Advantages of Using of Furnace Based Model for Rossi-Type Reactor Replication (Pec Ypc)

The following article was submitted by Pec Ypc

Use of Furnace Based Model for Rossi-Type Reactor Replication

The idea of using a furnace as a high temperature controlled environment for Rossi-type reactor replication appears to have many advantages.

Here is a comparison analysis of “classical” Rossi’s design of alumina tube heated by the external coil in the open air with furnace based replication experiments.

Disadvantages of alumina tube heated by external coil in open air:

– high input power comparable or exceeding the expected power of reaction excess heat is needed which makes it more difficult to calculate the Input/Output power ratio and lowers calculated COD

– heating coil and additional covering materials (if any) isolate the reactor tube from direct temperature and spectrometric measurements (for example, in visual (VIS) and infrared (IR) bands)

– temperatures required to start the reaction of 1100-1400 °C are close to being destructive for inexpensive K thermocouples and inexpensive heating elements (like Kanthal wire). Additional heat sources expected due to reaction can easily result in exceeding physical limits of thermocouples and wires used and result in their failure (much more expensive heating materials and expensive R, S thermocouples are needed to work in this design reliably)

– high heat dissipation in air makes it difficult to control reactor temperature and maintain the reaction when and if it starts

– this design does not have ability to achieve self-sustained reaction due to high heat dissipation and fast temperature drop, if external heating stops

Furnace based reactor design:

1. Alumina tube with ~5mm ID, 10-30 MM OD is filled with mix of Ni powder 90% and LiAlH4 powder 10%, by weight
2. Alumina tube with fuel is sealed with high temperature cement (3000 °F cement can be bought at Lowes and Home Depot)
3. No heating coils are attached to the alumina tube reactor.

4. The controller/computer controlled heating of the alumina tube with a fuel is performed by radiant thermal energy in a relatively inexpensive high temperature Muffle Furnace or Kiln
(the kiln with digital controller, with max temperatures up to 2350 °F (~1290 °C) is readily available from Paragon and Olympic Kilns for ~$500-$800, see below)

5. The kiln may have quartz window(s) which will allow not only measurement of reactor tube’s temperature with K/R/S thermocouples but also direct visual and spectral measurements of the reactor in VIS/IR bands.

Furnace/Kiln based reactor design allows:
– safely and reliably achieve required temperatures to start LENR reaction (1100 – ~1300 °C)
(there are no heating coils and or thermocouples to be destroyed at this temp, as kiln is designed for these conditions)

– reliably achieve much higher temperatures for experiments of up to 1700-1800 °C with specialized Muffle Furnaces, at a reasonable price (Furnaces with max temperature up to 1700 °C cost in the range of $5k-$7k, see below)

– maintain the temperature of reactor at set level automatically and for as long as needed (kiln heat controller will switch off if and when reactor starts producing heat on its own at the set temperature)

– easy control of reactor activation/work by monitoring on/off status of the kiln heater and kiln temperature as kilns are designed to maintain a set temperature

– ability to maintain self-sustained reactor state due to reactor stable temperature environment

For example, Olympic Kiln is designed to maintain ~1300 °C at input power of ~1.6-1.8 KW.
It means that thermal isolation of the kiln will dissipate ~1.6 KW at the internal temperature of ~1300 °C after achieving thermal equilibrium. If kiln heater switched off, even without excess reactor heat the cooling of the kiln chamber will be rather slow – tens of minutes – due to a good thermal isolation of kiln.

In this case, if reactor will be able to produce about 1-2 KW of heat energy, as reported in some replication experiments, it will be comparable with kiln’s heating power needed to maintain set high temperature. The thermal isolation of the kiln then will be roughly enough to maintain the temperature of the working reactor at about the same level (let’s say ~ 1300 °C).

– direct spectral measurements of reactor tube in VIS and IR band can be achieved through fused quartz windows (available options in kilns) and directly through small hole(s) in kiln’s wall(s).

– at ~1100 – 1300 °C it will be clearly seen even with a naked eye, if reactor is producing its own heat – by comparing the light intensity of the kiln walls and alumina tube itself or comparing light intensity of two reactor tubes with and without fuel.

