MFMP Blowout Photos Published in HD (Anon2012_2014)

A good suggestion from Anon2012_2014

Let’s start an MFMP blowout photos commentary thread. The new photos are up on FB and here:!IMG_7661

(Here are a selected few):




It appears to me that the initial crack formed in one place, and that the H2 which was past the ignition point of 600C immediately combusted upon meeting the outside air, causing the burned spot and the melt on the SiC heater. I do not see that as evidence in itself of a hotspot — just the initial fracture point.

Perhaps at that point, the SiC shorted out where for a brief period it was running 2 kW — this might explain the heat-up/cool-down on the optical camera observed in the Bang! video.

I find it interesting that subsequently the inner pressure vessel shattered like a dropped ceramic cup into 100 pieces, and that it took the remainder of the SiC heater element with it. Was this from the hot H2 overpressure, or from the hot H20 combustion product overpressure as it tried to escape the outer tube.

I also find it interesting how the fuel powder was sintered into multiple broken cylinders.

Next time — only 1/4th material and try again. All was very interesting. Looking for some calorimetry as well.


  • Mike Henderson

    I suspect the only way to distinguish between a “normal” (chemical / mechanical) event and a LENR event would be by looking for a change in isotopic ratios. I don’t believe the MFMP team has the resources to perform before / after isotope analysis at this time.

    Does anybody at a university (Minneapolis, St Cloud, Mankato, Duluth, Fargo) have a student looking for a thesis project?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Different isotopic ratios in the remaining fuel and in the metal layer on the reactor walls could be a result of fractionation. One would need to find isotopes which had not been present in the unused material to be on the safe side.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      honestly this isn’t worth it. if there was a lenr reaction it was only for an instant and it triggered the mechanical failure of overpressure, most likely it was just a reduction of the Al2O3 container strength as the temp increased. Occams razor, the numbers suggest that the tube would have failed without any kind of lent reaction due to overpressurization and weakening of the tube due to heat anyway, we don’t need to look for a second reason for failure when we have a good one already.
      use less LiAlH4 and go again.

  • Gerard McEk

    The top photo above does not seem the one with the reactor filled with fuel. Is that correct?

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is correct – this was in the element conditioning and calibration run

  • Alain Samoun

    This John must have a lot of experience to talk like that… John who?… Ah J.Troll!

    “MFMP is not able to do anything with a lot of resources and equipment”

    Yeah we saw that live,bench of do nothing…

    • John

      You took a peace of phrase and reproduced it out of contest. I didn’t said they are doing nothing. I just said that Parkhomov apparently used a simple technique that rendered the experiment very esy with some good results. I’m just saying that IF MFMP can do something very simple, even with 1 minute or 30 seconds overunity this can change the game, otherwise we must consider that Parkhomov is not saying the truth and we are just loosing our time. And regarding the word Nuclear, you people are attracting bad guys to the field, any laboratory or experimenters located near a building or population can go Jail just to mention this word in his experiment, be careful, we saw what happened to IH already this just the beginning…

      • Omega Z

        This is not so quick or Easy. I believe Parkhomov has a large pile of broken and/or exploded reactors.

        It should also be noted that Rossi sent several additional Reactors to Lugano even tho he was going to be present to start up the device & shut it down. Apparently, Even Rossi’s device isn’t immune to self destruct due to conditions other then a run away reaction.

  • Anon2012_2014


    It appears to me that MFMP and Parkhomov are trying to do the best they can as fast as they can with the resources they have. If MFMP replicates Parkhomov, that’s great.

    In the interim, MFMP are trying to create a pressure containment item within a heater, and under test it broke open. They are working on a calorimetry setup using a tank of water like Parkhomov.

    This is experimental science, and they are making trials and getting errors. Each experiment setup takes reasonably 2 to 5 days. MFMP shows you the trials so that you know what they are working on.

  • bachcole

    But, did we get a reaction or no?

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      i don’t think so, this was mechanical failure, the numbers add up, i suspect we were not quite in the range yet. reduce LiAlH4 levels to Parkomov mix and repeat the experiment.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have a good number of theories in the MFMP alone, so have fun with this one, it is open season.

    There was

    – Very high pressure, exactly how much is in debate

    – The pressure may wave may have been high enough to cause autoignition via PV=nRT of the expanding H2 gas front as it hit the air causing a detonation, not a deflagration

    – A bloom AFTER the explosion that lasted for a few seconds and was likely responsible for melted / boiled SiC element, and likely also the pattern on the inside of the Alumina as shown in Ryans evernote, this may have been an arc. This is supported by the fact that the area contained the last intact conducting parts of the SiC elements.

    Timing is correct in the Youtube recording of the LiveStream

    Personally, I do not subscribe to the single point of failure, being there, the tube seemed to just disappear in an instant where it was in free air – being replaced by the core filler alumina rod, the only reason it did not eject in the rest of it was that it was held in place by the SiC element, which also fractured and that was in turn held in place by the slightly larger 1″ alumina tube sections. All of the broken pieces of SiC were of a similar size if the parts are glued back together, that might tell us a lot.

