MFMP Glowstick Test — Discussion Thread

Bob Greenyer has posted on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook page about a new MFMP test to start ‘first thing’ in the morning of April 2, (California time) to be carried out by Alan Goldwater.

Bob reports that the calibration for the *Glowstick* MK2 reactor has all been completed. Bob says that since the nickel powder he was given by Alexander Parkhomov is still in transit, Alan Goldwater will be using Hunter Chemical AH50 Carbonyl Nickel powder, along with lithium aluminum hydride.

Alan Goldwater writes on the MFMP FB page:

If all goes well, I’ll start the live run around 6 AM tomorrow. Interesting things should start happening by Noon and excess heat by 6 PM [we wish!]. Not sure what to do if it’s stable and still running at Midnight. Can I safely get some sleep with a ‘nuclear’ reactor running in my garage?”

Bob Greenyer tells me he hopes he will be able to get some live streaming set up; however, broadcasting from Alan Goldwater’s site has not been set up yet. They will probably use Hugnet data capture to give results in real time.

Let’s keep comment and news about this experiment on this thread — will update as needed tomorrow.

UPDATE: 7:31 a.m. (Pacific time): Bob Greenyer comments here:

“Alan started at 6.30am and is at around 70ºC on a 12 hour ramp to 1200. He is recording all the data, we are trying to find the best way to get a livestream working from his site.”

UPDATE: 9:00 a.m.

Snapshot of the data:

Glowstick1

UPDATE 10:09

Live Youtube broadcast here

UPDATE 6:00 pm

The above Youtube stream has reached its 8 hours limit, here’s the current livestream:

  • lars

    except of that the fuel is a little different from Parkhamovs is the rest of the setup exactly the same?

    • Blazespin

      No, Parhamov’s used cheap glue. The glowsticks are using these high performance swageloks, so no leakage is likely to happen (thus Bang!). They’re like minature pipe bombs 🙂 Presumably we won’t see a reoccurence of bang because they’re using less fuel relative to volume and hopefully the slow ramp up will mean less pressure .. or at least the theory goes.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The good thing is we will be monitoring the pressure data accurately and broadcasting it. The raw data will be available for all. This may prove key to all parties further experiments.

  • Hank Mills

    MFMP,

    Please try to push the temp as high as possible, and, at some point, cut off the input to look for HAD. I’m hoping that the reactor may glow for an extended period (at least 30 minutes or an hour) at a non-declining temperature with no input power. Transmutations and isotopic shifts are cool and swell, but nothing more obviously and visually proves LENR better that a self sustaining reactor. Input power can be debated over, calorimetry can be argued about, and sub-infinite COPs can be fought over for months on forums. Self sustaing HAD cuts through all the noise, however.

    Thank you.

    • Blazespin

      The key is to map it as closely to the dummy run as possible. If they do the fueled run with different parameters there’s no viable control.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Hank Mills, good point about HAD. With 1 g of fuel, the chemical limit is exceeded in just 15-30 seconds. It’s wise to take benefit of the fact that in the MFMP test the reactor materials are known. In Lugano the measurement task was harder because the whole reactor had to be treated as a black box.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If it looks positive and stable, we can consider this as the experiment progresses.

  • Daniel Maris

    Should be an interesting day ahead! 🙂

  • Blazespin

    The key is to map it as closely to the dummy run as possible. If they do the fueled run with different parameters there’s no viable control.

  • Blazespin

    No, Parhamov’s used cheap glue. The glowsticks are using these high performance swageloks, so no leakage is likely to happen (thus Bang!). They’re like minature pipe bombs 🙂 Presumably we won’t see a reoccurence of bang because they’re using less fuel relative to volume and hopefully the slow ramp up will mean less pressure .. or at least the theory goes.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The good thing is we will be monitoring the pressure data accurately and broadcasting it. The raw data will be available for all. This may prove key to all parties further experiments.

  • Andrey

    MFMP, please make sure that you are heating the reactor SLOWLY, so the H atoms, released from Lithium Hydrate will have time to be absorbed by Nickel. This seemed to be the key in Parkhomov’s success. Otherwise the pressure inside the reactor will reach critical, causing the reactor to fail.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We will be heating over 12 hours, just as Dr. Parkhomov did.

      The pressure data will be recorded and hopefully broadcast live!

  • snowvoardphil

    I’m happy to see the replication results will not have been broadcasted on a 1st of april !

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan was in a holding pattern yesterday to avoid this coincidence.

  • http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html

    Grade AH50 is produced through a Carbonyl process and is spherically-shaped with a spiky morphology. Raw material is processed and tightly monitored to achieve a particle size distribution of of 3-6 microns (FSSS). Lab samples are available on request.

    Chemical Analysis:
    Element Specification
    Nickel 99.8 % min.
    Carbon 0.1 % max.
    Sulfur 0.001 % max.
    Iron 0.001 % max.
    Cobalt 0.0005 % max.

    Rossi says it has to be 99.999% pure nickel. So why are they wasting their time and money? I am not impressed with the goofing around with these tests at all. They are not using the scientific method properly in these experiments. Sloppy science is not good science.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There are several statements by Rossi on the purity of nickel, all of which date from 2011. I guess you are referring to this one:

      September 27th, 2011

      Q: “I believe commercially pure nickel, such as Nickel 200, still has ~0.15% carbon by weight, in addition to other impurities. Is the 400 degree C limit of the ecat device a function of the purity of the nickel used, where graphite will start to precipitate and coat the nickel particles”

      A.R.: “We use 5 nines Ni.”

      This statement is obviously related to the older E-Cat, where hydrogen was supplied from a bottle. In the new reactors, coating of the Ni surface should be no longer a problem due to the use of LiAlH4 and possible additives. There might be other reasons why impurities could be harmful, but as far as I know there is no first-hand information on that point.

    • Obvious

      Once lithium aluminum hydride and whatever else gets in the tube, the 99.999% goes right out the window. The LAH is probably way less pure than the nickel.
      5 ppm Co and 10 ppm S do seem a little high, but they will be only 5 micrograms of Co and 10 micrograms of S in a gram of Ni powder.
      If this nickel doesn’t work, then maybe the super clean nickel needs to be used. If this nickel does work, then we can relax on the purity a bit. Maybe it won’t run 6 months, or maybe it will spray neutrons around like crazy. One way to find out.

      • Axil Axil

        I would like to inform this discussion about the large amount of elements (impurity?) detected in the Rossi fuel load that vanished in the ash.

        On page 53 of the Lagano report:

        “Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.”

    • Bob Greenyer

      We cannot replicate Rossi, because we do not know the source of his materials.

      We are replicating, in all key aspects (temperature profile, Nickel, LiAlH4, sealed vessel) One of the many variants of Parkhomov’s experiments.

      We went to a huge amount of trouble to visit Dr. Parkhomov to make as much information public as possible about the methods and materials he uses to enable wide scale replication. Key to that is the publication of the exact source of his powder that he has used in his most successful experiment to date – the recent long term test. The image I took of that powder is here:

      http://bit.ly/1OaGxWt

      and as you can see it is 99.90%. So if we are to accept Dr. Parkhomov’s work, which is the only tangible verification of Rossi’s claims, then he has shown that in a hot cat analogue “five nines” nickel is not needed. This is easy to understand from the point of view of the corrosive nature of molten Lithium, Aluminium and the Hydrogen – much of the impurities will be stripped away. Additionally, there is an amount of air in the Hot Cat and Parkhomov reactors that makes purity figures less critical it would seam.

      The opportunity was taken to secure a sample of the very same Nickel that Dr. Parkhomov has used, with his permission. This is in transit to various team members.

      The AH50 Nickel is at least 99.8% pure, so has up to 100% more impurities than Parkhomov’s powder, but Alan was ready to proceed and is prepared to run the test and since the consumables are cheap and he is a volunteer, it makes sense to proceed.

      Of more concern is the fact that in Dr. Parkhomov’s controller there is always an AC voltage of some value on the wires, the only transient is a momentary drop when the relay switches the ratio on the switched transformer. But since he was partially able to re-start the reactor after complete heater failure, we feel this may not be material.

      Therefore there are 2 possible outcomes of this test, both of them very valuable.

      1. No excess heat, in which case, the test forms the perfect baseline for the run with Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel powder and potentially excludes AH50 as a Nickel source.

      2. Excess heat, in which case, we establish a readily available cheap Nickel source in the US for replicators, oh, and we provide live evidence that the essential effect is repeatable.

      In either case, we will be capturing the long term pressure profile during the experiment to add to the work we did on 2nd January in Minnesota and Dr. Parkhomov’s recent work which will help the wider community understand how this system works. As we have repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of the Swagelok sealing method, we should have good confidence that drops in pressure are not due to leakage. With this level of pressure characterisation, people can make informed choices about their reactor designs.

  • http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html

    Grade AH50 is produced through a Carbonyl process and is spherically-shaped with a spiky morphology. Raw material is processed and tightly monitored to achieve a particle size distribution of of 3-6 microns (FSSS). Lab samples are available on request.

    Chemical Analysis:
    Element Specification
    Nickel 99.8 % min.
    Carbon 0.1 % max.
    Sulfur 0.001 % max.
    Iron 0.001 % max.
    Cobalt 0.0005 % max.

