. Perhaps smaller power steps would reduce the risk, and a properly adjusted pressure relief valve might be able to protect the reactor.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think we can safely conclude that MFMP team member, Alan Goldwater’c concept for sealing a tube is VERY effective, cheap, repeatable and reliable.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, these Swagelock seals are remarkable. I had not expected that they would be hydrogen-tight. Congrats to the manufacturer and to AG for his idea.

  • Omega Z

    Thank Scottie for getting the Shields Up just in time.

    Big Bada BOOM((((

    Hey Guys. I don’t think this will get UL certification.
    Glad no one got hurt.

    • NCY

      it looks like the nickel didn’t load properly, or did not have time to load. when heated the pressure vessel lost integrity and exploded

      • Andreas Moraitis

        That’s the most likely scenario. It’s surely not a coincidence that Rossi booted the Lugano reactor himself – obviously, this part requires some experience. Perhaps smaller power steps would reduce the risk, and a properly adjusted pressure relief valve might be able to protect the reactor.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think we can safely conclude that MFMP team member, Alan Goldwater’s concept for sealing a tube is VERY effective, cheap, repeatable and reliable. We MUST CAUTION Safety though!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, these Swagelock seals are remarkable. I had not expected that they would be hydrogen-tight. Congrats to the manufacturer and to AG for his idea.

  • Alain Samoun

    So if I understand it: the CF effect has produced a sudden rise of temperature that has increased the pressure of H2 then responsible for the explosion of the reactor? If that it, Bravo guys! thanks for showing (and hearing) it!
    And yes good night! If you can sleep…

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      if a CF effect was to blame it could be that the hydrogen was forcibly ‘unloaded’ when the rection started

  • Alain Samoun

    00:17:31 BOOM!
    So if I understand it: the CF effect has produced a sudden rise of temperature that has increased the pressure of H2 then responsible for the explosion of the reactor? If that it, Bravo guys! thanks for showing (and hearing) it!
    And yes good night! If you can sleep…

    • NCY

      if a CF effect was to blame it could be that the hydrogen was forcibly ‘unloaded’ when the rection started

  • Frederic

    is it a CF effect or just a blast due to pressure increase ?

    • NCY

      Looks very similar to a pressure canister failure, however, that does not mean that it was not triggered by the start of the CF effect.

  • tlp

    The explosion is at 3:00:44 on that video.

    • Obvious

      They almost missed capturing it on YouTube.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        what is that steady tick tick sound? a geiger counter?

        • artefact

          Yes. The red lines in video.

        • ecatworld

          I think it’s a hydrogen detector.

          • artefact

            ..Then they deactivated the sound from the geiger counter which was noticable in earlier videos…

          • artefact

            On Facebook: “We
            used two devices yesterday, a combustible gas detector – regular
            clicking, and a geiger counter – irregular beeps. The Geiger counters
            output is captured on the HUGNetLab data feed.”

        • US_Citizen71

          The deep steady ticking was the explosive gas detector used to check for hydrogen leaks. The high pitched occasional beeps was the geiger counter.

          • Curbina

            Well, they were actually happy about the bang. I guess this is a sucessful experiment albeit a bit expensive.

          • Ged

            Certainly an energetic result! I haven’t had a chance to inspect the data, but one facebook commentor posted the Geiger counter data from right before, showing a spike of two orders of magnitude (from 10^-6 to 10^-4 seconds before explosion). Don’t know if that is meaningful or noise without full record inspection, but it is something to look into.

          • Curbina

            Certainly it’s early to make any more conclusions other than the internal pressure does indeed rises notoriously as Parkhomov has insisted. But judging by the level of excitement and wording by the witnesses of the event, they were really happy.

            “That was
            exciting!”

            “Did you hear
            it?!”

            “Was the shield a good
            idea?”

            “The shield was a good idea!”
            (Laughter)

            “Oh mama!… we have no silicon
            carbide element, and we have a vapourised
            reactor…”

            “So… was that a runaway
            reaction? Are we in the domain of Parkhomov?”

          • Ged

            I took a look at hugnet, and the Geiger data is just too noisy to say anything about at 30 sec averaging. Will have to wait for their report indeed, and reactor autopsy.

          • Omega Z

            What you talking about Ged?.
            There’s nothing left to Autopsy!

          • Ged

            Can always get a ballistics team in here to reconstruct the scene ;).

          • Omega Z

            Autopsies begin by dissecting so most of the work is done.
            Finding all the pieces may be problematic. 🙂

          • Obvious

            I don’t think they were happy about the bang. More like the giddy excitement of surviving a potentially very injurious experience. Ryan was fiddling around the reactor, with no protective gear (maybe just some goggles) only minutes before the explosion.

        • Omega Z

          That tick tick was a warning to leave the building.
          At least that’s the motto of my local postal carrier.

          An acquaintance of mine that was in Bomb disposal always said if I see him running, I should follow suit.

    • Josh G

      Actually 3:47:39

      • tlp

        OK, now the video is 47 minutes longer.

  • tlp

    The explosion is at 3:00:44 on that video.

    • Obvious

      They almost missed capturing it on YouTube.

    • Josh G

      Actually 3:47:39 on the video above that Frank embedded

      • tlp

        OK, now the video is 47 minutes longer.

  • Obvious

    The emissivity seems to ramp up just before the breakage.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      Looks very similar to a pressure canister failure, however, that does not mean that it was not triggered by the start of the CF effect.

  • Obvious

    The emissivity seems to ramp up just before the breakage.

  • Gerard McEk

    Maybe that temperatures above 1000 C require an extremely slow rise such that Ni can absorb the H2? The good point is that you seem to have a proper method of sealing now!

    • Bob Greenyer

      I recorded a local – higher resolution video of the evenings experiments as I was not liking what the uplink was able to achieve. I have made a short video around “the event”. It is uploading now. Please pay special attention to the area of the protective outer alumina cylinder that is painted with the high emissivity paint.

      []=Project Dog Bone=[]

      Thank you to all of the people that made these tests possible.

      • Chris the 2nd

        The big question is, what happened. Did your reactor lose integrity due to pressure.. or something else?

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          looks like a pressure failure. on the plus side, the reactor doesn’t leak, downside… its a pipe bomb.

          • More like a party favor.

          • Omega Z

            Careful what you say. Gary Wright will sic the regulators on them for making a pipe bomb.

      • Looks like that ~1 inch cylinder toward the middle of the picture has a sudden very large increase in temperature.

        What are possible explanations for that (other than the reactor core got ridiculously hot)? Why isn’t the temperature spike larger on the graph if that’s the case. Does the reaction happen in less time than the span between thermocouple data collection?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Simple, cheap, fast, reliable sealing method. But it seriously highlights the safety issue!