    What you can see in the first image in Ryans evernote is that the mean size of the parts surrounding the fuel that have the grey (originally silver/aluminium coloured) deposit on it are smaller. The parts that just surrounded the filler rod up to the Swagelok fitting are larger.

    To my mind, that does not support the notion that stresses from the swagelok were the principle cause/point of failure. If it were, I would think that the swagelok would have sheared off relieving most of the pressure, there would not have been any significant O2 inside to cause the H2 to take the rest apart.

  • Anon2012_2014
    • Anon2012_2014

      SiC sublimates at 2700C. I hypothesize that the grey substance seen is nickel oxide, and the brown substance on the outer 1 inch tube is a combustion product of the SiC.

      I believe that the break either directly or due to a detonation force, caused the SiC to deform or otherwise get a low impedance arc going between the odd and even elements of the heater about 1/3 of the way through in impedance, hence the arc. It kept arcing until a hole was burnt in the SiC. (I believe that SiC will burn in the presence of the arc. It may also have some other organic hydrocarbon binding products within.)

      Why is the SiC element shattered only after (further to the right in the original experiment video) of the short circuit point?

      The interior of the pressure vessel appears grey, again consistent with an oxide of nickel.

      I am most curious about the brown color on the sintered fuel charge outside; i.e. what oxide, hydroxide, or alloy would be brown when the inputs are Ni, Al, H, N, and O2 ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The colour got me also, all i could thing of is… copper oxide (in the mix). hmmmm

  • Bob Greenyer

    I had my 3D scanner with my from my much neglected day job and so I thought I’d catch a 3D shot of the scene after Ryan had poured out the contents of the 1″ Alumina tubes and taken away the sintered core.

    OK – it is not perfect, but it shows potential.

    Here is a higher resolution OBJ for download

    and a PLY

  • ValeriyTarasov

    I agree with you. Simple explanation of this is different mentality. Too much attention to unimportant details (like experiment with steel tube, no sense to do this from the beginning, only waste of time and materials) in case of MFMP, versus attention only to essential things in A. Parhomov approach. AND! Why MFMP not doing in parallel Parhomov’s version of one tube with complete fuel (Ni, Al, Li, H) and another one with incomplete fuel, I don’t understand. This will be a simple comparison with only one changed parameter – presence of H (then step by step the same for Li, Ni, Al) to exclude at once many questions about calibration, possible chemical reactions and role of each of the components – Ni, Al, Li, H. This is a classical approach to perform any experiment in any field, especially when you have “black box” type experiments like all LENR experiments.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We were specifically funded by the New Energy Foundation and many others to test the way that the Lugano report writers had assessed the power output from the Lugano reactor. Due to the time it would take to get the Williamson IR and Optris cameras, it was Scheduled to take place at the end of January early February.

      Over Christmas, Parkhomov, a very experienced scientists hooked into the entire Russian LENR community had his initial work leaked against his wishes.

      Whilst we were waiting for the parts to conduct the committed to experiment, we immediately spent time, after securing Parkhomov’s help, trying to seal precisely in the way he did in order to replicate him precisely.

      Information about both of these and the work undertaken is here

      We also tried to secure a Parkhomov reactor offering to pay for costs and shipping and taking everything with us to Italy to run a live test in mid january whilst the attempts at re-creating his sealing approach was going on. His January 27th presentation clearly showed why he was not willing to send a reactor, it was unsafe as they were unpredictable.

      We failed to seal in the way described and so replication was impossible. We have since received further guidance and published that for all to try.

      In the mean time a team member proposed another method for sealing inspired by the steel pressure test we had previously done which had for the first time provided new empirical understanding on the way pressure is released in the breakdown of LiAlH4.

      We tested the sealing method in the Parkhomov “Glass Jar” way as indicated to us less than 48 hours prior. The mini *GlowStick* had Ni + LiAlH4 and the test twice (two ends) proved the proposed method very adequate for sealing a reactor.

      After demonstrating that the sealing method was good, we tried to do an analogue of his work (and something like we had intended to do since the October 8th, but did not know how to), with a fuelled sealed core whilst the mini *GlowStick* was still heating up to 500ºC +. The result was the “Bang!”

      I am not sure how much faster we could have worked, Even before we had fully assessed our sealing method – we were running the live experiment. Yes, had we more time, we could have done a MUCH longer heat-up.

      People are forgetting that Parkhomov is only doing an analogue of Rossi, and that he is not replicating himself between experiments. If you look at his reactors, how they are or are not insulated, what shape they are, does the core stick or not stick out, is the heater coil covered or not… each new experiment is not a replication of the previous one. He is a seriously moving target right now, so much so that it is difficult to say what actually constitutes a “Parkhomov” replication. Essentially it is Ni+LiAlH4 in a pressure tight heated reactor with simple and effective calorimetry.

      We have a dual *GlowStick* experiment ready to go which is a Parkhomov analogue – one fuelled the other not, when Ryan has the time in Minesota.