    Rossi says it has to be 99.999% pure nickel. So why are they wasting their time and money? I am not impressed with the goofing around with these tests at all. They are not using the scientific method properly in these experiments. Sloppy science is not good science.

    • Blazespin

      Not at all! It’s amazing how many discoveries were made by being ‘sloppy’. All of these tests are useful and interesting as long as they record the results with precision.

      • The point is to try to reproduce a proven product. You start by exactly copying the design as much as possible. Then if you get success, you can go off on a tangent and try your own ideas. Rossi uses high purity nickel for a reason. He has spent years testing different fuel formulations. People think they know better than Rossi, but I don’t think they do.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          From where do you know what kind of nickel Rossi uses in his latest reactors? You cannot infer that from 3 ½ year old statements on the old E-Cat. In case that you have another source, please disclose it.

        • Montague Withnail

          Do you have some of that very pure nickel power and if so can you get some over to Alan? If not, why not just be supportive of him doing the closest replication he can with the resources he has? The worst that can happen is he will get a negative result which of course is still a very valuable result scientifically speaking.

          • Rossi grinds his own nickel powder from pure nickel rods. Find the source of the pure nickel rods and learn how to grind. And, what about iron powder? You are just ignoring that? Try to duplicate what Rossi did and then make changes. I would be interested in seeing what adding pure lithium powder to the mix would do.

            http://www.americanelements.com/limp.html

            That might negate the need for the iron dust and allow more stability and a higher COP. But first I would get a baseline result by duplicating the Rossi device, not the Russian device, which has not been replicated or proven beyond doubt.

          • Montague Withnail

            Well I have to admit I find this very confusing.

            First, I learned something from it since I didn’t know that was how Rossi made his nickel powder and I find it fascinating. How on earth does he control particle size, let alone contamination from the grinder? The MFMP team seems unaware about this method since Bob states above that they don’t know the source of his materials.

            In any case it seems absolutely hopeless to attempt to replicate Rossi in any kind of exact way from this little amount of information and it would be impossible to know how pure your powder actually was, certainly to that degree of accuracy, without very expensive equipment, let alone to know how pure his actually was. The issue of particle size (and even surface morphology) is even more pressing in my mind, I think it is very likely to matter a lot.

            Far better surely to try to replicate Parkhomov who at least has provided very precise details of his experiment. Your problem with this seems to be that it has not been replicated yet – a thorny issue if no one attempts to do so!

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi grinds his own nickel powder from pure nickel rods.

            This can not be correct because he could not produce tubercles on the surface of the particles that way as he claims he does. The pictures of his powder show tubercles very much like the powder that is being used by all the replicators.

            Please provide a reference for this assertion.

          • I saw a picture of Rossi holding a nickel rod. In the story, Rossi claimed that he had a very old man in his 80s or 90s grinding the powder for him. He said he treated the nickel powder to make the surface more rough with surface protrusions.

          • Nickel from China

            http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/jcmaterials/product-detailOoSmcPNDGyVj/China-High-Pure-Nickel-99-99-99-999-.html

            Pure nickel from Ohio

            They claim they have 99.999% pure nickel and are custom work suppliers.

            http://www.thomasnet.com/profile/00034875/gfs-chemicals-inc.html?what=Pure+Nickel&cov=NA&heading=53742805&searchpos=9&cid=34875

            Get allot and then resell to E-Cat experimenters.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There are several statements by Rossi on the purity of nickel, all of which date from 2011. I guess you are referring to this one:

      September 27th, 2011

      Q: “I believe commercially pure nickel, such as Nickel 200, still has ~0.15% carbon by weight, in addition to other impurities. Is the 400 degree C limit of the ecat device a function of the purity of the nickel used, where graphite will start to precipitate and coat the nickel particles”

      A.R.: “We use 5 nines Ni.”

      This statement is obviously related to the older E-Cat, where hydrogen was supplied from a bottle. In the new reactors, coating of the Ni surface should be no longer a problem due to the use of LiAlH4 and possible additives. There might be other reasons why impurities could be harmful, but as far as I know there is no first-hand information on that point.

    • Obvious

      Once lithium aluminum hydride and whatever else gets in the tube, the 99.999% goes right out the window. The LAH is probably way less pure than the nickel.
      5 ppm Co and 10 ppm S do seem a little high, but they will be only 5 micrograms of Co and 10 micrograms of S in a gram of Ni powder.
      If this nickel doesn’t work, then maybe the super clean nickel needs to be used. If this nickel does work, then we can relax on the purity a bit. Maybe it won’t run 6 months, or maybe it will spray neutrons around like crazy. One way to find out.

      • Axil Axil

        I would like to inform this discussion about the large amount of elements (impurity?) detected in the Rossi fuel load that vanished in the ash.

        On page 53 of the Lagano report:

        “Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.”

    • Bob Greenyer

      We cannot replicate Rossi, because we do not know the source of his materials.

      We are replicating, in all key aspects (temperature profile, Nickel, LiAlH4, sealed vessel) One of the many variants of Parkhomov’s experiments.

      We went to a huge amount of trouble to visit Dr. Parkhomov to make as much information public as possible about the methods and materials he uses to enable wide scale replication. Key to that is the publication of the exact source of his powder that he has used in his most successful experiment to date – the recent long term test. The image I took of that powder is here:

      http://bit.ly/1OaGxWt

      and as you can see it is 99.90%. So if we are to accept Dr. Parkhomov’s work, which is the only tangible verification of Rossi’s claims, then he has shown that in a hot cat analogue “five nines” nickel is not needed. This is easy to understand from the point of view of the corrosive nature of molten Lithium, Aluminium and the Hydrogen – much of the impurities will be stripped away. Additionally, there is an amount of air in the Hot Cat and Parkhomov reactors that makes purity figures less critical it would seem.

      The opportunity was taken to secure a sample of the very same Nickel that Dr. Parkhomov has used, with his permission. This is in transit to various team members.

      The AH50 Nickel is at least 99.8% pure, so has up to 100% more impurities than Parkhomov’s powder, but Alan was ready to proceed and is prepared to run the test and since the consumables are cheap and he is a volunteer, it makes sense to proceed.

      Of more concern is the fact that in Dr. Parkhomov’s controller there is always an AC voltage of some value on the wires, the only transient is a momentary drop when the relay switches the ratio on the switched transformer. But since he was partially able to re-start the reactor after complete heater failure, we feel this may not be material.

      Therefore there are 2 possible outcomes of this test, both of them very valuable.

      1. No excess heat, in which case, the test forms the perfect baseline for the run with Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel powder since it will have the exact heating profile, a Ni type and LiAlH4 in. It may also potentially exclude AH50 as a useful Nickel powder type.

      2. Excess heat, in which case, we establish a readily available cheap Nickel source in the US for replicators, oh, and we provide live evidence that the essential effect is repeatable.

      In either case, we will be capturing the long term pressure profile during the experiment to add to the work we did on 2nd January in Minnesota and Dr. Parkhomov’s recent work which will help the wider community understand how this system works. As we have repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of the Swagelok sealing method, we should have good confidence that drops in pressure are not due to leakage. With this level of pressure characterisation, people can make informed choices about their reactor designs.

  • Godspeed.

  • Godspeed.

  • Robert Dorr

    The fact that the Lithium Aluminum Hydride being used may be depleted of the isotope Li6 and given that the presence of Li6 may have implications in the ability of a reactor to produce excess heat, is disturbing. It appears that most but not all of the compounds containing Lithium were depleted of Lithium 6. This may be one of the reasons that replication has been so haphazard. I hope that, if this run of the reactor is negative there will be an
    additional run with a reactor containing LiAH that has a proper
    isotopic mix. It is disconcerting that the government kept this fact, i.e. the harvesting of Lithium 6, for cold war purposes, during the mining and purification process from the public and academia.

    Robert Dorr

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Hank Mills, good point about HAD. With 1 g of fuel, the chemical limit is exceeded in just 15-30 seconds. It’s wise to take benefit of the fact that in the MFMP test the reactor materials are known. In Lugano the measurement task was harder because the whole reactor had to be treated as a black box.

  • The point is to try to reproduce a proven product. You start by exactly copying the design as much as possible. Then if you get success, you can go off on a tangent and try your own ideas. Rossi uses high purity nickel for a reason. He has spent years testing different fuel formulations. People think they know better than Rossi, but I don’t think they do.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      From where do you know what kind of nickel Rossi uses in his latest reactors? You cannot infer that from 3 ½ year old statements on the old E-Cat. In case that you have another source, please disclose it.

    • MontagueWithnail

      Do you have some of that very pure nickel power and if so can you get some over to Alan? If not, why not just be supportive of him doing the closest replication he can with the resources he has? The worst that can happen is he will get a negative result which of course is still a very valuable result scientifically speaking.

      • Rossi grinds his own nickel powder from pure nickel rods. Find the source of the pure nickel rods and learn how to grind. And, what about iron powder? You are just ignoring that? Try to duplicate what Rossi did and then make changes. I would be interested in seeing what adding pure lithium powder to the mix would do.

        http://www.americanelements.com/limp.html

        That might negate the need for the iron dust and allow more stability and a higher COP. But first I would get a baseline result by duplicating the Rossi device, not the Russian device, which has not been replicated or proven beyond doubt.