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      yeah it oohs like either the nickel did not load adequately, or there was an overabundance of hydrogen in the chamber, or perhaps some effect of reaching the critical range caused a forcible unloading of the nickel lattice.

  • Gerard McEk

    Maybe that temperatures above 1000 C require an extremely slow rise such that Ni can absorb the H2? The good point is that you seem to have a proper method of sealing now!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Simple, cheap, fast, reliable sealing method. But it seriously highlights the safety issue!

    • NCY

      yeah it looks like either the nickel did not load adequately, or there was an overabundance of hydrogen in the chamber, or perhaps some effect of reaching the critical range caused a forcible unloading of the nickel lattice.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I recorded a local – higher resolution video of the evenings experiments as I was not liking what the uplink was able to achieve. I have made a short video around “the event”. It is uploading now. Please pay special attention to the area of the protective outer alumina cylinder that is painted with the high emissivity paint.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Thank you to all of the people that made these tests possible.

    • Chris the 2nd

      The big question is, what happened. Did your reactor lose integrity due to pressure.. or something else?

      • NCY

        looks like a pressure failure. on the plus side, the reactor doesn’t leak, downside… its a pipe bomb.

        • More like a party favor.

        • Omega Z

          Careful what you say. Gary Wright will sic the regulators on them for making a pipe bomb.

    • Looks like that ~1 inch cylinder toward the middle of the picture has a sudden very large increase in temperature.

      What are possible explanations for that (other than the reactor core got ridiculously hot)? Why isn’t the temperature spike larger on the graph if that’s the case. Does the reaction happen in less time than the span between thermocouple data collection?

      On edit: Looks like about a 50 deg C temperature rise over just a couple of seconds. Something changed for sure.

  • tlp
  • peter gluck

    I am sorry for the loss of this Hot Kitten however I also had one deceased by explosion in my Gedanken- no Traumen experiment of heating the reactor to 1200 C by using hot molten tin as heat transfer agent-as described on my Bog two days ago.
    Probably a coincidence.
    Peter

  • tlp
  • peter gluck

    I am sorry for the loss of this Hot Kitten however I also had one deceased by explosion in my Gedanken- no Traumen experiment of heating the reactor to 1200 C by using hot molten tin as heat transfer agent-as described on my Bog two days ago.
    Probably a coincidence.
    Peter

  • guest2

    The counts seemed to go up just before and during the explosion.

  • Clear evidence of some kind of runaway reaction. Whether it was LENR or some kind of sudden chemical change requires further investigation.

    But it’s LENR ;).

    • tlp

      Should put it in a bomb calorimeter to verify how much energy is in the explosion. Could be more than chemical? Maybe a little expensive testing this way…

      • They should make one that can stand the pressure so we can see how hot it gets.

        • US_Citizen71

          My take away from watching it last night was that this was a pressure vessel failure and not a runaway reaction. I think many things can be learned from it here are a few:

          1. Just like the number one rule in rocketry, “Always assume it will it explode!”
          2. It is likely a good idea to leave a bit of a void to allow for expansion of the hydrogen at temperature as well as for the other factors that would increase the pressure ( thermal expansion of the nickel, thermal expansion of the alumina tube which should shrink the internal volume of the core, etc…).
          3. Placement of the thermocouples was not likely ideal as the Williamson pyrometer seemed to show higher temperatures and react faster to power increases than the thermocouples did. Core temperatures may have been much higher than recorded.
          4. A steel tube with a single endcap might make a good addition to the design so if the core fails due to pressure the setup becomes a canon instead of a bomb. An open ended steel tube might have saved that expensive heating element.

  • Clear evidence of some kind of runaway reaction. Whether it was LENR or some kind of sudden chemical change requires further investigation.

    But it’s LENR ;).

    • tlp

      Should put it in a bomb calorimeter to verify how much energy is in the explosion. Could be more than chemical? Maybe a little expensive testing this way…

      • They should make one that can stand the pressure so we can see how hot it gets.

        On edit: I should think they’s have access to more resources now that they’ve got a potential positive result.

  • pg

    Anybody has any idea about this?

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.0147

    It seems another replication of Rossi’s work

    • That’s a math paper. Check your link.

      • Fyodor

        This looks to be just a theoretical explanation, rather than an experimental replication.

  • pg

    Anybody has any idea about this?

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.0147

    It seems another replication of Rossi’s work

    • That’s a math paper. Check your link.

      I think you meant: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01474

      • Fyodor

        This looks to be just a theoretical explanation, rather than an experimental replication.

  • John Page

    Very exciting, there is most definitely a localized heat event just as the explosion happened. The video clearly shows it. My first reaction is that you succeeded in having a LENR event. BUT, what’s the possibility that when the failure happened, escaping hydrogen ignited? That localized heat bloom almost appears to increase after the pop.

    • webscience

      I tried to analyze the sound of the video, and slowed it down three times. There does not to be anything happening before the explosion, like fizzing gas leaking, or a transformer buzzing.

      Here is a video of the slow pace soundtrack:
      http://youtu.be/PjhsYhPz-5g

  • John Page

    Very exciting, there is most definitely a localized heat event just as the explosion happened. The video clearly shows it. My first reaction is that you succeeded in having a LENR event. BUT, what’s the possibility that when the failure happened, escaping hydrogen ignited? That localized heat bloom almost appears to increase after the pop.

    • Webscience

      I tried to analyze the sound of the video, and slowed it down three times. There does not to be anything happening before the explosion, like fizzing gas leaking, or a transformer buzzing.

      Here is a video of the slow pace soundtrack:
      http://youtu.be/PjhsYhPz-5g

  • NCkhawk

    Very interesting – were any energetic particle detectors running when the reactor vessel gave up the ghost?

  • NCkhawk

    Very interesting – were any energetic particle detectors running when the reactor vessel gave up the ghost?

  • Veblin

    WIRED UK – DAVID HAMBLING
    Cold fusion E-Cat experiment ends explosively
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-02/06/cold-fusion-reactor

  • Veblin

    WIRED UK – DAVID HAMBLING
    Cold fusion E-Cat experiment ends explosively
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-02/06/cold-fusion-reactor

  • Bob Greenyer

    I made a higher quality recording of the composite stream locally as I was not happy with the quality that Youtube was getting due to bandwidth in previous videos.

    Here is the “event” segment

    http://youtu.be/dDfRaDY2R_A

    • Jarea1

      Minute 2:30 you can hear the bang

    • Axil Axil

      I would like to see a frame by frame timeline of all variables including gamma counts and video/sound events to help with the determination of the cause of this explosive event.

      • Obvious

        SiO2 + H2 -> SiO + H2O
        Bang.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I made a higher quality recording of the composite stream locally as I was not happy with the quality that Youtube was getting due to bandwidth in previous videos.