      Alan Goldwater and Bob Higgins are both considering experiments – we have published Bob Higgins’ concepts on FB and it is a Parkhomov analogue – but it takes on board Mike McKubres (and others) main criticism – that of the problem of entrained water.

    • Bob Greenyer

      What is a Parkhomov replication? Since many of his reactors or experiment set ups appear different what, exactly are we supposed to replicate?

      Is it Ni+LiAlH4 in a sealed heated alumina (corundrum) vessel, because if so, we had everything in place since about October the 10th, but no one knew then how to seal a tube. At the time, the steel tube was our ONLY option and made use of equipment and scrap on hand and available volunteer time. No one knew exactly how Parkhomov had sealed the tubes, but we had started, with his guidance, to try to do his method whilst this experiment was being conducted.

      The Steel tube test gave us the first empirical evidence of the potential attainable pressures and the exact LiAlH4 breakdown curve.

      It also inspired our only current solution to the sealing challenge we currently have that just works.

      We have built an active and control *Glowstick* which is a Parkhomov analogue. One has Ni+LiAlH4 in, the other, well the juries out, not so easy to get powders of Li and Al that don’t end up as oxides super easy.

      • Anon2012_2014


        I think Valeriy’s comment with regard to relative priority importance is essentially not worth answering. Your group is doing the best that you can as fast as you can, and if someone else wants to assign different priorities — let them raise the funds and do themselves. I appreciate your work to date, especially the open science component.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks, means a lot.

          My clients are getting angry, since I have basically been volunteering 14+ hour days for months now for MFMP, and my clients pay my bills so I need to return to them for the sake of my families well-being.

          Bob Higgins and Alan will take over for a little while I think, but we are all now starting to get ready for ICCF-19, the pressure is on.

          Right now I am trying to find time also to get a Russian VISA and organise the trip to see Parkhomov as I am the closest with regular direct and short flights (I’d like to capture his whole process on film for everyone).

          • Anon2012_2014

            Bob, you guys are doing the heavy lifting work. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the opportunity to feedback on the results of your experiment.

            Good job MFMP!

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have uploaded some RAW CR2 files for better analysis here:

  • Bernie777

    Lugano Report isotope changes are not nuclear?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Some Higher quality shots taken from the raw files.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Just posted to our FB

    Yevgen Barsukov
    Today at 10:40pm

    One thing that everybody is missing in Alexander Parkhomov experiment, that there is an actual chemical reaction taking place. After decomposition of LiAlH4, pure lithium is left. Lithium is reacting with the walls of the tube made of Al2O3, being a stronger metal than aluminium it takes away its oxigen with release of heat. The reaction is: Al2O3 + 6Li –>3 Li2O + 2Al. It will release energy because its dG is negative. dG = dH – T*dS. Everybody can do this calculation for themselves, given dH of Al2O3 = -1669.8kJ, dH of Li2O=-595.8 kJ/mol, dS(Al2O3)=50.92, dS (Li2O)=37.89 J/mol*K, dS(Li)=28, dS(Al)=28.5 J/mol*K. Note that each has to be multiplied by the number of moles in the equation when adding. For example dH = dH_products – dH_ingredients = 2*dH(Al)+3*dH(Li2O) – dH(Al2O3)-6*dH(Li). Same is done for dS. I just did and it gives for room temperature dG = -103 kJ (e.g negative means reaction WILL take place). That is why any heating is taking place and why it eventually blows up when reaction rate gets high enough at high temperature and lithium eats through the tube and gets released into the air explosively reacting with oxygen.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Good comment, i.e. a possible run-away thermite reduction reaction. Someone with more chemistry than me can check faster.

      In a test for LENR we simply need to run long enough so as to prove that the energy released from the thermite reaction is much less than the energy produced by the experiment.

      A possible solution is to run with Li2O instead of LiAlH4 (as the nuclear catalyst) and to use another metal hydride to supply the oxygen, or instead, to use an external high pressure hydrogen through the ferrule connector.

      A method has to be developed to meter the amount of H2 to prevent accidental big fire if the pressure vessel fractures at high temperature with a large supply of H2.

      • Bob Greenyer

        And check this

        “Nuclear physicists are interested in the γ-LiAlO2 modification of lithium aluminate, because of its good performance under high neutron and electron radiation. This modification also exhibits the essential chemical, thermo physical and mechanical stability at high temperature along with the required irradiation behavior. This phase appears to be a promising lithium ceramic, suitable as an in site tritium breeding material in future fusion reactors”

        • Anon2012_2014

          Interesting LiAlO2,

          First thing that I would try is to use substantially less LiAlH4. As we have already calculated, the device failed at temperatures and pressures that are at least on the back of the envelope near the strength limits of alumina.

          If you don’t want to use a LiAlH4 for the H4 pressurization, I believe that you can get 400 bar cylinders of H2 delivered to your lab if you want to go that route. You will need to work out a safety setup to regulate/cutoff the H2 if the tube blows, and most likely you would need to store the cylinders outside in a well ventilated area. That might be an issue in the winter. You will need the various H2 leak items really working as you have enough H2 to blow up the room.