– alumina tube can also be substituted by quartz tube to allow direct spectral measurements of the fuel inside (although the are some complications with quartz glass at those temps)

– this design will allow simple repeatable experiments with different fuel mixes and temperature conditions with quick turnaround time, as reactor tube is simple to make and easy to replace, and setup is easy for doing parallel simultaneous tests in the same an/or multiple furnace chambers

– it will also allow to easily control reactor temperature, should it go up on its own – by simply opening additional holes (automatically or manually) in the kiln or use forced ventilation through special holes – to increase heat dissipation

– with some metal tubes with circulating water inserted through the kiln chamber, it will allow the measured release of heat energy outside the reactor and kiln (if and when it comes to this stage)

– special PID temperature controllers easily availble on a market allow PC control of the Furnace/Kiln through RS232/RS485/USB interface

– more expensive Muffle Furnaces allow to use vacuum or controlled pressure gas inside the chamber which may be beneficial for further experiments and research (it jumps to range of ~$20K and more for Vacuum Furnaces though)

– high level of experiment safety is achieved naturally with furnace/kiln design due to thick (2.5-3″) furnace mortar walls of the chamber surrounding reactor tube from all sides (except for small Quartz windows and specialty holes, if needed). In addition Furnace/kiln is normally covered by stainless steel and/or steel frame over the chamber.
This high level of mechanical and structural protection is especially important in case of potential micro explosions due to very high gas pressure inside reactor tube at high temperatures.

Additional Notes to Furnace/Kiln Design:
Tube Muffles more easily allow vacuum/gas pressure controlled chamber environment but are less convenient for visual and spectral analysis of reactor tube due to lack of windows with direct view of the reactor (compared to non tube muffles of different shape).

Fused Quartz (aka Silica Quartz) tubes and rods are much more convenient materials to operate with – for making sealed reactor tubes. After injecting fuel into glass tube, glass rods with matching OD can be inserted from both sides and sealed by flame from propane/butane torch

Sources for Materials for Furnace/Kiln based experiments:


Highest temperature for Kiln is characterized by a number called “Con”. For these experiments suitable
Kilns are “Con 10” which have the highest Kiln temperature available of 2350 °F (~1290 °C).

Examples of Kilns (~$500 -$800):

Paragon Caldera

Olympic Kiln:

Olympic HB84E Kiln

Muffle Furnace:

PID Temperature controllers with PC interface:

Alumina Ceramics manufacturing and machining companies:

Absolute-Tek Ceramics, Accuratus, AdValue Tech, Associated Ceramics, Coors Tech, Kadco Ceramics, Sentra Tech

High temperature Furnace cement:

Fused Quartz Tubing and Rods:

Products of this company at Amazon:

Gas Torches for flameworking with Quartz glass:

  • Ophelia Rump

    This design has a major drawback.
    Rossi himself has difficulty getting such a reactor to work.
    It may be that the electrical heating element provides some value other than heat.

    It would be foolish for anyone to attempt this design unless they can reliably make the electrically heated version work, and then prove that this design is viable. The chance of success trying to prove the difficult using the impossible is highly improbable.

    • Obvious

      If the need for wires wrapped around the device can be confirmed or denied, then there is progress. Finesse comes later.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates


      • Ophelia Rump

        And if it requires more than wrapping wires? If it requires electrical flow and resistance?
        You cannot confirm from a negative result, where is you logic man?

        • Obvious

          A positive test in a kiln is the negative test of needing electrical resistance wires. Always heating with electrical resistance is no test at all of needing the resistance heat/electrical field. Not testing using Rossi’s frequency in the wires but getting results anyways is a negative test of needing special frequencies.
          Special waveform not needed for achieving effect, probably verified.
          No electrical waveform required, wait and see. If a Bunsen burner can get it going, even better. Waveform/electrical stimulation = pure speculation at present. Or maybe a special case, or better control. These are latter are probably finesse details, not basic requirements.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I had the same idea some time ago. There might be measurement pitfalls due to possible local temperature differences in the reactor, but this could be handled in the way you propose. One shortcoming is certainly the high price of the kiln. And, even worse, an explosion could damage or even destroy the expensive device. So it would make sense to build a simple furnace with relatively cheap material. Basically, Parkhomov stepped in this direction with his separated heater tube in the latest experiment. One would only have to add some thermal isolation to be very close to the concept you propose.

  • Gerard McEk

    Two important issues of influence are not included in that design: First the possible magnetic influence of the heating coil and also the damping aspects of it if you design it well. Secondly, when LENR starts you require a quick control response to avoid over heating. That is impossible within a furnace. It is hot and inulated and you cannot takeoff the heat quickly enough. So IF LENR would start, it would runaway and meld the reactor…Beng.

  • as usual, first replicate, then improve one innovation at a time.
    if it stops working you will know why.

    • Omega Z

      The new improved Version 2.0

      Wait??? Where is Version 1.0

      Parkhomov has done a pretty good job of replicating Rossi’s reactor given the information available. He has a pile of broken reactors to show how much effort he has put into it. I feel what he has done is a good near replication with all facts considered.