    Here is the “event” segment

    http://youtu.be/dDfRaDY2R_A

    • Jarea

      Minute 2:30 you can hear the bang

    • Axil Axil

      I would like to see a frame by frame timeline of all variables including gamma counts and video/sound events to help with the determination of the cause of this explosive event.

      • Obvious

        SiO2 + H2 -> SiO + H2O
        Bang.

  • US_Citizen71

    My take away from watching it last night was that this was a pressure vessel failure and not a runaway reaction. I think many things can be learned from it here are a few:

    1. Just like the number one rule in rocketry, “Always assume it will it explode!”
    2. It is likely a good idea to leave a bit of a void to allow for expansion of the hydrogen at temperature as well as for the other factors that would increase the pressure ( thermal expansion of the nickel, thermal expansion of the alumina tube which should shrink the internal volume of the core, etc…).
    3. Placement of the thermocouples was not likely ideal as the Williamson pyrometer seemed to show higher temperatures and react faster to power increases than the thermocouples did. Core temperatures may have been much higher than recorded.
    4. A steel tube with a single endcap might make a good addition to the design so if the core fails due to pressure the setup becomes a canon instead of a bomb. An open ended steel tube might have saved that expensive heating element.

  • Andrew Hurley

    I dont know how accurate this is but I read somewhere that it is necessary to bring the temperature of the reactor up to 700 degrees and then back down several times to get the hydrogen to move into the nickel. Is it possible without this it could just explode?

    • tlp

      I was wondering why in Lugano report the startup period was not recorded. Rossi may have wanted to keep it secret.

      • Omega Z

        The start-up period would skew the COP calculations.

  • what is that steady tick tick sound? a geiger counter?

    • artefact

      Yes. The red lines in video.

    • Frank Acland

      I think it’s a hydrogen detector.

      • artefact

        ..Then they deactivated the sound from the geiger counter which was noticable in earlier videos…

      • artefact

        On Facebook: “We
        used two devices yesterday, a combustible gas detector – regular
        clicking, and a geiger counter – irregular beeps. The Geiger counters
        output is captured on the HUGNetLab data feed.”

    • US_Citizen71

      The deep steady ticking was the explosive gas detector used to check for hydrogen leaks. The high pitched occasional beeps was the geiger counter.

    • Omega Z

      That tick tick was a warning to leave the building.
      At least that’s the motto of my local postal carrier.

      An acquaintance of mine that was in Bomb disposal always said if I see him running, I should follow suit.

  • Curbina

    Well, they were actually happy about the bang. I guess this is a sucessful experiment albeit a bit expensive.

    • Ged

      Certainly an energetic result! I haven’t had a chance to inspect the data, but one facebook commentor posted the Geiger counter data from right before, showing a spike of two orders of magnitude (from 10^-6 to 10^-4 seconds before explosion). Don’t know if that is meaningful or noise without full record inspection, but it is something to look into.

      • Curbina

        Certainly it’s early to make any more conclusions other than the internal pressure does indeed rises notoriously as Parkhomov has insisted. But judging by the level of excitement and wording by the witnesses of the event, they were really happy.

        “That was
        exciting!”

        “Did you hear
        it?!”

        “Was the shield a good
        idea?”

        “The shield was a good idea!”
        (Laughter)

        “Oh mama!… we have no silicon
        carbide element, and we have a vapourised
        reactor…”

        “So… was that a runaway
        reaction? Are we in the domain of Parkhomov?”

        • Ged

          I took a look at hugnet, and the Geiger data is just too noisy to say anything about at 30 sec averaging. Will have to wait for their report indeed, and reactor autopsy.

          • Omega Z

            What you talking about Ged?.
            There’s nothing left to Autopsy!

          • Ged

            Can always get a ballistics team in here to reconstruct the scene ;).

          • Omega Z

            Autopsies begin by dissecting so most of the work is done.
            Finding all the pieces may be problematic. 🙂

    • Obvious

      I don’t think they were happy about the bang. More like the giddy excitement of surviving a potentially very injurious experience. Ryan was fiddling around the reactor, with no protective gear (maybe just some goggles) only minutes before the explosion.

  • uDevil

    Just by looking at the data at Hugnetlab, it isn’t clear that anything interesting happened. On the other hand, there are missing details about how signals are treated, measured, and recorded.Whatever the cause, something interesting DID happen. It’s a good that they thought to put up a barrier, not so good that they waited to the last minute to do it. I understand the impulse to do things quickly, but please take appropriate precautions..

    • Ged

      We also have to wait for their report to see what the calibration curve of the SiC reactor is, as they calibrated right before the fueled run. That’s the only valid comparison to tell if interesting stuff happened prior to the explosion. But given that the boom occurred right after passing the fabeled 1000 C mark for when reaction should start with this fuel loadout, the boom may be all we see.

    • Obvious

      The pressure sensor seems to have been dead from the beginning, making only noise between around 0 and 1 psi. So no warning of impending pressure danger.

      The background CPS is noisy, but typical. They probably could have increased the signal over the experiment area background by just putting the monitor on the cement floor (or a chunk of syenite, as a test). There was no increasing gamma signal near the end, above the general noise level.

      The Williamson emissivity does seem to ramp up slightly, coincident with the final power step, although it is slowly increasing (normal) with increased power for the whole experiment. It is hard to tell if it is a slight bump in the general trend, since it did not have time to continue long enough to separate it convincingly from the general trend. It does look like a departure from the line, visually. Numerically, it isn’t particularly significant-looking.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.

        • Obvious

          Did you test the sensor after the earlier stainless tube test? It was acting weird then. Was the cause of that determined? Or was that real fluctuations, in your opinion?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Parkhomov seamed to think the fluctuations might be valid from that experiment based on another Russians work.

          • Obvious

            There must be a better way to attach a pressure sensor somehow. It certainly is tricky, considering the volatile environment it must survive, and that the sensor itself can be a cause for leaks. An early warning that things are heading towards a dangerous overpressure situation would be a valuable addition to the experiment.

          • uDevil

            Unless the reactor is considered disposable, it may be worth adding a burst disk for pressure relief, so that the thing fails in a more predicable way.

        • Omega Z

          @Bob Greenyer

          Did I see something to the effect that your using about 10%( LiAlH4 ) or was that Parkhomov.

          If I recall correctly, Didn’t Rossi’s Lugano charge have a smaller proportion of ( LiAlH4 ) verses Nickel. 1% or 0.1%

          Maybe these reactors are pressure exploding due to excess hydrogen release & expansion pressure. Just a thought.

          Note: Keep the shield up. The thought that you put the shield up just 1.5 minutes before it blew is kind of scary close!

          Years ago I had a premonition that I should stand back from an Industrial Furnace. Had that premonition been 5 seconds sooner, I wouldn’t have learned how to fly 20 feet without wings.