          While a small amount of the Li may be reducing the alumina, further weakening it (in addition to the high temperature), you have a fairly large mass and volume of nickel sponge in your Bang! reactor. I believe that it decomposed to Li3AlH6, Al, and H2, and then as it gets hotter LiH and Al and H2, and then finally LiAl and H2. I am not a chemist, but I am guessing that LiAl is an alloy, and that it is not as reactive as Li alone.

          My next step would be to lower the amount of LiAlH4 to the amount in Parkhomov, perhaps with a commensurate reduction of Ni powder again to Parkhomov. Maybe indeed Parkhomov got lucky and his 30 minutes of excess heat is the real thing. It is the fastest gradient path to your goal of proof (assuming Parkhomov results are valid).

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            I agree here, while Li may react with Al2O3, the amount of energy released here is calculable, get a reactor that can produce excess heat without self-destructing and you can disprove chemical interactions rather quickly (simply run it long enough and produce enough excess heat to discount this as a significant cause of excess heat production).
            The best method for doing this, use less LiAlH4, like Parkomov (a mix known to work). Less chance of self destruction, get it running and keep it running for AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. Once you get a stable reactor, do some testing and then run it for a week straight under CCTV camera.
            Also you guys need to take a small sample of each fuel mixture you put into your reactors! once you get a working one we need to have the before AND after! just take a tiny sample and put it into a small sealed container. THIS IS PARAMOUNT.
            We need to do a gas Analysis and another ash analysis of the reactants.

          • Axil Axil

            That Bang that MFMP got was an instantaneous explosion. There was no discernable delay in in the speed of the explosive reaction. Such an reaction cannot be passively cooled. It must be slowed down.

            You cannot remove heat fast enough to stop that bang. On the other hand, Jack Cole has a very slow reaction rise rate. What makes the difference between these two systems.

            I put my money on aluminum that comes out of the AlLiH4 that Jack does not do. That Aluminum may be forming nanoparticles. Jack does LiH only.

            The bang happens at 1057C. This is when LiH starts to decompose. A mix of AlLiH4 and LiH might be a solution is aluminum is the cause. Some science is now required to see if the cause is aluminum or hydrogen or lithium.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            no offence to jack cole… but his data is just that… jack. he shows constant increase of excess heat as a percentage of total heat, rather than at any point in the experiment the excess heat reaction ‘starting’. this indicates systemic error in his calibration. (i.e. calibration runs, for some reason to do with his set up read less heat produced than during fuel loaded runs)
            Excess heat should start at some point in the experiment, and vary at different stages of the experiment not be present from the beginning and be constant relative to the calibration run.

          • Axil Axil

            What you say might be true, but if the Cole experiment is good, the key to when LENR is seen might and how strong it is may be a function of when nano particles are produced. At low temperatures, Jack could be seeing the production of only hydrogen nano particles. These could contribute weekly to the reaction. But MFMP could be seeing aluminum or lithium nano particles emerge when enough hydrogen becomes available to carry the reaction based on their nano particle creation.
            Nano particles can emerge at any stage and at any temperature from a wide verity of elements, with each type and combination creating its own reaction characteristic.

          • Anon2012_2014

            LiH breaks down between 900 and 1000C according to this footnote (caution, I got this second hand, I don’t have the book).

            David Arthur Johnson; Open University (12 August 2002). Metals and chemical change. Royal Society of Chemistry. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-85404-665-2. Retrieved 1 November 2011.

            Parkhomov only shows significant excess heat (i.e. COP significantly 1) above 1000C. Could be (unfortunately) that Parkhomov mistook an exothermic Li + Al2O3 reaction for LENR, but the calculations if done for the energy released per the moles of Li + Al203 reaction, I believe will show well in excess of even this chemical. That is a paper chase for another evening.

            I don’t see much difference in the net result — free Li attacking the Al203 between using LiAlH4 and LiH — just less hydrogen per mole of Li. This suggest that we can use 4x less moles of LiAlH4 than LiH. If the reactive power is somehow proportional to the amount of H, we have less of that thermite Li left over after its heated to the estimated LENR reactive temperature.

    • Valeriy Tarasov

      Dear Bob Greenyer,
      I appreciate very much the work of your team and wish any success, but in science good wishes are not helping without criticism.
      From your post below, as I can understand, now you don’t have problem with sealing the tube made from Al2O3. Then, you can conduct experiment with and without H. You have mentioned Yevgen Barsukov comment here. This is a very good point explaining why you should do experiment where only one parameter must be excluded, and the parameter of first choice is hydrogen in this case – in parallel one tube with Ni and LiAlH4 and second tube having Ni and alloy of AlLi. Then you can experimentally confirm or disprove chemical nature of exothermic reactions (Li plus O) mentioned by Yevgen Barsukov in exactly the same tube as Porhomov used.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think that is a good proposal for the “blank”

        We were mulling over what to put into the other. We can get LiAl from Sigma Aldrich.