        • MontagueWithnail

          Well I have to admit I find this very confusing.

          First, I learned something from it since I didn’t know that was how Rossi made his nickel powder and I find it fascinating. How on earth does he control particle size, let alone contamination from the grinder? The MFMP team seems unaware about this method since Bob states above that they don’t know the source of his materials.

          In any case it seems absolutely hopeless to attempt to replicate Rossi in any kind of exact way from this little amount of information and it would be impossible to know how pure your powder actually was, certainly to that degree of accuracy, without very expensive equipment, let alone to know how pure his actually was. The issue of particle size (and even surface morphology) is even more pressing in my mind, I think it is very likely to matter a lot.

          Far better surely to try to replicate Parkhomov who at least has provided very precise details of his experiment. Your problem with this seems to be that it has not been replicated yet – a thorny issue if no one attempts to do so!

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi grinds his own nickel powder from pure nickel rods.

          This can not be correct because he could not produce tubercles on the surface of the particles that way as he claims he does. The pictures of his powder show tubercles very much like the powder that is being used by all the replicators.

          Please provide a reference for this assertion.

          • I saw a picture of Rossi holding a nickel rod. In the story, Rossi claimed that he had a very old man in his 80s or 90s grinding the powder for him. He said he treated the nickel powder to make the surface more rough with surface protrusions.

      • Nickel from China

        http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/jcmaterials/product-detailOoSmcPNDGyVj/China-High-Pure-Nickel-99-99-99-999-.html

        Pure nickel from Ohio

        They claim they have 99.999% pure nickel and are custom work suppliers.

        http://www.thomasnet.com/profile/00034875/gfs-chemicals-inc.html?what=Pure+Nickel&cov=NA&heading=53742805&searchpos=9&cid=34875

        Get allot and then resell to E-Cat experimenters.

  • Gerard McEk

    Good luck Alan, I hope you will succeed. BTW I have worked for over 48 hours once and did not die….

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan has said that if things look positive, his son has agreed to drive 100 miles and do the night shift!

      • Gerard McEk

        That’s the spiri!

  • Gerard McEk

    Good luck Alan, I hope you will succeed. BTW I have worked for over 48 hours once and did not die….

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan has said that if things look positive, his son has agreed to drive 100 miles and do the night shift!

      • Gerard McEk

        That’s the spiri!

  • Svein Arild Utne

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

    Lithium-6

    Lithium-6 is valuable as the source material for the production of tritium
    (hydrogen-3) and as an absorber of neutrons in nuclear fusion
    reactions. Natural lithium contains about 7.5 percent lithium-6, with
    the rest being lithium-7. Large amounts of lithium-6 have been separated
    out for placing into hydrogen bombs. The separation of lithium-6 has by now ceased in the large thermonuclear
    powers, but stockpiles of it remain in these countries. Lithium-6 is
    one of only three isotopes with a spin of 1 and has the smallest nonzero
    nuclear electric quadrupole moment of any stable nucleus.

    So maybe we now can get Li-6 again?

  • Svein Arild Utne

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

    Lithium-6

    Lithium-6 is valuable as the source material for the production of tritium
    (hydrogen-3) and as an absorber of neutrons in nuclear fusion
    reactions. Natural lithium contains about 7.5 percent lithium-6, with
    the rest being lithium-7. Large amounts of lithium-6 have been separated
    out for placing into hydrogen bombs. The separation of lithium-6 has by now ceased in the large thermonuclear
    powers, but stockpiles of it remain in these countries. Lithium-6 is
    one of only three isotopes with a spin of 1 and has the smallest nonzero
    nuclear electric quadrupole moment of any stable nucleus.

    So maybe we now can get Li-6 again?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan was in a holding pattern yesterday to avoid this coincidence.

  • Bob Greenyer

    If it looks positive and stable, we can consider this as the experiment progresses.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We will be heating over 12 hours, just as Dr. Parkhomov did.

    The pressure data will be recorded and hopefully broadcast live!

  • At LENR Forum we opened a Chat Room for live discussing results from both Brian Ahern and MFMP:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/chat/index.php/Chat/1-LENR-Chat/

  • At LENR Forum we opened a Chat Room for live discussing results from both Brian Ahern and MFMP:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/chat/index.php/Chat/1-LENR-Chat/

  • ecatworld

    Quote from Alan Goldwater on MFMP FB page:

    “I got the fuel in without spilling any. The glove bag didn’t work (much too clumsy) so I just used a mask and lab coat, no problem. I did have to apply some vibration to the brass tube, because the powder packed pretty tight initially. Once it loosened up a bit, the ramrod worked OK.”

    • ecatworld

      He apparently did that last night, btw.

  • Frank Acland

    Quote from Alan Goldwater on MFMP FB page:

    “I got the fuel in without spilling any. The glove bag didn’t work (much too clumsy) so I just used a mask and lab coat, no problem. I did have to apply some vibration to the brass tube, because the powder packed pretty tight initially. Once it loosened up a bit, the ramrod worked OK.”

    • Frank Acland

      He apparently did that last night, btw.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan started at 6.30am and is at around 70ºC on a 12 hour ramp to 1200. He is recording all the data, we are trying to find the best way to get a livestream working from his site.

    • Bob Matulis

      When do you anticipate Alan receiving the Parkhomov powder? It will be interesting to compare the current test with a future test with the new powder.

      • Bob Greenyer

        He should receive it first, possibly tomorrow

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan started at 6.30am and is at around 70ºC on a 12 hour ramp to 1200. He is recording all the data, we are trying to find the best way to get a livestream working from his site.

    • Bob Matulis

      When do you anticipate Alan receiving the Parkhomov powder? It will be interesting to compare the current test with a future test with the new powder.

      • Bob Greenyer

        He should receive it first, possibly tomorrow

  • Bob Greenyer

    Screen captures will be placed in this directory

    http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2

    Going to try and get the youtube bounce running next

    • Ged

      Go, go, GlowStick Rangers! You mighty, probing, GlowStick Rangers! Yeah!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Screen captures will be placed in this directory

    http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2

    Going to try and get the youtube bounce running next

    • Ged

      Go, go, GlowStick Rangers! You mighty, probing, GlowStick Rangers! Yeah!

  • Curbina

    Some people might find this as exciting as watching the linoleum become unglued from the floor (this has been said to me by friends to whom I have sent the links to previous experiments), but certainly for us LENR nuts is the most exciting days when a live experiment is running and we watch the temperature / pressure slowly going up. 🙂

    • Mats002

      I must quit, wonder what will be the abstinence? I hope as soon MFMP get the expected excess heat and the news go viral outside the small followers community, my addict will loosen up. I want my normal life back soon 🙁

  • Curbina

    Some people might find this as exciting as watching the linoleum become unglued from the floor (this has been said to me by friends to whom I have sent the links to previous experiments), but certainly for us LENR nuts is the most exciting days when a live experiment is running and we watch the temperature / pressure slowly going up. 🙂

    • Mats002

      I must quit, wonder what will be the abstinence? I hope as soon MFMP get the expected excess heat and the news go viral outside the small followers community, my addict will loosen up. I want my normal life back soon 🙁

  • Matt Sevrens

    What will we do if MFMP continues to fail to replicate? MFMP is pretty much the only research group I feel I can trust 100%. If they can’t replicate…

    • Ged

      Then a lot of analysis and re-thinking will have to go on. The data will be what it will be–barring equipment failure.

    • JDM

      They don’t fail. They succeed in finding what doesn’t work!

  • Matt Sevrens

    What will we do if MFMP continues to fail to replicate? MFMP is pretty much the only research group I feel I can trust 100%. If they can’t replicate…

    • Ged

      Then a lot of analysis and re-thinking will have to go on. The data will be what it will be–barring equipment failure.

    • JDM

      They don’t fail. They succeed in finding what doesn’t work!

  • MontagueWithnail

    I understood Parkhomov reported a maximum of 5 bar 200 deg C. According to snapshot 4 they are already above 450 PSI (>30 bar I guess) and the temp is only just over 200 deg C. Is this what they expected?

    • Ged

      You’re right; that pressure does seem like it is getting really high. Hope the reactor doesn’t blow. It should be good for well over 1000 PSI if I remember right from the Bang! reactor.

      • MontagueWithnail

        Looks like it has peaked and is already coming down steeply from the video. I hope that was expected and not a sign of a leak.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We do not think it is a leak, because of the stair stepping

          • Ged

            Agreed, that is a really abnormal curve shape, like a” bubbling” going on that absorbs more hydrogen each round.

        • Ged

          That is a big drop. It held water vapor, but… Let’s see if it flattens out again. I know Parhomov saw a similar curve and then negative pressures when the hydrogen was all absorbed.

          • MontagueWithnail

            It’s fascinating, I wonder what causes the step shape Bob noted?

    • AlbertNN

      Parkhomovs pressure curve is indicative of a small leak, which occurred at 5 bar. The exponential decay of the pressure is exactly what I would expect from such a leak, and approximately what was recorded.

      • Mr. Moho

        Very good observation.