      I can understand Parkhomov doing something like this. He obviously feels or is convinced he has excess heat in his reactors.(COP>1) This would be a good way to try & understand some of what is going on. He has a foundation to start building from.

      One thing we can take from this. What Rossi does is hard to do.

    • Sanjeev

      Yet, everyone is trying totally different approaches. Different setups, different powders, different chemicals etc. None are close to AP. It is strange, but that’s what I see is happening.

      They may have their reasons, so I can only encourage them. It will simply delay a successful replication, but will not stop it. Sooner or later someone will truly try the exact recipe (already made public by AP in every detail) and will succeed.

      Those “improvising” without first replicating and seeing the heat for themselves, may also succeed, its not so hard and fast. So lets hope….

  • Warthog

    Actually, I think this is precisely the wrong direction to move the design. The problem isn’t “adding” heat….it is GETTING RID OF HEAT once the reaction starts up. The muffle furnace design has huge thermal inertia, and will, I think, pretty much guarantee uncontrollable reactor melt-downs.

    Also, one thing that always must be kept in mind is that Rossi is not designing a reactor to generate lab data, but modules that will become part of a multi-module power producing plant configuration.

  • Omega Z


    NOTE, I said “he has done is a good (near) replication”
    AP claims to have positive results.

    There are details that are not available, But he has made a good attempt to replicate Rossi’s reactor given the information that is available. He supplied power differently, but this is likely due to not knowing exactly what Rossi’s power supply was intended to do.(The internals of the box weren’t disclosed) And there are images of Rossi working on a Hot-cat using only 2 power lines on another blog. I think they were posted here at ECW on a former thread.

    Now the big distinction, They are supposed to be replicating the work that Parkhomov has done. He has been very open and provided all the details of his reactor. Bob Greenyer of MFMP actually went to Russia for 2 days and had discussions with AP, took notes & I believe made videos of portions of it.
    There is no reason not to stick to the details. They are all available. They need to validate AP’s work, then they can embark on a different direction.
    I give you a map & tell you to go to a certain destination.
    However, I don’t tell you where you are at.

  • SteveW

    If your going the route of using a kiln in order to maintain the operating temperature of the reactor surrounding it, then you are going to need a way to effectively remove heat. One way to do this would be t place the reactor tube in a crucible straight up. I would place cement in the bottom of this crucible and stick the reactor tube into the cement- this could also be used to seal the reactor tube. I would then fill the crucible containing the reactor tube cemented in place with table salt (Sodium Chloride, NaCl). NaCl has a melting point of 801 C. and a boiling point of 1,413 C. I would create another crucible with the same set-up but lacking the reactant fuel to serve as a comparison (dummy).

    Place both crucibles in the kiln and use whatever means to monitor the temperature of both. If excess heat is present, the now molten salt in the active reactor should show a higher temperature than the dummy. The high thermal conduction of the molten salt will serve to remove any excess heat from the active reactor much better than just air.

    I had this idea a while ago but didn’t post it because I feel this experiment it too dangerous for just anyone to mess around with though the kiln itself would provide some protection. You would have to be careful not to approach the 1,413 C boiling point of NaCl or it would start to boil- what that may entail, I’m not sure. I don’t think I would set the kiln over 1,200 C. If the active reactant’s NaCl crucible temperature went over say 1,300 C, I would have a plan in place to safely start cooling this thing down. Perhaps a plug in the bottom of the crucible that would melt and allow the molten salt to drain out like a Thorium reactor.

    Whether this would work or not is total speculation as an electromagnetic stimulation may be necessary. It would be nice to add a coil around this set-up to decouple the heat of the resistor wire from any electromagnetic effect for testing.

    • MontagueWithnail

      “You would have to be careful not to approach the 1,413 C boiling point
      of NaCl or it would start to boil- what that may entail, I’m not sure.”

      That was my concern straight away. You would of course be getting some NaCl vapour as soon as it melted – hardly any at first but the VP is about 1.6 KPa at 1300 degs C so there would be some.