          • Obvious

            Pretty lucky that the thing popped after the nickel powder was sintered.

  • Ged

    We also have to wait for their report to see what the calibration curve of the SiC reactor is, as they calibrated right before the fueled run. That’s the only valid comparison to tell if interesting stuff happened prior to the explosion. But given that the boom occurred right after passing the fabeled 1000 C mark for when reaction should start with this fuel loadout, the boom may be all we see.

  • tlp

    I was wondering why in Lugano report the startup period was not recorded. Rossi may have wanted to keep it secret.

    • Omega Z

      The start-up period would skew the COP calculations.

  • Obvious

    The pressure senor seems to have been dead from the beginning, making only noise between around 0 and 1 psi. So no warning of impending pressure danger.

    The background CPS is noisy, but typical. They probably could have increased the signal over the experiment area by just putting the monitor on the cement floor (as a test). There was no increasing gamma signal near the end, above the general noise level.

    The Williamson emissivity does seem to ramp up slightly, coincident with the final power step, although it is slowly increasing (normal) with increased power for the whole experiment. It is hard to tell if it is a slight bump in the general trend, since it did not have time to continue long enough to separate it convincingly from the general trend. It does look like a departure from the line, visually. Numerically, it isn’t particularly significant-looking.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.

      • Obvious

        Did you test the sensor after the earlier stainless tube test? It was acting weird then. Was the cause of that determined? Or was that real fluctuations, in your opinion?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Parkhomov seamed to think the fluctuations might be valid from that experiment based on another Russians work.

          • Obvious

            There must be a better way to attach a pressure sensor somehow. It certainly is tricky, considering the volatile environment it must survive, and that the sensor itself can be a cause for leaks. An early warning that things are heading towards a dangerous overpressure situation would be a valuable addition to the experiment.

      • Omega Z

        @Bob Greenyer

        Did I see something to the effect that your using about 10%( LiAlH4 ) or was that Parkhomov.

        If I recall correctly, Didn’t Rossi’s Lugano charge have a smaller proportion of ( LiAlH4 ) verses Nickel. 1% or 0.1%

        Maybe these reactors are pressure exploding due to excess hydrogen release & expansion pressure. Just a thought.

        Note: Keep the shield up. The thought that you put the shield up just 1.5 minutes before it blew is kind of scary close!

        Years ago I had a premonition that I should stand back from an Industrial Furnace. Had that premonition been 5 seconds sooner, I wouldn’t have learned how to fly 20 feet without wings.

        • Obvious

          Pretty lucky that the thing popped after the nickel powder was sintered.

  • Axil Axil

    Did anybody else pick this up when viewing the 3:47 long video? When the explosive sequene begins at 2:30 with a bang, the radiation counter goes wild. The counter seems to correspond with a color change in the center of the tube from white(hot) to scarlet(cold) that proceeds left to right on the underside of the alumina tube for a few inches until all the white area is replaced by scarlet color. This correspondence between the g-counter and the color change process seems to lasts until 2:34 when both the color change process and the g-counter activity stops together precisely.

    There seems to be a change in state happening inside the tube between 2:30 and 2:34 corresponding to a large production in gamma radiation. What was the maximum gamma level detected? Was it 1.02 GeV? That is, electron positron radiation as reported by Rossi?.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Electron-positron annihilation would produce 511 keV gammas. However, I doubt that the instrument that they used is capable to measure the energy precisely.

      • Obvious

        I’m pretty sure that detector is just a scintillometer, and only measures Counts Per Second. A spectrometer is needed to record the gamma energy spectrum.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You would still get an elevated count because of the gamma interacting.
          It did not show anything out of the ordinary.

          • Obvious

            An elevated count, yes, but with no energy information.
            Without going above the spiky background, the local spikes cannot be attributed to anything special.
            Normal background for the equipment I use is around 150 to 275 CPS, and some intrusive rocks and unusual volcanic rocks can read from 350 to 1000 CPS over enormous areas.

      • Axil Axil

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

        “Photon-nucleus pair production can only occur if the photons have an energy exceeding twice the rest energy (mec2) of an electron (0.511 MeV rest energy doubled to 1.022 MeV).”

        • Obvious

          Would you not only read one of the gammas, with the other going the opposite direction?

          • Axil Axil

            Yes

          • Obvious

            With a tubular detector, you could probably get them both enough times for confirmation.

    • Obvious

      The noise is the gas detector. The scint beeps. Not sure why the pump makes a racket. Maybe once it gets a significant reading, it samples more often. There are way higher gamma peaks nowhere near the explosion time. Random little gamma bursts is typical. I have used gamma detectors for years. In the field, outside, in areas of higher background CPS, the wind will push a little surface radon around, which is detected as an increase in counts just before you feel the wind on your face

      • US_Citizen71

        The sound isn’t a pump its the speaker on the detector. The detector was set to a very sensitive setting so it was about to go off the entire time. That is why is sounded like a metronome. Similar setup and alert mechanism to the freon detectors I used in the NAVY. They screech when they detect something, watch the earlier part of the long video where they do the flame test for hydrogen. The hydrocarbons from the candle set it off.

        • Obvious

          I thought the metronome sound was the gas detector taking a little gasp of air. I’ll have a look at the earlier part of the video; I tuned in late in the experiment last night. I was wondering what the alert sound was from that when it went into warning mode.

  • Axil Axil

    Did anybody else pick this up when viewing the 3:47 long video? When the explosive sequene begins at 2:30 with a bang, the radiation counter goes wild. The counter seems to correspond with a color change in the center of the tube from white(hot) to scarlet(cold) that proceeds left to right on the underside of the alumina tube for a few inches until all the white area is replaced by scarlet color. This correspondence between the g-counter and the color change process seems to lasts until 2:34 when both the color change process and the g-counter activity stops together precisely.

    There seems to be a change in state happening inside the tube between 2:30 and 2:34 corresponding to a large production in gamma radiation. What was the maximum gamma level detected? Was it 1.02 GeV? That is, electron positron radiation as reported by Rossi?.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Electron-positron annihilation would produce 511 keV gammas. However, I doubt that the instrument that they used is capable to measure the energy precisely.

      • Obvious

        I’m pretty sure that detector is just a scintillometer, and only measures Counts Per Second. A spectrometer is needed to record the gamma energy spectrum.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You would still get an elevated count because of the gamma interacting.
          It did not show anything out of the ordinary.

          • Obvious

            An elevated count, yes, but with no energy information.
            Without going above the spiky background, the local spikes cannot be attributed to anything special.
            Normal background for the equipment I use is around 150 to 275 CPS, and some intrusive rocks and unusual volcanic rocks can read from 350 to 1000 CPS over enormous areas.