  • Montague Withnail

    I understood Parkhomov reported a maximum of 5 bar 200 deg C. According to snapshot 4 they are already above 450 PSI (>30 bar I guess) and the temp is only just over 200 deg C. Is this what they expected?

    • Ged

      You’re right; that pressure does seem like it is getting really high. Hope the reactor doesn’t blow. It should be good for well over 1000 PSI if I remember right from the Bang! reactor.

      • Montague Withnail

        Looks like it has peaked and is already coming down steeply from the video. I hope that was expected and not a sign of a leak.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We do not think it is a leak, because of the stair stepping

          • Ged

            Agreed, that is a really abnormal curve shape, like a “bubbling” going on that absorbs more hydrogen each round.

        • Ged

          That is a big drop. It held water vapor, but… Let’s see if it flattens out again. I know Parhomov saw a similar curve and then negative pressures when the hydrogen was all absorbed.

          • Montague Withnail

            It’s fascinating, I wonder what causes the step shape Bob noted?

    • AlbertNN

      Parkhomovs pressure curve is indicative of a small leak, which occurred at 5 bar. The exponential decay of the pressure is exactly what I would expect from such a leak, and approximately what was recorded.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • JDM

      Is the heater voltage variation expected?

      • Bob Greenyer

        yes – part of the PID targeting the temperature

        • Mats002

          Is the heater voltage AC or DC?

          • Bob Greenyer

            AC

          • Mats002

            Thanks, I was a little worried there for a minute 😉

    • Is there a pressure leak or is it just the normal absorption by the nickle?

  • Bob Greenyer
    • JDM

      Is the heater voltage variation expected?

      • Bob Greenyer

        yes – part of the PID targeting the temperature

        • Mats002

          Is the heater voltage AC or DC?

          • Bob Greenyer

            AC

          • Mats002

            Thanks, I was a little worried there for a minute 😉

    • Is there a pressure leak or is it just the normal absorption by the nickle?

  • snowvoardphil

    I wonder how many people are watching this? And if its got the attention of Bill Gates or Elon Musk.

    • Jamie Sibley

      89 People says YouTube.

      • artefact

        134 now.

        • artefact

          181 now.

  • Sanjeev

    I can’t find the power input data in screen shot. Is it not being recorded ?
    Calibration curve.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/images/GlowStick/Power%20calculation%20check.jpg

  • Sanjeev

    I can’t find the power input data in screen shot. Is it not being recorded ?
    Calibration curve.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/images/GlowStick/Power%20calculation%20check.jpg

  • Physicsdog

    Could some able to read the screen explain the significance of the red, gree, blue?

    • Sanjeev

      You can read the pictures here better:
      http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2

      • Physicsdog

        Thanks very much, that worked

  • MontagueWithnail

    What happened to the temp? I got excited for a minute.

    • Ged

      Looks like a little exothermic chemical reaction occurred.

      • MontagueWithnail

        I thought that at first but then wasn’t sure why the temps started to decrease. Could that that be a reaction from the PID to the higher rate of increase?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Periodically Alan has to up the maximum voltage on the variac and the PID needs to adjust following this. This is likely one of those occasions. Alan is grappling with Audio issues his end

        • Sanjeev

          What is the input power now ?
          Is it possible to update the power reading periodically ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            heater coil is 9.0 ohms at 100 C and 9.1 ohms at 800 C so can work out ball park

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks Bob.

          • JDM

            34^2/9~128W ?

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, perhaps.
            Temp on snapshot 11 is 350 C.
            On calibration temp at 128W is 400-420 C

  • Montague Withnail

    What happened to the temp? I got excited for a minute.

    • Ged

      Looks like a little exothermic chemical reaction occurred.

      • Montague Withnail

        I thought that at first but then wasn’t sure why the temps started to decrease. Could that that be a reaction from the PID to the higher rate of increase?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Periodically Alan has to up the maximum voltage on the variac and the PID needs to adjust following this. This is likely one of those occasions. Alan is grappling with Audio issues his end

        • Sanjeev

          What is the input power now ?
          Is it possible to update the power reading periodically ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            heater coil is 9.0 ohms at 100 C and 9.1 ohms at 800 C so can work out ball park

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks Bob.

          • JDM

            34^2/9~128W ?

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, perhaps.
            Temp on snapshot 11 is 350 C.
            On calibration temp at 128W is 400-420 C

  • Private Citizen

    Can someone please supply a direct link to the Google Hangout for this experiment? Can’t read the comments or graphs in the YouTube version, too blurry. Thanks.

  • Private Citizen

    Can someone please supply a direct link to the Google Hangout for this experiment? Can’t read the comments or graphs in the YouTube version, too blurry. Thanks.

  • ecatworld

    Latest screenshot 430 psi (30 bar), Outer Core Temp, 290C, Inner temp 270C

  • Frank Acland

    Latest screenshot 430 psi (30 bar), Outer Core Temp, 290C, Inner temp 270C

  • artefact

    134 now.

    • artefact

      181 now.

  • Sanjeev

    You can read the pictures here better:
    http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2

  • ecatworld
  • Frank Acland
  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest screenshot,

    297 psi (20.47 bar). Outer Core Temp 416ºC, Outside heater 367ºC

    • Ged

      Core and heater are definitely growing farther apart. Is the “heater” temp the unfurled control side?

    • Sanjeev

      Power in = 170W
      Its running 50`C cooler than calibration.

      • Ged

        Think you looked at the wrong temp, Sanjeev. The calibration for outside core and the last temp screenshot (13) seem nearly on top of eachother for that power in (between 460 and 480C). Definitely not 50C apart though.

        • Sanjeev

          That was for screenshot 12, taken 1 hour ago.
          Now its 450`C at same power.

          • Ged

            Screenshot 14 shows about 215W and ~500C, which is extremely close if slightly less than calibration (don’t know if temps have settled yet). Interesting part is the PSI is leveling off around 250.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, that’s close to calibration.
            So the temperature has caught up and it will be interesting to watch if it crosses the calibration values.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest screenshot,

    297 psi (20.47 bar). Outer Core Temp 416ºC, Outside heater 367ºC

    • Da Phys

      Hi Bob,
      Can you tell us how much fuel was loaded, at which ratio Ni/LiAlH4 and the internal volume of the dogbone?
      Thanks

    • Ged

      Core and heater are definitely growing farther apart. Is the “heater” temp the unfueled control side?

    • Sanjeev

      Power in = 170W
      Its running 50`C cooler than calibration.

      • Ged

        Think you looked at the wrong temp, Sanjeev. The calibration for outside core and the last temp screenshot (13) seem nearly on top of eachother for that power in (between 460 and 480C). Definitely not 50C apart though. Unless I am the one looking at the wrong power in time point.

        Edit: the 13th screenshot’s power in is 160W I believe? And at nearly 460C, seems on calibration indeed. Please correct me if I’m wrong and looking at the wrong stuff. Trying my best to follow by cell phone.

        • Sanjeev

          That was for screenshot 12, taken 1 hour ago.
          Now its 450`C at same power. You are correct about #13, no problems.

          • Ged

            Screenshot 14 shows about 215W and ~500C, which is extremely close if slightly less than calibration (don’t know if temps have settled yet). Interesting part is the PSI is leveling off around 250.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, that’s close to calibration.
            So the temperature has caught up and it will be interesting to watch if it crosses the calibration values.

  • Jonnyb

    Hi Frank, had an e-mail from you asking me to open a confidential document, was it from you or a scam, I have not opened it yet. Thanks Jon

    • artefact

      That is spam! Many people got it.

      • ecatworld

        Yes, I am sorry about this — don’t open this email. I am having to take security measures as my account has been compromised.

        • Curbina

          I got the e-mail, and opened it (I know, I know, stupid move, but I have Frank in high regard and did not distrust the mail coming from him) but so far it did not cause any problem, have anyone got a problem from that e-mail?

          • the risk is in one linked that ask you to give your google docs password…
            I signaled it as phishing. chrome should soon warn people

          • Curbina

            The page did not load for me, likely your warning to Google worked fine and they took it offline. Phew!

          • Josh G

            But then won’t gmail mark all future e-mails from Frank as phishing or spam?

          • that is about the link

          • Mr. Moho

            If you actually inserted your username and password you might have had your credentials stolen.

          • NT

            I went into my google account security setup and changed password, etc just to be on the safe side. If anyone opened the email I would advise to do the same…

          • Ged

            Likely a virus. Should do a virus scan, but possible it couldn’t get your OS.

        • Sanjeev

          Better to email all your contacts in that account, asking to delete the infected emails.

        • Jonnyb

          Thanks Frank and everyone, thought I had won a prize to see the E-cat in operation all expenses paid, oh well, maybe next time?

    • Josh G

      Not just spam but a trojan/virus. I got one, too, as did probably everyone registered here…

  • Jonnyb

    Hi Frank, had an e-mail from you asking me to open a confidential document, was it from you or a scam, I have not opened it yet. Thanks Jon

    • artefact

      That is spam! Many people got it.

      • Frank Acland

        Yes, I am sorry about this — don’t open this email. I am having to take security measures as my account has been compromised.

        • Curbina

          I got the e-mail, and opened it (I know, I know, stupid move, but I have Frank in high regard and did not distrust the mail coming from him) but so far it did not cause any problem, have anyone got a problem from that e-mail?