        Ryan’s time is the rate limiting step on this as he is going on a much needed holiday at the end of this week and trying to catch up with his own stuff this week.

        Might be good to get it ordered for when he is back.

    • Obvious

      Lithium can enter the alumina matrix, and actually strengthen and seal it better than pure alumina.
      I was considering using lithiated beta alumina tubes

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, this is an interesting self sealing thing – though our tubes (both McMaster Carr and Coorstek) seamed to be pretty H-tight (when we had a working seal solution)

        • Obvious

          For long term operation (days, weeks), some of the lithium (or Na, Mn, etc.) may need to be non-hydrated in order to fully seal the pores and strengthen sintered Al2O3 bonds, rather than as an H storage mechanism or catalyst/reactant. This might explain why some extra elements were “lost” in the Lugano ash analyses, and their purpose.

        • Obvious

          Another interesting thing is that beta alumina has a strong, non-linear negative resistance curve with increasing temperature. Doped alumina may actually become the heater element at higher temperatures, strongly affecting the electrical input curve, and could be the cause of the apparent negative resistance in the Lugano data, if the resistance becomes less than the heater wire resistance.

    • US_Citizen71

      I don’t know enough chemistry to evaluate Barsukov’s claim but experimentally it should be easy enough. Load one reactor with nothing but LiAlH4 and another with an equal mass of SiO2 as a control. Heat and compare data.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        you can’t do that, the reactor loaded with LiAlH4 would explode.

        • US_Citizen71

          I didn’t say fill it to the brim, only enough to stay within safe pressure levels.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            ok sorry my mistake… that could work, but honestly its not a big deal, just calculate how much lithium there is in the reactor (mols) and figure out how much excess heat could be produced in the above reaction. once they get a stable reactor the excess heat will exceed this relatively quickly, and thus the theory of chemical origin can be discounted numerically as it was in the Lugano report.

          • US_Citizen71

            You don’t need a reactor that works by doing what I suggested above just two cores and a little bit of chemicals. Much better to find out if there is anything to Barsukov’s comment and how much energy it releases if true than believing you have found a working mixture only to discover it was really the reaction Barsukov suggests.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The decomposition of LiAlH4 is endothermic and requires altogether 52.31 kJ/mol. In order to gain 6 moles of Li one would have to supply 313.86 kJ. Obviously, that’s more than the above mentioned 103 kJ.

      We should also not forget that the used amounts of lithium aluminium hydride are tiny. 0.1 g LiAlH4 equals no more than 2.63 mmol.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Good work Andreas, gotta love LOS

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Not so good work, actually. Apparently, the theoretically required energy for the full decomposition of LiAlH4 comes to 116.3 kJ/mol (see But that’s even better. As always, there are several unknowns; nonetheless, an energy gain in the megajoule range (as claimed by Parkhomov) from a tiny mass could not result from any known chemical reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is an iterative process, it is peer review in the open.

  • parallelB

    Thank you again MFMP team!

    One topic that seems strangely missing is what can be the difference between the Hot Cat and the original E-Cats.
    It apparently takes a much higher temperature for the Hot Cat to start working than the regular E-Cat ever reaches. Yet we read that Rossi is spending most of his time on the low temperature version, for his 1 MW plant.

    • Axil Axil


  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’ll play the devil’s advocate.
    Maybe it’s just that it’s a fusion-fission reaction that would release all its energy as kinetic energy (heat). Therefore, no gamma ray would be detected.
    For example:
    Li(7) + Ni(61) > Ga(68)* > Li(6) + Ni(62) 3.34 MeV

    Li(7) + Ni(60) > Ga(67)* > Li(6) + Ni(61) 0.569 MeV

    Li(7) + Ni(59) > Ga(66)* > Li(6) + Ni(60) 4.14 MeV

    Li(7) + Ni(58) > Ga(55)* > Li(6) + Ni(59) 1.75 MeV

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    Bob Greenyer, I preface this by saying that no offence is meant to you and your team, who are doing groundbreaking work that is hugely important. However, you are letting yourselves get sidetracked, the simplest explanation is that the vessel broke because the pressure exceeded the strength of the vessel due to too much LiALH4.
    I know it is exciting, and that you want to know exactly why it broke, but either way it is a failed experiment (as a LENR device). We DO NOT need to know exactly-beyond-a-doubt why this broke, what we need is a replication of parkomov. keep the innards of the fuel reactants (mix, quantity, and free space) as close to parkomov and repeat the experiment, don’t waste your time with more dummy experiments to test whether Li reacts with Al2O3 etc, its not important.