      • Axil Axil

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

        “Photon-nucleus pair production can only occur if the photons have an energy exceeding twice the rest energy (mec2) of an electron (0.511 MeV rest energy doubled to 1.022 MeV).”

        • Obvious

          Would you not only read one of the gammas, with the other going the opposite/another direction?

          • Axil Axil

            Yes

          • Obvious

            With a tubular detector, you could probably get them both enough times for confirmation.

    • Obvious

      The noise is the gas detector. The scint beeps. Not sure why the gas detector pump makes a racket. Maybe once it gets a significant reading, it samples/purges more often.

      There are way higher gamma peaks nowhere near the explosion time. Random little gamma bursts is typical. I have used gamma detectors for years. In the field, outside, in areas of higher background CPS, the wind will push a little surface radon around, which is detected as an increase in counts just before you feel the wind on your face

      • US_Citizen71

        The sound isn’t a pump its the speaker on the detector. The detector was set to a very sensitive setting so it was about to go off the entire time. That is why is sounded like a metronome. Similar setup and alert mechanism to the freon detectors I used in the NAVY. They screech when they detect something, watch the earlier part of the long video where they do the flame test for hydrogen. The hydrocarbons from the candle set it off.

        • Obvious

          I thought the metronome sound was the gas detector taking a little gasp of air. I’ll have a look at the earlier part of the video; I tuned in late in the experiment last night. I was wondering what the alert sound was from that when it went into warning mode.
          Edit: At 50:30 I see the candle test, so you are correct.

  • Axil Axil

    At 2.29 a white spot appears in the field of scarlet but the power going through the coil is still nominal. This means that the reaction is not caused by a short circuit in the heater element. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

    The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet stating at 2:31. The power going through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current flow.

    • US_Citizen71

      I just watched that sequence at .25 speed (you can change the speed of playback under the settings gear) I think what is seen is a hydrogen flame. It appears to expand outwards from a split in the silicon carbide coil in the air. The white color on the exterior of the reactor in the video wasn’t visible, it is due to intense infrared making it past the built in IR filter in the camera. Even a perfect blue flame would likely show bright white with that camera.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Axil,

      You mean on the left of the tube. I am assuming that is purely the SiC heater element connector there as it is considerably cooler than the rest of the body pre-explosion.

      The explosion seems to me to be no synchronized in the audio and video channel — the time of the explosion on the video can be seen when the rod coming out the right of the tube move off center.

      If you look at the frames exact;u at the time of the explosion you can see white material moving from the right of the tube. I guess that is the end cap I don’t know.

      A few frames later a white tendril, maybe 1/2 cm tall, roughly triangular shaped emerges from the mid part of the tube that is white hot as seen by this camera.

      The the left part of the SiC heater element on the left of the tube appears to get very hot, all while the current spikes to 70 amps+, the voltage drops only 3 or 4 volts, and we here on the audio track what may be the transformer of the power supply vibrating from the overload current making the magnetism so large in the transformer that it is vibrating the windings or the plates within.

      Does anyone know where this “hot spot” is in the video.

      I am guessing that the unit failed somewhere in the middle, scattering alumina, thus terminating the LENR reaction. When the unit opened to the air, I would image that the hydrogen flashed in the oxygen, and that the lithium and the aluminum in the LiAl both combusted, perhaps with the nickel. I also guess that when the tube failed, it bent the SiC heating element until it shorted out mid way through, and the extra current through the now shorted out SiC was more than the input connectors could take, and that is why the left side briefly heated up during the short out.

  • Axil Axil

    At 2.29 a white spot appears in the field of scarlet but the power going through the coil is still nominal. This means that the reaction is not caused by a short circuit in the heater element. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

    The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet stating at 2:31. The power going through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current flow.

    • US_Citizen71

      I just watched that sequence at .25 speed (you can change the speed of playback under the settings gear) I think what is seen is a hydrogen flame. It appears to expand outwards from a split in the silicon carbide coil into the air. The white color on the exterior of the reactor in the video wasn’t visible, it is due to intense infrared making it past the built in IR filter in the camera. Even a perfect blue flame would likely show bright white with that camera.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Axil,

      You mean on the left of the tube. I am assuming that is purely the SiC heater element connector there as it is considerably cooler than the rest of the body pre-explosion.

      The explosion seems to me to be no synchronized in the audio and video channel — the time of the explosion on the video can be seen when the rod coming out the right of the tube move off center.

      If you look at the frames exact;u at the time of the explosion you can see white material moving from the right of the tube. I guess that is the end cap I don’t know.

      A few frames later a white tendril, maybe 1/2 cm tall, roughly triangular shaped emerges from the mid part of the tube that is white hot as seen by this camera.

      The the left part of the SiC heater element on the left of the tube appears to get very hot, all while the current spikes to 70 amps+, the voltage drops only 3 or 4 volts, and we here on the audio track what may be the transformer of the power supply vibrating from the overload current making the magnetism so large in the transformer that it is vibrating the windings or the plates within.

      Does anyone know where this “hot spot” is in the video.

      I am guessing that the unit failed somewhere in the middle, scattering alumina, thus terminating the LENR reaction. When the unit opened to the air, I would image that the hydrogen flashed in the oxygen, and that the lithium and the aluminum in the LiAl both combusted, perhaps with the nickel. I also guess that when the tube failed, it bent the SiC heating element until it shorted out mid way through, and the extra current through the now shorted out SiC was more than the input connectors could take, and that is why the left side briefly heated up during the short out.

  • Sanjeev

    Some people (the outsiders) are going to see this as a cold fusion signature (is that good or bad for CF, no idea).
    http://london.report/index/cold-fusion-ecat-experiment-ends-explosively

    • Ged

      Bangs are thrilling and something everyone can understand. But we need thorough analysis of the event to understand why it may have occurred and how to deal with it in future tests. It’s the dramatic results the MFMP has always been secretly hoping for, so it’s quite exciting. -Something- worked, you can visibly see superheating occurring with the bang, but the question is what does that mean, and that is not yet answered till we get the MFMP full analysis, just like with the first replication attempt.

      Hopefully the public will understand that. But it still brings awareness to the MFMP, and we know they are on the right track (got that hydrogen pressure issue fixed! No more Swiss cheese stainless steel).

      • Anon2012_2014

        Download the data from hugnet with the history setting. The data is from 0 GMT to 7 GMT. The time stamp is about every 3 seconds (irregular).

        Load into excel the Geiger data vs time and plot it with a scatter plot (x vs y) with lines berween the points.

        The signal at the minimum will be clear and obvious vs the temperature of the reactor.

        Could be that IR from the alumina tube got to the GM tube.