          • the risk is in one linked that ask you to give your google docs password…
            I signaled it as phishing. chrome should soon warn people

          • Curbina

            The page did not load for me, likely your warning to Google worked fine and they took it offline. Phew!

          • Josh G

            But then won’t gmail mark all future e-mails from Frank as phishing or spam?

          • that is about the link

          • Ged

            Likely a virus. Should do a virus scan, but possible it couldn’t get your OS.

        • Sanjeev

          Better to email all your contacts in that account, asking to delete the infected emails.

        • Jonnyb

          Thanks Frank and everyone, thought I had won a prize to see the E-cat in operation all expenses paid, oh well, maybe next time?

    • Josh G

      Not just spam but a trojan/virus. I got one, too, as did probably everyone registered here…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest screenshot (14) shows outside core at 500ºC – so basing off calibration the inside temperature is around 630ºC now, which means we are about 30-45mins away from

    – melting point of LiH : 688.1ºC

    and

    – melting point of 50/50 LiAl : 702ºC

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9Wd0ItR0ZvNWViclk/view?usp=sharing

    • 700°C seems now to be reached?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest screenshot (14) shows outside core at 500ºC – so basing off calibration the inside temperature is around 630ºC now, which means we are about 30-45mins away from

    – melting point of LiH : 688.1ºC

    and

    – melting point of 50/50 LiAl : 702ºC

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9Wd0ItR0ZvNWViclk/view?usp=sharing

    • 700°C seems now to be reached?

  • Mats002

    160 watching live, so if this run give the expected candy, 160 people + a few others have news for 9 billion? That is a lot of telling to do…

  • Mats002

    160 watching live, so if this run give the expected candy, 160 people + a few others have news for 9 billion? That is a lot of telling to do…

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Obvious

      Is that 15, or is there a 16 now. A grab with the pressure bouncing around now would be nice.

      • Bob Greenyer

        15 is the latest – another one coming soon

        • Obvious

          Thanks, just got 17 (don’t see a 16)
          Nice.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There was not a 16.

            17 is latest

          • Obvious

            Something weird going on…
            Might want to back away.

          • Mats002

            Positive or negative? (a saying in the family)

          • Obvious

            I don’t know. I would consider stabilizing the temperature for a bit, if it isn’t already. See if the pressure levels out. I would hate for it to break this close to the zone.

          • Mop

            Make sure you compare the scales for the pressure to the earlier pictures! It’s now a much tighter range than before. There might have been the same jitter in the earlier pictures if you’d zoom into a particular area there with the same tight scale as in these newer pictures.

          • Ged

            Definitely a lot of turmoil going on in that sucker.

          • Mats002

            It is Axil Axils weather storm, lightning etc

          • Mats002

            First time a comment was caught by the ‘bad’ filter, I wonder why? Anyways I was saying it is the weather storm with lightning and more…

          • Mats002

            This discuss filter takes lightning (test)

          • Mats002

            This discuss filter takes storm (test)

          • Obvious

            Looks like the pressure is still well below the previous maximum. Around half right now. So maybe not too scary yet. The apparent rate of increase is what got me worked up, more than the overall pressure.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Alan says this is the thickest tubes we have used yet and should be good to around 100bar

          • Obvious

            Good to know. Thanks.

      • Mats002

        What is your understanding of that pressure bouncing Obvious?

        • Obvious

          I don’t know. Move back is my impression. Familiarize location of sand bucket.., plan escape path…

          • physicsdog

            Now that was funny!

    • Bob Matulis

      Looking Good! Over half the way there. Very exciting.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The pressure graph looks now very noisy. If there is no problem with the sensor, we might see something interesting soon.

      • artefact

        It could be that it just looks to be more noisy due to a higher zoom. Now it is back to the zoom like before.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Right. There are enormous differences in the scales. 3.5 psi in no. 17 vs. 25 psi in no. 18, for example.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The scale was quite tight – now the pressure is breaking upwards as we go through key transitions it looks less ‘noisy’

    • Ged

      I can see in the vid that pressure is going way up again and temps are fluctuating. But can’t see any details. Is it ok to request more screen grabs during this interesting time?

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Obvious

      Is that 15, or is there a 16 now? A grab with the pressure bouncing around now would be nice.

      • Bob Greenyer

        15 is the latest – another one coming soon

        • Obvious

          Thanks, just got 17 (don’t see a 16)
          Nice.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There was not a 16.

            17 is latest

          • Obvious

            Something weird going on…
            Might want to back away.

          • Mats002

            Positive or negative? (a saying in the family)

          • Obvious

            I don’t know. I would consider stabilizing the temperature for a bit, if it isn’t already. See if the pressure levels out. I would hate for it to break this close to the zone.

          • Mop

            Make sure you compare the scales for the pressure to the earlier pictures! It’s now a much tighter range than before. There might have been the same jitter in the earlier pictures if you’d zoom into a particular area there with the same tight scale as in these newer pictures.

          • Ged

            Definitely a lot of turmoil going on in that sucker.

          • Mats002

            It is Axil Axils weather storm, lightning etc

          • Mats002

            First time a comment was caught by the ‘bad’ filter, I wonder why? Anyways I was saying it is the weather storm with lightning and more…

          • Mats002

            This discuss filter takes lightning (test)

          • Mats002

            This discuss filter takes storm (test)

          • Obvious

            Looks like the pressure is still well below the previous maximum. Around half right now. So maybe not too scary yet. The apparent rate of increase is what got me worked up, more than the overall pressure. The auto scaling makes it look more exciting, too, until the graph plots further along.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Alan says this is the thickest tubes we have used yet and should be good to around 100bar

          • Obvious

            Good to know. Thanks.

      • Mats002

        What is your understanding of that pressure bouncing Obvious?

        • Obvious

          I don’t know. Move back is my impression. Familiarize location of sand bucket.., plan escape path…

          • physicsdog

            Now that was funny!

    • Bob Matulis

      Looking Good! Over half the way there. Very exciting.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The pressure graph looks now very noisy. If there is no problem with the sensor, we might see something interesting soon.

      • artefact

        It could be that it just looks to be more noisy due to a higher zoom. Now it is back to the zoom like before.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Right. There are enormous differences in the scales. 3.5 psi in no. 17 vs. 25 psi in no. 18, for example.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The scale was quite tight – now the pressure is breaking upwards as we go through key transitions it looks less ‘noisy’

    • Ged

      I can see in the vid that pressure is going way up again and temps are fluctuating. But can’t see any details. Is it ok to request more screen grabs during this interesting time?

  • Sanjeev

    Pressure is rising. Perhaps second H2 release happened ?
    Will it be wise to stop increasing the power for some time ?

  • Sanjeev

    Pressure is rising. Perhaps second H2 release happened ?
    Will it be wise to stop increasing the power for some time ?

  • telessar

    Where is the control graph?

  • artefact

    interesting that the pressure when going up does it again in steps.

    • Mats002

      A/D converter set on low frequency 😉 ?

    • Bob Matulis

      Is this pressure increase anticipated re Parkhomov?

      • Sanjeev

        No AP saw only drop of pressure, no increase after the peak.

    • Sanjeev

      Can be a pressure transducer issue. It jams and then releases suddenly when pressure changes.
      Anyway, its good to see it going up, which means there is no leak.

  • artefact

    interesting that the pressure when going up does it again in steps.

    • Mats002

      A/D converter set on low frequency 😉 ?

    • Bob Matulis

      Is this pressure increase anticipated re Parkhomov?

      • Sanjeev

        No AP saw only drop of pressure, no increase after the peak.

    • Sanjeev

      Can be a pressure transducer issue. It jams and then releases suddenly when pressure changes.
      Anyway, its good to see it going up, which means there is no leak.

  • Mats002

    Mike Henderson: During the trial run, Inside temp was roughly (outside temp * 1.5) – 90. If that relationship still holds true with fuel, the inside temp should be about 750 C now.
    Felt significant, just catching the moment.

  • Maje

    Hi. The Numbers ar out of fokus here.
    The last screen shot was ok.
    A up date on that wil be fine. Or the temp. Pres…

  • Mats002

    Mike Henderson: During the trial run, Inside temp was roughly (outside temp * 1.5) – 90. If that relationship still holds true with fuel, the inside temp should be about 750 C now.
    Felt significant, just catching the moment.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Like I was noticing earlier, Ecco’s analysis and plot shows that growing divergence of the active core versus the internal control. This is very interesting. We’ll have to see how far it diverges from, but it seems the divergence may be accelerating as we approach the hypothesized average threshold for activity.

      • Mats002

        I made the same observation, just saying…

        • Ged

          Looks like this may be an exciting run ;).

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have calculated that the cell should withstand 100 bar and the predicted maximum from here on out will be 60bars.

            This cell is a runner

          • Mats002

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – I mean that it would disappoint Scotty, as he couldn’t say “She’s gonna blow kappin'”

          • Mats002

            Let’s go figure…

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Like I was noticing earlier, Ecco’s analysis and plot shows that growing divergence of the active core versus the internal control. This is very interesting. We’ll have to see how far it diverges from, but it seems the divergence may be accelerating as we approach the hypothesized average threshold for activity.