  • pg

    Rossi not very impressed with Bob Greyner’s hypothesis to explain Lugano…

    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    I repeat the answer already given to the comment of “April” few hours ago.
    I could also add:
    E = BSc^2
    where BS stays for Bull S….
    Should this equation be true, with the theories I read regarding electron capture in LENR we could move all the high speed trains of the world for millions of years.
    Not to mention the tragicomic reference to ” very fast changes of pressure”: what does mean very fast ??? Where are the numbers? Where is the Math ? In these reactions one second is an eternity: the average halflife of a virtual particle is 10^-23 s !!! Who controls if a reaction is faster or slower? It appears clearly that these guys have no idea what is a real experiment, what is a real machine, what is real work…in this paradisiac condition of virtual reality ( sort of mental masturbation) they can say whatever theoretical BS they want, provided they have not to make real work that forces them to pay hard if make mistakes.
    I suppose to have made clear my opinion.
    As my friend Sergio Focardi many times said: ” To understand LENR is not necessary to make exotic Physics, is enough to study seriously the existing Physics”. And I add: ” Without bias”.
    Warm Regards,

    • Gerard McEk

      It is the theory of Piantelli, if I remember rightly when I read Bob Greenyer’s spreadsheet. So do Rossi and Piantelli not like each other?

      • artefact

        patents are in their way I guess.

      • Omega Z

        This is just my view based on a just a few details & I could be totally wrong.
        Piantelli & Focardi worked on LENR for many years, BUT, They were never able to cross the barrier beyond obtaining excess heat. Nothing that could be scaled, controllable & of any real world use. Just as a few dozen others had achieved. A Laboratory novelty.

        At a point, Piantelli more or less shelved his research. His decision to do so was probably a combination of hitting an impregnable wall & his age. A year or 2 following that, Rossi contacted Focardi and said he thought he had found a solution. He asked Focardi to show him he was wrong. All info available says this is a pretty much a fact. We know the rest of the story from there.

        From there, I believe Rossi’s quick advances influenced Piantelli to re-initiate his work. I believe Piantelli also harbours feelings of betrayal by Focardi. I can see some harsh words exchanged, So the answer to your question is, Rossi and Piantelli Do Not like each other.

        From Rossi himself, Focardi helped him with the theory. Info available indicates Focardi also schooled him on some safety issues. But He did not give Rossi anything other then that. What Rossi developed belongs to Rossi and he deserves credit for that.

        • Gerard McEk

          Thanks for your interesting analysis Omega Z!

  • William D. Fleming

    Since different approaches are being proposed, I am emboldened to make a suggestion.

    Obtain a steel block about four inches on each side. Drill a series of holes part way through from one of the faces. Coat the insides of the holes and the one face with Teflon or other hydrogen proof coating. Coat also one side of a thick steel lid to be welded over the face.

    Load the fuel mixture into the various holes and weld the lid in place securely. Place the block in the bottom of a deep hole dug in the ground and heat with gas, wood, or coal.

    The hope is that once started, the reaction would be self sustaining because of the proximity of the various chambers. Perhaps the block would be strong enough to withstand the pressure produced. Even if an explosion resulted, it would be evidence of a nuclear reaction, and the energy release could be estimated.

    The only way of controlling the reaction would be by external cooling. The block could be submerged in water, or could be bathed in water as needed.

    Just a thought.

    • Ted-X

      A steel block is a good idea. However, more simple would be just to use standard NPT-stainless-steel fittings for the screening tests, wrapped with an insulation and with their cooling time-temperature curve calibrated. Then, the screening would be reduced to finding which formulation shows an extended cooling time (for the quick screening, thermal excitation only). Simple and cheap way.

  • JDM

    Rossi was genius to give a hot cat to Levi for the Lugano testing. Very hard to replicate, control, seal, bring to and maintain temperature… Quite an effective distraction from the seemingly easier-to-tame warm cat that is actually on the verge of commercialization.

    • Agaricus

      Difficult to replicate without the right information perhaps, but if it had been any of the other things it wouldn’t have run without problems for a month in the hands of people who were unfamiliar with its operating characteristics.

      I suspect the problem with the hot cat may be that it doesn’t like heat being extracted from it at the kind of rate produced by liquid cooling. If so, the problem may be solvable using an intermediate thermal mass such as a metal block.

  • builditnow

    Yes, I the furnace idea has the potential to make Hot Cat like experiments more practical at temperatures above 1100C. It could be possible to construct a custom gas heated circulating air “furnace” as described here
    The advantages of this proposed setup is the addition of magnetic stimulation coils and rapid control over heating AND COOLING.
    As you point out, with Rossi’s design, he relies on the cooling from the surrounding to absorb more power (heat) than the reactor can put out. This way he can maintain the desired temperature, but, must always add extra heat in the form of electrical power, making it difficult to distinguish between the heat created by the reactor and the heat from electrical power added.

    This gas heated, air cooled design proposed here could (as you mention above) cease all additional heat and add some cooling as needed, making it very clear that the reactor is exothermic.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope with you that all LENR scientists and activators will enjoy the privileges of the rich one day, oceans!

  • US_Citizen71

    These are only advantages if excess heat is detected.