  • Sanjeev

    Some people (the outsiders) are going to see this as a cold fusion signature (is that good or bad for CF, no idea).
    http://london.report/index/cold-fusion-ecat-experiment-ends-explosively

    • Ged

      Bangs are thrilling and something everyone can understand. But we need thorough analysis of the event to understand why it may have occurred and how to deal with it in future tests. It’s the dramatic results the MFMP has always been secretly hoping for, so it’s quite exciting. -Something- worked, but the question is what, and that is not yet answered till we get the MFMP full analysis, just like with the first replication attempt.

      Hopefully the public will understand that. But it still brings awareness to the MFMP, and we know they are on the right track (got that hydrogen pressure issue fixed! No more Swiss cheese stainless steel).

      • Anon2012_2014

        Posted in the wrong place — moved it up to correct response (on GM Tube vs. temp.)

  • Anon2012_2014

    Bob,

    If you look at the geiger counter “volts” (I assume it is counts), the minimum increases during the period that the reactor is operating, and then decreases after reactor failure/burnout.

    Thus I believe we have detected a small increase in radiation coming from the device which is well below the background; IF this is not measurement error within the geiger counter.

    This is either measurement error as sending power into the device is influencing the geiger counter (or heating the geiger counter is influencing the geiger counter), or it is radiation causing the geiger counter to count.

    • Ged

      From what I, very limitedly, understand about most Geiger counters, is that heat can increase the rate of background noise in the detector. On the other hand, the counter is some distance away from the device; so the question is if the area around the counter got hotter, if so by how much, and if so how much does the baseline of the counter raise per unit temperature climb in its vicinity? It may be this obvious baseline climb is from the heat, or it could be a signature, there is just no way for me to say with the data I have, but I’d rather want to err on the side of caution and attribute it to heating in the absence of other data to the contrary.

      The 30 second averaging of the data on Hugnet may hide any rapid spiking that happened around the much shorter than 30 second boom window, too; but we must work with the data we got and not try to infill into the unknown. I believe Ecco has looked at this some and other than the rising baseline, didn’t notice a signal in the gamma detector–but then when I watch the video the gamma detector very audibly goes nuts right before and during the bang before returning to normal rather quickly after that. So, I dunno. Without the raw data, I don’t know if something was seen or not, it’s all too brief.

      • US_Citizen71

        What you hear during the failure is two things. An increased ticking of explosive gas detector the midrange sound that is regular like a metronome. The other sound is electrical arcing near the base of the heating element, you can see the blue sparks moving in time with the sound. The geiger counter does chirp right before the boom but it chirped off and on the entire time they had it on.

        • Ged

          I will have to defer to your auditory abilities on this one.

          • US_Citizen71

            I was watching live last night, when it went boom I replayed it several times via my Chromecast on my big screen and through my surround sound system. I wish it showed something else besides a pressure failure but there just doesn’t seem to be anything there to justify coming to that conclusion.

          • Ged

            It’s not surprising given the temperatures and pressures we know it can likely reach.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Download the data from hugnet with the history setting. The data is from 0 GMT to 7 GMT. The time stamp is about every 3 seconds (irregular).

        Load into excel the Geiger data vs time and plot it with a scatter plot (x vs y) with lines berween the points.

        The signal at the minimum will be clear and obvious vs the temperature of the reactor.

        Could be that IR from the alumina tube got to the GM tube.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Bob,

    If you look at the geiger counter “volts” (I assume it is counts), the minimum increases during the period that the reactor is operating, and then decreases after reactor failure/burnout.

    Thus I believe we have detected a small increase in radiation coming from the device which is well below the background; IF this is not measurement error within the geiger counter.

    This is either measurement error as sending power into the device is influencing the geiger counter (or heating the geiger counter is influencing the geiger counter), or it is radiation causing the geiger counter to count.

    • Ged

      From what I, very limitedly, understand about most Geiger counters, is that heat can increase the rate of background noise in the detector. On the other hand, the counter is some distance away from the device; so the question is if the area around the counter got hotter, if so by how much, and if so how much does the baseline of the counter raise per unit temperature climb in its vicinity? It may be this obvious baseline climb is from the heat, or it could be a signature, there is just no way for me to say with the data I have, but I’d rather want to err on the side of caution and attribute it to heating in the absence of other data to the contrary.

      The 30 second averaging of the data on Hugnet may hide any rapid spiking that happened around the much shorter than 30 second boom window, too; but we must work with the data we got and not try to infill into the unknown. I believe Ecco has looked at this some and other than the rising baseline, didn’t notice a signal in the gamma detector–but then when I watch the video the gamma detector very audibly goes nuts right before and during the bang before returning to normal rather quickly after that. So, I dunno. Without the raw data, I don’t know if something was seen or not, it’s all too brief.

      • US_Citizen71

        What you hear during the failure is two things. An increased ticking of explosive gas detector the midrange sound that is regular like a metronome. The other sound is electrical arcing near the base of the heating element, you can see the heat from the sparks moving in time with the sound. The geiger counter does chirp right before the boom but it chirped off and on the entire time they had it on.

        • Ged

          I will have to defer to your auditory abilities on this one.

          • US_Citizen71

            I was watching live last night, when it went boom I replayed it several times via my Chromecast on my big screen and through my surround sound system. I wish it showed something else besides a pressure failure but there just doesn’t seem to be anything there to justify coming to that conclusion.

          • Ged

            It’s not surprising given the temperatures and pressures we know it can likely reach.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Download the data from hugnet with the history setting. The data is from 0 GMT to 7 GMT. The time stamp is about every 3 seconds (irregular).

        Load into excel the Geiger data vs time and plot it with a scatter plot (x vs y) with lines berween the points.

        The signal at the minimum will be clear and obvious vs the temperature of the reactor.

        Could be that IR from the alumina tube got to the GM tube.

  • Herb Gillis

    Was there enough H2 in the reactor to explain the explosion? For example; if the casing suddenly cracked causing H2 to rush out and combine with O2 in the air.

  • Andrea

    My idea is to use a vacuum pump before filling reactor with powder then seal it.
    P*V=n*R*T

    • Bob Greenyer

      We should have filled in dry air not Argon. The O2 and N2 would be combined with Aluminum to form refractory compounds in the breakdown of LiAlH4 – the argon cover gas when we filled it would not.

      If we added a little Zirconium, that would getter and sequester any CO and CO2 and would also adsorb the H2 from the LiAlH4 – We could then regulate the H2 by thermally reversible dis-adsorbtion adsorption from the Zirconium

  • Bob Greenyer

    Basic construction of a *GlowStick*

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    In this video, Alan Goldwater discusses his sealing method during construction of the *GlowStick* pressure tester and reactors and the test core for the SiC element.

    http://youtu.be/n9rWKhzj4SY

    • artefact

      So the sealing is done just with aluminium rings? that is easy and inexpensive.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, making a *GlowStick* takes about an hour if you have things on hand and is a dry process that requires no kiln.