      • Mats002

        I made the same observation, just saying…

        • Ged

          Looks like this may be an exciting run ;).

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have calculated that the cell should withstand 100 bar and the predicted maximum from here on out will be 60bars.

            This cell is a runner

          • Mats002

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – I mean that it would disappoint Scotty, as he couldn’t say “She’s gonna blow kappin'”

          • Mats002

            Let’s go figure…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting paper Mathieu Valat posted in the group chat for the run

    http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~surface/Posters/ChenPing/Poster%20of%20Li-AL-N-H.pdf

    • artefact

      Is it planned to use UV reflecting sheelds like Parkhomov in this run?

      • Bob Greenyer

        No

        • Mats002

          Good. Replication not fooling around.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting paper Mathieu Valat posted in the group chat for the run

    http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~surface/Posters/ChenPing/Poster%20of%20Li-AL-N-H.pdf

    • artefact

      Is it planned to use UV reflecting sheelds like Parkhomov in this run?

      • Bob Greenyer

        No

        • Mats002

          Good. Replication not fooling around.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Hi Guys!
    I believe we are nearing the point where this should become really interesting. Should be fun watching history being made hopefully 😉
    Btw: shouldn’t that stick start to glow by now?

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Hi Guys!
    I believe we are nearing the point where this should become really interesting. Should be fun watching history being made hopefully 😉
    Btw: shouldn’t that stick start to glow by now?

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Mats002

    How about a snapshot of the total run so far? Overlapped with the reference run?

    • Bob Greenyer

      see Eccos work on main site

      • Mats002

        Ratio = COP?

        • Bob Greenyer

          no

          • Mats002

            How to interprete?

          • Obvious

            Better to compare the actual control temperatures with the active temperatures, instead of the ratio. At least for now. Otherwise the discussion gets bogged down in complex discussions about selective emissivity and heat capacity with T^4’s, etc. in the active run. Need a full data set for that.

  • Mats002

    How about a snapshot of the total run so far? Overlapped with the reference run?

    • Bob Greenyer

      see Eccos work on main site

      • Mats002

        Ratio = COP?

        • Bob Greenyer

          no

          • Mats002

            How to interprete?

          • Obvious

            Better to compare the actual control temperatures with the active temperatures, instead of the ratio of inner to outer. At least for now. Otherwise the discussion gets bogged down in complex discussions about selective emissivity and heat capacity with T^4’s, etc. in the active run. Need a full data set for that.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
  • artefact

    The reactor looks a little bit orange now.

  • artefact

    The reactor looks a little bit orange now.

  • Mats002

    -190268 “Ape wants fire!”
    +2015 “Mats wants fire”

    • Bob Greenyer

      I want to meet you one day, i think we’d have a lot of fun – just not in a narrow boat up a creek without a paddle

  • Mats002

    -190268 “Ape wants fire!”
    +2015 “Mats wants fire”

    • Bob Greenyer

      I want to meet you one day, i think we’d have a lot of fun – just not in a narrow boat up a creek without a paddle

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest image

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WYmFNN1F3MUhVa00/view?usp=sharing

    According to calibration we are reaching the breakdown temp of LiH in the next 30 mins

  • Hi Bob

    Can we see a wattage comparison please? 🙂

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Greenyer

      might have to wait for the raw data

      This is Alan’s first time with HUGNet and live streaming

  • Hi Bob

    Can we see a wattage comparison please? 🙂

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Greenyer

      might have to wait for the raw data

      This is Alan’s first time with HUGNet and live streaming

  • Enrique

    Is pressure ok ?

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Is pressure ok at this moment ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      we are at a critical temp range, the breakdown of LiH – it is looking really flat for the last 20 mins though the radiation is at the upper limit of background right now

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        looks dropping, was a good thing right?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Data is data – we are still discovering things about the Jan 2nd test!

          This really is LOVELY data though – nice smooth temp rise.

          and all that pressure changes etc.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess it already broke down when pressure started suddenly rising. What else can explain that rise ?
        Now the breakdown is complete and pressure is steady once again.

        Just speculation !

        • Bob Greenyer

          Pressure is dropping again now!

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Is pressure ok at this moment ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      we are at a critical temp range, the breakdown of LiH – it is looking really flat for the last 20 mins though the radiation is at the upper limit of background right now

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        looks dropping, was a good thing right?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Data is data – we are still discovering things about the Jan 2nd test!

          This really is LOVELY data though – nice smooth temp rise.

          and all that pressure changes etc.

      • Hank Mills

        If the pressure is higher than in Parkhomov’s setup (perhaps to the intentional holes in his reactor) could than increase the melting and boiling points and make the excess heat start at an even higher temp than expected? My thinking is if the Kanthal doesn’t fail, we may need to push up to 1300C or higher external.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess it already broke down when pressure started suddenly rising. What else can explain that rise ?
        Now the breakdown is complete and pressure is steady once again.

        Just speculation !

        • Bob Greenyer

          Pressure is dropping again now!

  • Ophelia Rump

    That was an interesting negative spike in pressure.

  • Matt Sevrens
  • Bob Greenyer

    Power at about 430 watts now

  • Matt Sevrens
  • Bob Greenyer

    Power at about 430 watts now

  • Ophelia Rump

    Please focus the camera!

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is just the broadcast stream it is being recorded locally at 1080p – go to the screen grab share folder for higher resolution images

      • Ophelia Rump

        Thank you. I have not been so excited to watch paint dry since the early shuttle launches.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Alan Goldwater has built a very good experiment here. Can’t wait to see the full data charts.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes I agree. Nice setup, whatever may be the results.

    • Mats002

      Madame! I do not want to no where you look.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Please focus the camera!

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is just the broadcast stream it is being recorded locally at 1080p – go to the screen grab share folder for higher resolution images

      • Ophelia Rump

        Thank you. I have not been so excited to watch paint dry since the early shuttle launches.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Alan Goldwater has built a very good experiment here. Can’t wait to see the full data charts.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes I agree. Nice setup, whatever may be the results.

    • Mats002

      Madame! I do not want to no where you look.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Curbina

      The orange glow is more noticeable now. The Pressure data is getting very interesting too.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Leave it there and you will always fail safely. Better to fizzle than pop.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We can go to 100bar

        we have calculated this reactor will never go above 60bar

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Curbina

      The orange glow is more noticeable now. The Pressure data is getting very interesting too.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Leave it there and you will always fail safely. Better to fizzle than pop.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We can go to 100bar

        we have calculated this reactor will never go above 60bar

  • Ophelia Rump

    What are we looking for? Is the outside heater temperature expected to climb away from the outside heater temp? What will excess heat look like?

  • Jouni

    The pulsating glow is facinating! Other half is behind in glowing! SPP:s arising??

    • Bob Greenyer

      Convection heat waves on that the camera is seeing – or maybe the PID controller trying to target temperature

      • Ophelia Rump

        The color is intensifying as the temp rises. I had to squint to see it change before. Now it is obvious.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Lights turned off

          • Ophelia Rump

            Bob, is the outer housing two pieces so it will fail neatly in the middle if it overheats?
            I’ve been trying to figure out what you are up to with that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is to make it easy to get a TC in the middle.

        • Mats002

          Obvious? Where are you?

          • Obvious

            (an hour later…)
            Sorry. Had to go out for a bit, now making dinner…

          • Mats002

            Risotto I presume,

          • Obvious

            Was going to be salmon, but it looks fishy.
            Over proof vodka and Coke (cola) while dinner plan B gets finalized…

  • Ophelia Rump

    What are we looking for? Is the outside heater temperature expected to climb away from the outside heater temp? What will excess heat look like?

  • Jouni Tuomela

    The pulsating glow is facinating! Other half is behind in glowing! SPP:s arising??

    • Bob Greenyer

      Convection heat waves on that the camera is seeing – or maybe the PID controller trying to target temperature

      • Ophelia Rump

        The color is intensifying as the temp rises. I had to squint to see it change before. Now it is obvious.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Lights turned off

          • Ophelia Rump

            Bob, is the outer housing two pieces so it will fail neatly in the middle if it overheats?
            I’ve been trying to figure out what you are up to with that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is to make it easy to get a TC in the middle.

        • Mats002

          Obvious? Where are you?

          • Obvious

            (an hour later…)
            Sorry. Had to go out for a bit, now making dinner…

          • Mats002

            Risotto I presume,

          • Obvious

            Was going to be salmon, but it looks fishy.
            Over proof vodka and Coke (cola) while dinner plan B gets finalized…

  • Curbina

    Pressure dropped dramatically. Any hint of excess heat yet Bob Greenyer?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Unless it is very obvious, I dare not say.

      Alexander Parkhomov went to 1200ºC then dialled back.

  • artefact

    I nearly got a heart attack when the lights were switched of 🙂

  • Jouni

    Big pulsing in the brightness right now. Not seen in the data?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is to do with the duty cycle of the PID – when the AC is applied, the elements emit more visible spectrum light, but their temperature does not change at the same rate, being a bulk conducted effect.

      It is made worse but the auto exposure of the webcam with the lights off in the room and the webcams oversensitivity to IR.

      • Mats002

        Collective behaviour with reverb effect?

    • Curbina

      Is like it’s breathing 😉

      • Sanjeev

        Just video compression I guess.