    • US_Citizen71

      I agree with following Parkomov’s protocol as close as possible and only deviating once a replication is found or several failures occur. But, there will be a nagging bit of ammunition for the skeptics until a test run done with just LiAlH4 is available for scrutiny. Barsukov’s comment was also posted on the Wired.UK article already. Better to close any loop holes early. Also if heat is produced you will have a profile of when and how much and at what temperature range, which will be useful as comparison if heat is produced in a run with a complete fuel load.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        if you can get the parkomov reactants inside a SiC element that won’t self destruct, it won’t matter. parkomov’s problem is that his reactor wires keep burning out so he can’t keep the same reactor going for long periods. Long reactor run times with excess heat disprove chemical origins FAR MORE than any amount of testing for certain reactions.
        since this is the goal anyway, tests to try to create a reactor that won’t self destruct should therefore be prioritised.
        testing whether LiAlH4 reacts with the reactor walls don’t prove anything, especially as the amount of total energy that can be produced, even assuming 100% conversion, is minuscule due to the very small amount of Li available, (Chemist please do the math).

        • Bob Greenyer

          I agree, long runs are more important. We were not actually trying to go for a short run.

          Ryan may instrument the mini-*GlowStick* and leave it running for a few weeks at 250 – 350ºC whilst he is away (and then crank it up when he gets back)

          • US_Citizen71

            I agree, but I am coming at this as a debater. It is always good to have a counter to the negative attacks. MFMP like it or not is the current face of LENR on the internet. Considering that it would be best to always make sure that all the loopholes are closed when you can. You still hear the hidden wire thing brought about Rossi’s tests, for example. Nip it in the bud, be irreproachable when you can, but don’t lose sight of the goal. ; )

          • Bob Greenyer

            All sound advice.

            When we see an proposed explanation for something, we want to see it discussed. There is simply no doubt that there is metallic layer that seems partially diffused into the Alumina and so the proposed reaction carried additional weight given the experimental evidence.

            The interesting thing is, that if LiAlO2 was formed as well/instead of Li2O, then this would form a Neutron barrier of sorts, and one that would create tritium in the process.

          • US_Citizen71

            Very interesting! Might be worth running my suggestion of a pure LiAlH4 run versus a control just to create that layer. If you create it I bet someone will analyze it. Just need to be able to open it. Would you consider taking a donation towards doing that?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have had someone already offer to analyse samples of the “Bang!” reactor with a very advanced technique (for a fee).

            What exactly are you proposing to be clear?

          • US_Citizen71

            Running two separate runs. One as control to get baseline and one with just LiAlH4 to test for the exothermic reaction. The data from that would a valuable baseline for other tests. The reactor with the LiAlH4 could be dissected if it survies and might yields some answers and questions.

          • US_Citizen71

            Tritium is an unstable isotope, with a half-life of about 13 years, and it makes up only a billionth of a percent of the hydrogen in water. Consequently, tritium must be produced separately in a breeding reaction, from neutron bombardment of lithium.

            neutron + lithium-6 → tritium + helium-4
            neutron + lithium-7 → tritium + helium-4 + neutron

            The emitted neutron helps sustain the breeding reaction, and the two reactions together release additional energy. Although tritium is radioactive, it is one of the least dangerous of all radionuclides, according to the EPA.

            The number search item for tritium lithium:


    • Bob Greenyer

      Please see my post below and Alans revised calculations.

      Note, we were trying to replicate Parkhomov, the cell exploded though.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan has re-considered and re-calculated based on better review of our data and peer input. He now thinks were were pretty close to Parkhomovs pressures – which begs the question, why did it explode?

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      thinner walls than parkomov with the same pressure explains the explosion, i agree with the assessment in the above document to use thicker walls, however, if indeed pressures are similar to parkomov, reducing the LiAlH4 is not necessarily the best plan (unless reactor volume is also reduced to maintain parkomov-equal pressure).
      I recon the plan should be to mess with as few variables as possible, try to keep pressure, mix and free space equal to parkomov’s reactor. Changing the element to assess the primary flaw in parkomov’s set up (burnout of the heating element) is a great idea.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The SiC element was specifically designed to “Fit” in a Dog Bone. In engineering terms, SilCarb India did an amazing job, what it proved though was that it was unlikely to be that. Possibly an Ultracoil. It actually matters not. What matters is if there is some sort of Nickel NMR or other transmitter/receiver effect. Rossi claimed to have an “inconel doped” heater and that it interacts with the core and Parkhomov used NiChrome (contains Nickel). Because of this, our dual *GlowSticks* have Inconel such as this

        as heater coils. This has similar melting point to the top temperature reported in Lugano (though would fail before that in long term) contains Nickel, and has a closer COEFFICIENT OF EXPANSION to Alumina than many other options. Not that it is a real problem in the *GlowStick* design as the coil is free to expand.

        If it is not important, then a more standard SiC element with a larger hole would facilitate cores with thicker walls and be a reliable, affordable, long term solution that could comfortably heat past 1550ºC as needed. (This gives headroom for any potential ‘run-away’).

      • Bernie777

        Ok, I agree with your MFMP statement.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Help me out Bob and Alan.

      You state the volume of the fuel cavity is 1.454 cc, yet the volume of the fuel powder that is actually put in the cell is only 0.5 to 0.6 cc.