    • Axil Axil

      On vortex. James Bowery accused MFMP of invalid video presentation as follows:

      “The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into different sections of the frame.

      It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.

      Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video – very badly.”

      Axil’s response was as follows”

      “It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second out of sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin against science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to follow false leads and waste tons of time trying to figure out a pressure related problem that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as water in the steam type issue that we have spent days and days talking about. This is a shot at process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR experimentation as science.

      The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening in an experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors.

      At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is a hot spot failure of the core.”

      Can you assure the world that the video feed of the experiment is completely trustworthy?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Axil.

        If I had my way and we had the budget, I would have used one or other of Newtek’s TriCasters for the live feed. That was not on the table however.

        These are the facts of how the LIVE composite stream was made.

        Until we had the failure that caused the demise of the Optris camera, we used an ASROCK gaming PC (Whose motherboard died in the same event.

        After that, we used a new Lenovo quad core laptop as the machine to composite the elements of the live stream.

        In both cases, we used many cam from http://manycam.com to composite the various feeds and to provide switchable sources to the Google live stream. For the money, it is an amazing piece of software.

        In the previous tests we did before, the dog bone heat up with TCs and the pressure fuelled test, I only had access to the public HUGNetLab data stream in Czech that was sometimes as much as 15 minutes behind real-time. So for the recent tests we wanted to make that far better.

        What we did was, we linked to the web server on the machine that was directly connected to the HUGNetLab data acquisition board. Essentially we had the most recent data. However, as I understand it, there is still a small delay posting live aggregate data to the database from which the graphs are drawn. You can see this in the live feed as a periodic “chunk” of data being graphed. Someone with a keen eye could work out what that gap between refreshes is, indeed there is a refresh in the course of the “Bang!” video at the point where I am noticing that the K and B type Thermocouple readings are converging.

        The data from the PCE-830 software is sampled every 2 seconds (that is the smallest time difference permitted by the software). Additionally, the software would not run on the more modern machines without crashing them, so to avoid bringing the whole stream down, we had a separate older and compatible laptop capturing the feed from the PCE-830 and we ran a remote desktop session to that laptop to capture the screen. This was composited into the live feed in ManyCam. Additionally, with the PCE-830 clamp set to 100A the W resolution was not so high. There was therefore at least a 2 second delay in the sampling and probably a little more by the time the remote desktop session was captured and in the composite.

        In the Swagelok sealing Live Streamed video of over 4.45 hours, which included the failure of the SiC heated core, we had one cheap webcam trained on the Williamson IR, one roaming camera (which was my Galaxy Note 2 phone) a Microsoft 720p webcam (which disconnected a few times because of the 2 long USB extension leads when we were moving from the glass jar to the SiC element). The HUGNet data and the PCE-830.

        The clock is a function of the ManyCam software and used the web-set clock on the Laptop as reference showing local time in Minesota, USA. HUGNet lab uses UTC, by comparing the time on the clock and that on HUGNet, you should be able to sync up the data precisely.

        We have many photos and other videos taken during the recording from scores of angles, we will post those in a gallery as soon as possible. All will be consistent.

        In addition, because the bandwidth was low out of HUG, I had set the frame rate to 10FPS (or even 5, but I think 10) I decided to use ManyCams ability to record its feed. I did this with ManyCams default settings on quality, in hindsight, I would have liked to up the data rate (I also wish I had 30fps after the event but it would have made the YouTube stream worse). Indeed, it may be the act of setting ManyCam to stream 10fps from 30fps feed that causes any audio/video off-set.

        ManyCams recording function only allows snapshots OR videos to be made. Therefore, I chose to video – until a key point, when I stopped the video recording, took snapshots into the common real-time shared folder that was available to all during the night at 1080p resolution, and then I switched back to the video recording function. This had the added advantage of splitting the video to avoid total loss from a system failure – there were though small drops in the higher quality captures, but I felt that youtube was recording the whole sequence, so that would not be a disaster.

        The Microsoft webcam was about 1.5m from the SiC assembly and the image was zoomed in ManyCam to who the region of interest.

        My personal opinion is that there should be nearly no delay from the visual fracturing of the reactor core/SiC element and the audio.

        ManyCam has the option to use any audio source for the composite stream that was available to the system. The system had the MicroSoft web cam, the other webcam that was trained on the Williamson and the laptops microphone. I am not certain which microphone was active at the time. It may be the case that in the move from the glass jar to the SiC element – where the extension leads caused several drop outs in the MicroSoft webcam, that many cam defaulted to system sound and that this is the reason for the delay in the audio.

        Additionally, you can see at the end of the full video, when I am again using my mobile, there is an “echo” because I think that ManyCam is adding the audio from its continuous source – to that of my mobile phone – therefore, there is definitely a delay on one.

        The video is exactly as it was made by ManyCam, and this feed was sent to Youtube live and recorded at the same time. If I had a whole load of professional cameras, a genlock, and introduced a forced delay of say 5-15 seconds (as most “Live Broadcasts” do) to ensure synching of all the HUGNet/PCE-830 data and a Tricaster to comp/switch everything – I would have done so – but we had neither the time, money or men at hand to do so.

        What we did was the most advance streaming of a live experiment this field has ever seen.

        I will publish the full sequences at higher quality ASAP – complete with whatever delays that ManyCam imparted on the recordings and which was reflected in the Youtube feed.

        I will also line do a post live recording version of the “Bang!” video, using the visual reference to queue the audio bang, but be aware, as the video is only 5 or 10fps from 30, I can only possibly be accurate to within 1/3 of a second if I do this work.

        I hope this clarifies the situation. I am suffering a lot of exhaustion from the past 8 weeks right now and jet lag to boot, also, a lot of back log in my real work, so please bear with me.

      • Bob Greenyer

        In addition, Ecco on our main site has noted that the actual live feed had the Audio and video in sync (or more so).

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9l356ymg8#t=13642

        in this video, the Bang comes before the visual, I think that you will find the visual is around 1/3 second out of sync as per my previous note indicating that the FPS on the live feed was set to 10 or 5, only this time it is the other way.

        I can only conclude that ManyCam got the audio a little off on its own recording, I now have a better reference for appropriate synching.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Basic construction of a *GlowStick*

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    In this video, Alan Goldwater discusses his sealing method during construction of the *GlowStick* pressure tester and reactors and the test core for the SiC element.

    http://youtu.be/n9rWKhzj4SY

    Note, all tubes in the video were filled with a Ni + LiAlH4 mixture except the control *GlowStick*

    • artefact

      So the sealing is done just with aluminium rings? that is easy and inexpensive.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, making a *GlowStick* takes about an hour if you have things on hand and is a dry process that requires no kiln.