  • Curbina

    Pressure dropped dramatically. Any hint of excess heat yet Bob Greenyer?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Unless it is very obvious, I dare not say.

      Alexander Parkhomov went to 1200ºC then dialled back.

  • artefact

    I nearly got a heart attack when the lights were switched of 🙂

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Big pulsing in the brightness right now. Not seen in the data?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is to do with the duty cycle of the PID – when the AC is applied, the elements emit more visible spectrum light, but their temperature does not change at the same rate, being a bulk conducted effect.

      It is made worse but the auto exposure of the webcam with the lights off in the room and the webcams oversensitivity to IR.

      Makes a great show

      This is one big difference between this and parkhomovs design, parkhomov always has some AC – but he switched between an full and a set %age of the variacs output via a switching transformer.

      • Mats002

        Collective behaviour with reverb effect?

    • Curbina

      Is like it’s breathing 😉

      • Sanjeev

        Just video compression I guess.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Does anybody happen to have a link to the calibration data?

    • Sanjeev

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/477-glowstick

      Can’t find any data, but there is a calibration graph. Anyway the live run has both active and control “bones”.

      • Bob Greenyer

        For the real test – with Parkhomov Powder,

        By the way, the first packet arrived at Bob Higgins a few hours ago and a portion of that will be going to Dr Edmond Storms for SEM / EDX tomorrow by post. We may know exactly what his fuel Nickel looks like before we get a chance to run it.

        • Sanjeev

          When can Bob H start ? Any plans ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            He might do a thermometry one first – but his calorimeter is another 2 weeks build time

          • Sanjeev

            Great !

    • Ged

      Best part is, we can compare the empty side to its control, and the active side to its control, gaining a ratiometric result that is far more powerful than either alone (kinda like how ratiometric fluorophores have vastly higher signal to noise ratio based on a similar principle).

  • Matt Sevrens

    Does anybody happen to have a link to the calibration data?

    • Sanjeev

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/477-glowstick

      Can’t find any data, but there is a calibration graph. Anyway the live run has both active and control “bones”.

      • Bob Greenyer

        For the real test – with Parkhomov Powder,

        By the way, the first packet arrived at Bob Higgins a few hours ago and a portion of that will be going to Dr Edmond Storms for SEM / EDX tomorrow by post. We may know exactly what his fuel Nickel looks like before we get a chance to run it.

        • Sanjeev

          When can Bob H start ? Any plans ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            He might do a thermometry one first – but his calorimeter is another 2 weeks build time

          • Sanjeev

            Great !

    • Ged

      Best part is, we can compare the empty side to its control, and the active side to its control, gaining a ratiometric result that is far more powerful than either alone (kinda like how ratiometric fluorophores have vastly higher signal to noise ratio based on a similar principle).

      • Mats002

        1 + 1 = far more ~ 10+, like a magnitude of order more? (it can be negative from here)

  • Kim

    It’s pulsating like its trying to ignite the LENR.

  • Kim

    It’s pulsating like its trying to ignite the LENR.

  • Kim

    Does not the pressure have to go negative first?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Don’t know!

  • Kim

    Does not the pressure have to go negative first?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Don’t know!

      • Mats002

        That is honest!

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
    • Curbina

      Probably this is an obvious thing, but I see Volts going up and down, is this due to the heating control mechanism? How does one calculate power input with that straight forward?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes

  • Bob Greenyer

    More letester

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WZ0QtLXg1WnlxbVE/view?usp=sharing

    580 watts approx now and about 1000ºC inside the core… we are starting to enter the domain of Parkhomov, shields up!

    • Curbina

      Probably this is an obvious thing, but I see Volts going up and down, is this due to the heating control mechanism? How does one calculate power input with that straight forward?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes

  • Bob Greenyer

    Parkhomov’s minimum pressure was achieved at 1150C

    • Ged

      So we are getting close to potentially even more interesting things!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – he did not start dialling his power down until after he got to 1200ºC

        • Ged

          I’m really interested to see what’ll happen to that pressure once we hit 1150C. See if it levels off or if we keep going. Quite a fair bit more pressure left in there than Parkhomov had at this point, I think.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A lot more, could his nickel type be important… we’ll find out.

          • Ged

            Interesting to note the divergence between outer core and outer heater (which didn’t happen in the controls, as Ecco’s latest plot displayed) is continuing to grow despite decreases in pressure, which should naturally be acting to decrease temperature.

          • NT

            Could be due to the different Nickel and its absorption capabilities…

          • Ged

            That’s a good point, NT.

            Not sure what the ratio of Hydrogen to Nickle to Volume is here compared to Parkhomov, either.

          • NT

            Yes, lots of new data to compare…

          • Kim

            Exactly! the nickel has to start absorbing hydrogen very rapidly
            into negative territory pressure, then it will ignite. I would push it
            to 1300 C

          • Ged

            It is possible we may have to wait till the pressure completely goes down before things really kick off, or it could be all a percentage of loading and we have some hydrogen to spare. But there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on already. So much fascinating data.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Parkhomov’s minimum pressure was achieved at 1150C

    • Ged

      So we are getting close to potentially even more interesting things!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – he did not start dialling his power down until after he got to 1200ºC

        • Ged

          I’m really interested to see what’ll happen to that pressure once we hit 1150C. See if it levels off or if we keep going. Quite a fair bit more pressure left in there than Parkhomov had at this point, I think.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A lot more, could his nickel type be important… we’ll find out.

          • Ged

            Interesting to note the divergence between outer core and outer heater (which didn’t happen in the controls, as Ecco’s latest plot displayed) is continuing to grow despite decreases in pressure, which should naturally be acting to decrease temperature.

          • NT

            Could be due to the different Nickel and its absorption capabilities…

          • Ged

            That’s a good point, NT.

            Not sure what the ratio of Hydrogen to Nickle to Volume is here compared to Parkhomov, either.

          • NT

            Yes, lots of new data to compare…

          • Kim

            Exactly! the nickel has to start absorbing hydrogen very rapidly
            into negative territory pressure, then it will ignite. I would push it
            to 1300 C

          • Ged

            It is possible we may have to wait till the pressure completely goes down before things really kick off, or it could be all a percentage of loading and we have some hydrogen to spare. But there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on already. So much fascinating data.

  • Mats002

    I am silenced by the discus filter al the time, just want you to know. (.ru is ok)

  • Mats002

    I am silenced by the discus filter al the time, just want you to know. (.ru is ok)

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    nice drop again, go go

    • Ged

      The shape and activity of this pressure curve itself is extremely interesting. Never seen anything like it. A treasure trove of information about what’s molecularly going on in that mixture of elements is hidden in that curve.

      • Mats002

        One eV value disguise the real details.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      That last screenshot (26), looks a little above the calibration, but not sure by how much–especially as the temps are never settling, just steadily rising along with power in.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      That last screenshot (26), looks a little above the calibration, but not sure by how much–especially as the temps are never settling, just steadily rising along with power in.

  • Bob Greenyer

    in about 15 mins – we will have to start another hangout on line as they only allow 8 hours at a time.

  • Bob Greenyer

    in about 15 mins – we will have to start another hangout on line as they only allow 8 hours at a time.

  • Surveilz

    Thar she glows! This and the live commenting here is profoundly interesting.

    • Ged

      Need some sunglasses for that webcam!

  • Surveilz

    Thar she glows! This and the live commenting here is profoundly interesting.

    • Ged

      Need some sunglasses for that webcam!

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
  • Enrique Ferreyra

    post new youtube link!

    • Bob Greenyer
    • US_Citizen71

      They need a couple of tween girls handling the video streaming instead of a couple of older gentleman the feed would never go down. ; )

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    post new youtube link!

    • Bob Greenyer
    • US_Citizen71

      They need a couple of tween girls handling the video streaming instead of a couple of older gentleman the feed would never go down. ; )

  • Kim

    I don’t believe that the nickel is absorbing hydrogen fast enough. The reaction
    will not catch with a high hydrogen pressure. Whats Up with that???

    otherwise I’m enthralled as if I have this thing in my own garage at the moment.

    Thanks to everyone!

    Respect
    Kim

    • Ged

      Pressure is still going down, though.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You say, just as it flatlines

        • Ged

          Oh hey irony, our old friend.

          • Bob Greenyer

            but it is flatlining as the temperature is going up!

          • Ged

            This is true! Could be we finally hit the nickel saturation point.

          • Daniel Maris

            So what’s happening on the energy input? Is that constant?

        • Ged

          And then the pressure tanks again. This behavior is so bizarre, which is the scientific code word for really cool. No saturation yet, then.

    • Mats002

      Is that your bye-bye?

  • Kim

    I don’t believe that the nickel is absorbing hydrogen fast enough. The reaction
    will not catch with a high hydrogen pressure. Whats Up with that???

    otherwise I’m enthralled as if I have this thing in my own garage at the moment.

    Thanks to everyone!

    Respect
    Kim

    • Ged

      Pressure is still going down, though.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You say, just as it flatlines

        • Ged

          Oh hey irony, our old friend.

          • Bob Greenyer

            but it is flatlining as the temperature is going up!

          • Ged

            This is true! Could be we finally hit the nickel saturation point.