      1) When the fuel was put it, does it only cover the lower 0.6/1.454 = 41% of the area of the inner cylinder when viewed edgewise?

      2) So how come the ex-post photos show a solid sintered cylinder.

      It appears that the solid component of the fuel EXPANDED to take up all the space within the pressure chamber. Why?

      If the fuel expanded, or if a near solid mass of powder was in the inner cylinder of the reactor chamber, it is possible that the reactor fractured from the thermal expansion of the nickel + LiAlH4 + whatever reaction products were produced.

      It appears to me unlikely that the fuel expanded to make a near perfect cylinder. I think it was somehow packed in there, i.e. in the section of the reactor where there was supposed to be fuel powder and argon, I believe it is possible or even likely the fuel was packed into the top of the cylinder when viewed through the end of the cylinder.


      • Bob Greenyer

        Please look at image 2 in Ryans Evernote.

        The solid cylinder from McMaster, which was NOT a perfect fit as it easily slid into the Coorstek single ended cylinder (Unlike the *GlowSticks* where it was a much better match) can be see in the shot above an unused single ended cylinder. You can see just how much of the length was filled with the filer rod. you can also see how hot metals crept a little up the rod in the gap between it and the cylinder.

        A syringe was used to load it, I shall try and post images and maybe a video of the loading if I have them.

        In both of our experiments, the one in the Alumina tube inside a steel tube and this one, the fuel made of Ni+LiAlH4 sintered together into a rod – this more so though. The first experiment, the cylinder did not fail as it was open at the ends, Ryan noted that the sintered fuel just slid out.

        It does seam that it froths up a little, but I feel it is at temperature both soft and a little fluid – but in neither experiment did it bond to the walls.

        • Anon2012_2014

          I am processing it all… give me a while…

          • Anon2012_2014

            I get 0.073 gm LiAlH4, and a chamber volume air space (actually gas space) of 1.33 cc including the inter-particle space in the LiAlH4 and the Ni. I did everything based on the supplied bulk densities of Ni and LiAlH4 from the above comment. Note that by weight, the LiAlH4 in my calculation comes out to be about 11% of the total fuel mass, i.e. similar to Parkhomov. (Still would prefer to weigh and also to measure volume of both separate Ni and LiAlH4.)

            At 1027C this yields only 312 bar vs a blowout pressure (tensile strength) of around 2400 bar. At 1200C 354 bar vs blowout pressure of 1400 bar, and at 1400C 400 bar vs. tensile strength of 220 bar, so if it was based on pressure this configuration would have blown between 1200 and 1400C (ignoring thick/thin walled corrections).

            Therefore either the pressure was higher from some other gas, the temperature was higher than estimate on the Williamson pyrometer, the materials expanded as a solid or a liquid in a constricted space and shattered both the alumina pressure vessel but also the SiC that supposedly had a small space, or something else happened.

            I find it strange that the SiC shattered around the fuel area only, but not around the filler/tamper rod.

            If this lower pressure estimate is accurate, we are already close to Parkhomov conditions. I would again try it with less material in the reactor to see if higher temperatures can be achieved. I’d like to get better reactor temperature calibration. I am looking forward to the water based calorimetry.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thankyou for this work, I have passed it on to Alan

    • Dr. Mike

      What is the real density of the Ni and LiAlH4 powders used in your experiment? I don’t follow how the ratio of solid material densities was used to calculate the weight of the LiAlH4 as being 0.0197gr. Can I assume if the total weight of the fuel was 0.67gr, then the weight of the Ni was 0.65gr? If this is true, then the reactor was loaded with 0.011 moles of Ni and 0.0021 moles of hydrogen (0.00052 moles of LiAlH4). If the Ni absorbed all of the hydrogen, it would only be only be loaded to about 20%. Is this enough to even achieve LENR? I recommend using a Ni:LiAlH4 weight ratio closer to 10:1 used by Parkhomov or the 9:1 ratio used in the Lugano reactor in future experiments.

      Also, I would think that most of the hydrogen released by the LiAlH4 was absorbed by the Ni and therefore contributed very little to pressurizing the reactor other than over the temperature range where the hydrogen was being released. Have you found any papers describing the rate at which Ni absorbs hydrogen as a function of temperature?
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        I shall forward this to Alan

        • Dr. Mike

          I hope these calculations are useful (and correct!). It is interesting that even in the Lugano reactor, the maximum hydrogen available was only enough for about a 65% loading factor. Does this mean that LENR is achieved at a lower loading factor in the Ni-H system than the Pd-D system or perhaps is LENR more of a surface reaction in the Ni-H system? It would be interesting to compare Umicore’s Ulrafine 1um Ni powder, which has a surface area of 2 m2/gr to their “2M” (2um) Ni material, which has a surface area of 0.7 m2/gr to determine if LENR in the NI-H system is a surface dominant reaction. Of course, it would be expected that hydrogen would be absorbed more readily into the Ultrafine (1um) material, so one would have to separate the effects of faster loading from more surface area.