        Easy, fast, cheap, reliable and, the SwageLoks are re-useable, just need a new ferrule which is under $2.

    • Axil Axil

      On vortex. James Bowery accused MFMP of invalid video presentation as follows:

      “The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into different sections of the frame.

      It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.

      Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video – very badly.”

      Axil’s response was as follows”

      “It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second out of sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin against science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to follow false leads and waste tons of time trying to figure out a pressure related problem that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as water in the steam type issue that we have spent days and days talking about. This is a shot at process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR experimentation as science.

      The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening in an experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors.

      At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is a hot spot failure of the core.”

      MFMP, can you assure the world that your video feed of this and future experiments are completely trustworthy?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Axil.

        If I had my way and we had the budget, I would have used one or other of Newtek’s TriCasters for the live feed. That was not on the table however.

        These are the facts of how the LIVE composite stream was made.

        Until we had the failure that caused the demise of the Optris camera, we used an ASROCK gaming PC (Whose motherboard died in the same event.

        After that, we used a new Lenovo quad core laptop as the machine to composite the elements of the live stream.

        In both cases, we used many cam from http://manycam.com to composite the various feeds and to provide switchable sources to the Google live stream. For the money, it is an amazing piece of software.

        In the previous tests we did before, the dog bone heat up with TCs and the pressure fuelled test, I only had access to the public HUGNetLab data stream in Czech that was sometimes as much as 15 minutes behind real-time. So for the recent tests we wanted to make that far better.

        What we did was, we linked to the web server on the machine that was directly connected to the HUGNetLab data acquisition board. Essentially we had the most recent data. However, as I understand it, there is still a small delay posting live aggregate data to the database from which the graphs are drawn. You can see this in the live feed as a periodic “chunk” of data being graphed. Someone with a keen eye could work out what that gap between refreshes is, indeed there is a refresh in the course of the “Bang!” video at the point where I am noticing that the K and B type Thermocouple readings are converging.

        The data from the PCE-830 software is sampled every 2 seconds (that is the smallest time difference permitted by the software). Additionally, the software would not run on the more modern machines without crashing them, so to avoid bringing the whole stream down, we had a separate older and compatible laptop capturing the feed from the PCE-830 and we ran a remote desktop session to that laptop to capture the screen. This was composited into the live feed in ManyCam. Additionally, with the PCE-830 clamp set to 100A the W resolution was not so high. There was therefore at least a 2 second delay in the sampling and probably a little more by the time the remote desktop session was captured and in the composite.

        In the Swagelok sealing Live Streamed video of over 4.45 hours, which included the failure of the SiC heated core, we had one cheap webcam trained on the Williamson IR, one roaming camera (which was my Galaxy Note 2 phone) a Microsoft 720p webcam (which disconnected a few times because of the 2 long USB extension leads when we were moving from the glass jar to the SiC element). The HUGNet data and the PCE-830.

        The clock is a function of the ManyCam software and used the web-set clock on the Laptop as reference showing local time in Minesota, USA. HUGNet lab uses UTC, by comparing the time on the clock and that on HUGNet, you should be able to sync up the data precisely.

        We have many photos and other videos taken during the recording from scores of angles, we will post those in a gallery as soon as possible. All will be consistent.

        In addition, because the bandwidth was low out of HUG, I had set the frame rate to 10FPS (or even 5, but I think 10) I decided to use ManyCams ability to record its feed. I did this with ManyCams default settings on quality, in hindsight, I would have liked to up the data rate (I also wish I had 30fps after the event but it would have made the YouTube stream worse). Indeed, it may be the act of setting ManyCam to stream 10fps from 30fps feed that causes any audio/video off-set.

        ManyCams recording function only allows snapshots OR videos to be made. Therefore, I chose to video – until a key point, when I stopped the video recording, took snapshots into the common real-time shared folder that was available to all during the night at 1080p resolution, and then I switched back to the video recording function. This had the added advantage of splitting the video to avoid total loss from a system failure – there were though small drops in the higher quality captures, but I felt that youtube was recording the whole sequence, so that would not be a disaster.

        The Microsoft webcam was about 1.5m from the SiC assembly and the image was zoomed in ManyCam to who the region of interest.

        My personal opinion is that there should be nearly no delay from the visual fracturing of the reactor core/SiC element and the bang in the audio.

        ManyCam has the option to use any audio source for the composite stream that was available to the system. The system had the MicroSoft web cam, the other webcam that was trained on the Williamson and the laptops microphone. I am not certain which microphone was active at the time. It may be the case that in the move from the glass jar to the SiC element – where the extension leads caused several drop outs in the MicroSoft webcam, that many cam defaulted to system sound and that this is the reason for the delay in the audio.

        Additionally, you can see at the end of the full video, when I am again using my mobile, there is an “echo” because I think that ManyCam is adding the audio from its continuous source – to that of my mobile phone – therefore, there is definitely a delay on one.

        The video is exactly as it was made by ManyCam, and this feed was sent to Youtube live and recorded at the same time. If I had a whole load of professional cameras, a genlock, and introduced a forced delay of say 5-15 seconds (as most “Live Broadcasts” do) to ensure synching of all the HUGNet/PCE-830 data and a Tricaster to comp/switch everything – I would have done so – but we had neither the time, money or men at hand to do so.

        What we did was the most advance streaming of a live experiment this field has ever seen.

        I will publish the full sequences at higher quality ASAP – complete with whatever delays that ManyCam imparted on the recordings and which was reflected in the Youtube feed.

        I will also like to do a post live recording version of the “Bang!” video, using the visual reference to queue the audio bang, but be aware, as the video is only 5 or 10fps from 30, I can only possibly be accurate to within 1/3 of a second if I do this work.

        I hope this clarifies the situation. I am suffering a lot of exhaustion from the past 8 weeks right now and jet lag to boot, also, a lot of back log in my real work, so please bear with me.

      • Bob Greenyer

        In addition, Ecco on our main site has noted that the actual live feed had the Audio and video in sync (or more so).

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9l356ymg8#t=13642

        in this video, the Bang comes before the visual, I think that you will find the visual is around 1/3 second out of sync as per my previous note indicating that the FPS on the live feed was set to 10 or 5, only this time it is the other way.

        I can only conclude that ManyCam got the audio a little off on its own recording, I now have a better reference for appropriate synching.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We should have filled in dry air not Argon. The O2 and N2 would be combined with Aluminum to form refractory compounds in the breakdown of LiAlH4 – the argon cover gas when we filled it would not.

    If we added a little Zirconium, that would getter and sequester any CO and CO2 and would also adsorb the H2 from the LiAlH4 – We could then regulate the H2 by thermally reversible dis-adsorbtion adsorption from the Zirconium