          One other thing that you might want to consider is that adding about 5% (by weight) of TiO2 to the LiAlH4 is supposed to get the hydrogen to release at a lower temperature from the LiAlH4.
          Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer

            Alan says

            “Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

            The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

            Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier, the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

            If I missed something important in my analysis, I’d be happy to know, and make further corrections.”

            If Ryan has time, he might do a weight / volume test in the glovebox.

          • Anon2012_2014

            To Alan: note that Bulk density is the density of the powder, not the solid. The wikipedia entries are those for the solid. My note below used the bulk density for the nickel nanopowder as I could not find it for your micron scale powder. Best would be to measure it yourself.

          • Dr. Mike

            Bob and Alan,
            It’s really important to work with masses rather than volume if you want to be able to reproduce your work. The calculation for the actual vacant volume in the Ni is so simple you can easily include it in your calculation of the reactor volume for the pressure calculation. Just weight 1 cc of Ni. The actual volume of Ni is this weight divided by 8.91 (gr/cc). One minus this number is the vacant space in the 1cc of Ni powder. (The same can be done for the LiAlH4.) A weight /volume measurement in the glovebox would really be valuable.
            Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer

            We know, it was a timing thing. The previous experiment had weighed. Ryan will in time do a weight / volume assessment.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Dr. Mike,

            Ryan arranged for a study of the density of the powder we used in order for Alan to again update his calculations (in progress), here is the evernote.


  • Bob Greenyer

    Torque Talk

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    In this very short UHD clip, Alan Goldwater tells you all you need to know to seal an Alumina cylinder with an Aluminum ferrule based Swagelok cap.

    • Omega Z

      Thanks Bob
      This is a touchy feely thing. With experience, you know something will leak & when it wont. You also know even when there is no telltale sign when you’ve had an oops moment. That last 16th of a turn was to much.

      There’s also those times when you know it will leak & any additional tightening will be an oops. Sometimes you just can’t win.

      One last note. You may find these alumina reactors are a once & done use when you actually insert a fuel charge & power it up.
      I think these are just convenient for Rossi’s R&D. Disposable & no contamination between test runs or even investigating the effects on the reactor & internals.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Can you please do a torque wrench reading – or even set of readings?

      Am I correct that the tubes in the demonstrations were all less than 2mm wall thickness?

      Are the ferrules and the cap without lube? Are they cleaned before torquing?

      • Obvious

        Normally no lube is used since this will greatly increase the chance of over tightening.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes they were less than 2mm. The ones above were from McMaster Car with a 1/4″ OD and had a slightly thicker wall thickness than the 1.18mm of the “Bang!” reactor.

  • Dr. Mike

    Da Phys,
    I agree that measurement of pressure and a control run with just the LiAlH4 would be extremely valuable. Also, pressure monitoring would be a great method to determine how readily the hydrogen is absorbed into the Ni. The rate at which hydrogen is absorbed into the Ni, that is the rate at which the pressure drops after all of the H2 has been released, can be used to study how the Ni should be prepared before putting it in the reactor and to study what catalyst can be used to improve the absorption. I assume that MFMP knows that hydrogen is released at 3 temperatures and is going slowly through these transition temperatures, but it might be helpful to them if you would propose a heating schedule. Do you have an equation for the absorption of H into Ni as a function of temperature and time? I’m sure it would be dependent of the surface preparation of the Ni (or use of catalysts), but such an equation might be useful in determining a heating schedule for the MFMP reactors.
    Dr. Mike

  • Bob Greenyer

    Piantelli reminded us of some very old studies showing that Ni ad/absorbed H at 4 different temperatures. 3 of which (I think) are above the temperature that LiAlH4 starts to decompose.

  • Axil Axil

    It came into my mind to question why Rossi put his Hot cat alumina core inside a stainless steel tube.

    If you remember, Rossi enclosed his alumina Hot-cat core with a stainless steel tube in the first third party test. In the second third party test at Lugano, Rossi removed the alumina core from the stainless steel shell.

    That stainless steel shell probably served as a blast shield to protect against a core blast as seen in the MFMP test.

    When a core blast as occurs as often happens in the Russian tests and also with MFMP, the hydrogen is immediately released from the core because the alumina shatters an the overheat reaction stops.

    However, is the rupturing core is enclosed in a metal shield which absorbs the shock of the blast by deforming, the metal not immediately released hydrogen to the surrounding air. This retention of hydrogen inside the metal shell may cause the LENR reaction once started to continue, progress, and grow larger over time.

    I conjecture, if an alumina core is enclosed in a metal tube to keep the hydrogen confined, a major high temperature meltdown will occur instead of being stopped by a explosive blast causing almost instantaneous hydrogen out gassing.

    • Eyedoc

      Hmmm…could be

  • Bob Greenyer

    More refined “Bang!” reactor pressure calculation…

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Alan Goldwater has taken into account input from both the team and the crowd to come up with a more refined estimation of the maximum possible pressure that the “Bang!” reactor may have experienced before the event.

    Also, he has released the spreadsheet he made to calculate the pressure so that other researchers can play safer.