        • Ged

          And then the pressure tanks again. This behavior is so bizarre, which is the scientific code word for really cool. No saturation yet, then.

    • Mats002

      Is that your bye-bye?

  • artefact

    nice bumper…

  • artefact

    nice bumper…

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    wow come down pressure

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yep.

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        Current inner temperature ?
        Cant see its blurry

        • Bob Greenyer

          waiting on new screen grab

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    wow come down pressure

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yep.

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        Current inner temperature ?
        Cant see its blurry

        • Bob Greenyer

          waiting on new screen grab

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Matt Sevrens

      so…fricking…close!

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      psi going down again

    • Surveilz

      4:15 AM in Moscow did you send the Youtube link to Mr. Parkhomov? Oven will be warm just in time for breakfast 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        I’ll do that now!

        • Mats002

          What is the date of today? (I am in Sweden)

          • Ged

            150403 for you now? 150402 still for us in the United States.

          • Bob Greenyer

            it is tomorrow

          • Jouni

            in finland still westerday…

          • Ged

            Bob, may we have a new snapshot? The video is looking Extremely interesting, but too low res to really make it out.

            Edit: Also, is the fueled side the left side of the reactor in the video, or the right?

          • US_Citizen71

            It looks like the external temp peaked at 1:29 and then fell a bit and became unstable while the core remained fairly stable. Except for jumps when the pressure dropped.

          • Ged

            That downward fall of the control side outside heater temp is what we are actually looking for with this comparative method for if there is an LENR reaction. This is why it has me on the edge of my seat. But gotta get all the data in, as things can jump around at this live observation time scale.

          • Ged

            To put it clearly, if LENR occurs, the “outside core” temp will hold stable, but the “outside heater” temp will have an inflection point and go down (as power is reduced to hold the core temp stable).

          • US_Citizen71

            It was looking like that might be happening can’t wait for the data to clear so we get detail again.

          • Ged

            Something definitely happened. It was extremely tantalizing, so -of course- there had to be a data blip to cool us down, hah.

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha

          • Bob Greenyer

            yeh – annoying timing… bummer if it did happen then – anyhow, we will see in the long run!

          • Hank Mills

            I propose the following: the MFMP perform the exact same experiment pushing the Kanthal to just below the melting point with a more capable power supply. I think if we can obtain a minimum of 1100C (1200-1300 would be better) the experiment would have a very high chance of showing significant excess heat.

            If the MFMP does not want to do this, would someone send me an exact part list plus where they can be ordered minus the pressure gauges and thermocouples? I may know someone who would be willing to perform it.

    • Ged

      On the cusp! Pressure has continued to prove itself entertaining.

    • SG

      The report states “A thermocouple is placed in contact with the outer surface of the tube.” So the 1200 C is measured from the outer surface not the interior of the reactor. This is important to note because it seems there is confusion in the replication attempts as to how high the temperature should be taken to achieve the effect.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Matt Sevrens

      so…fricking…close!

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      psi going down again

    • Surveilz

      4:15 AM in Moscow did you send the Youtube link to Mr. Parkhomov? Oven will be warm just in time for breakfast 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        I’ll do that now!

        • Mats002

          What is the date of today? (I am in Sweden)

          • Ged

            150403 for you now? 150402 still for us in the United States.

          • Bob Greenyer

            it is tomorrow

          • Jouni Tuomela

            in finland still westerday…

    • Ged

      On the cusp! Pressure has continued to prove itself entertaining.

    • SG

      The report states “A thermocouple is placed in contact with the outer surface of the tube.” So the 1200 C is measured from the outer surface not the interior of the reactor. This is important to note because it seems there is confusion in the replication attempts as to how high the temperature should be taken to achieve the effect.

  • Daniel Maris

    Just a thought – it would be helpful for this sort of exercise if you listed some bullet points of what you are looking out for.

    People are talking as thought something’s expected to happen at 1200C. Is that when the energy input goes off? But didn’t Parkhamov report something happening at 700C?

    • Matt Sevrens

      700C is when hydrogen absorption into the lattice begins. 1150 Parkhomov saw the lowest pressure. At 1200C the controller will lower the input power and try to maintain temperature.

      • Jouni

        think the PID has given more power gradually to the coil, and will try to keep any required temperature.

      • Daniel Maris

        Would be useful to see the Energy Input somewhere on the pic.

        However, I am sure we are all grateful for the live demo.

        • Ged

          Have to manually calculate it from the volts RMS to the heater. However, it jumps around a lot, probably need a sliding 5 window average to get a more accurate handle on it…

      • Obvious

        No more snapshots?

        • Ged

          Doesn’t seem so. Nothing’s been uploaded to the new drive, but perhaps Alan will do that all at the end in one big info dump.

          • Obvious

            Alan could use a bit of a break I guess.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Dr. Parkhomov back calculated that that was where XS heat should have began.

      however, he had to take it to 1200ºC first for a while before the controller could be lowered.

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        its an automatic control system thats try to keep the 1200 or manual?
        Its integral or differential (if automatic)

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is automatic, set temperature, duty cycle based

  • MWerner

    Can someone re-list the google hangout chat link?

  • Jouni

    Is the wavelength of the radiated light changing according to the input power?
    Or just the intensity.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Is the wavelength of the radiated light changing according to the input power?
    Or just the intensity.

  • Aquafox

    The cat is seriously out of the bag. Not going back. Welcome to the future. Can’t thank the intrepid explorers of lenr/CF enough.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    pressure drop could be fitting in some pattern…

    • Ged

      The pressure went down down down, and the heat went higher.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    pressure drop could be fitting in some pattern…

    • Ged

      The pressure went down down down, and the heat went higher.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    did that autocontrol started to low the input power?

    • Ged

      The divergence between the fueled and unfueled parts of the reactor has suddenly grown a lot wider. So it seems at this video resolution.

      • Ged

        They just bumped the holding temp by 5 degrees, trying to push higher, but at nearly 100% of the power their supply can give. Still some headroom it seems.

    • artefact

      The controler will hold the 1200 core temperature now for some time automaticaly.

      • Ged

        That means, if the core starts to have the predicted LENR reaction, we should see the outside heater temp drop over time while outside core remains relatively level.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    did that autocontrol started to low the input power?

    • Ged

      The divergence between the fueled and unfueled parts of the reactor has suddenly grown a lot wider. So it seems at this video resolution.

    • artefact

      The controler will hold the 1200 core temperature now for some time automaticaly.

      • Ged

        That means, if the core starts to have the predicted LENR reaction, we should see the outside heater temp drop over time while outside core remains relatively level.

  • Arun Luthra

    It would be nice to see just a temporary burst from the geiger counter if the reaction starts and keeps going. That would be consistent with WL theory.

  • Ged

    Bob, may we have a new snapshot? The video is looking Extremely interesting, but too low res to really make it out.

    Edit: Also, is the fueled side the left side of the reactor in the video, or the right?

    • US_Citizen71

      It looks like the external temp peaked at 1:29 and then fell a bit and became unstable while the core remained fairly stable. Except for jumps when the pressure dropped.

      • Ged

        That downward fall of the control side outside heater temp is what we are actually looking for with this comparative method for if there is an LENR reaction. This is why it has me on the edge of my seat. But gotta get all the data in, as things can jump around at this live observation time scale.

      • Ged

        To put it clearly, if LENR occurs, the “outside core” temp will hold stable, but the “outside heater” temp will have an inflection point and go down (as power is reduced to hold the core temp stable).

        • US_Citizen71

          It was looking like that might be happening can’t wait for the data to clear so we get detail again.

          • Ged

            Something definitely happened. It was extremely tantalizing, so -of course- there had to be a data blip to cool us down, hah.

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha

          • Bob Greenyer

            yeh – annoying timing… bummer if it did happen then – anyhow, we will see in the long run!

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Oh man, Bob. I don’t want to jump the gun, but look at that outside heater temp. I see an inflection. This is… Ok, gotta calm down and continue watching, anything can happen, data can jump randomly.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Wait

        • Ged

          Amazing how much the pressure is still falling. How much can that nickel soak up? Seriously.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I just extended the calibration chart – looks like 1200ºC core is around 875ºC Outside core – Alan is verifying

          • Ged

            So, may need a bit more heating? Seems the system is holding up, think it can push it?

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes and we are – expect a bit or glowiness

          • Enrique Ferreyra

            1250 ?

          • Ged

            Uh oh

            Edit: Sensors cut out for a second? Can’t seen now that the scales got compressed by that huge down spike.

          • Bob Greenyer

            looks like there was a drop out, now where is that clone tool?

            Will have to wait for that to clear off – another 25 mins – data will look flat in the meantime

          • Ged

            That was one effective way to get me to calm down! Haha.

          • Bob Greenyer

            we can’t have peoples blood pressure too high!

          • Omega Z

            If blood pressure gets too high, a vessel could explode. NO?
            🙂

          • Mats002

            Tyy would say no more, over and out! I am niot.

          • Ged

            Rest well, over there. Who knows what the morning will hold.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Oh man, Bob. I don’t want to jump the gun, but look at that outside heater temp. I see an inflection. This is… Ok, gotta calm down and continue watching, anything can happen, data can jump randomly.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Wait

        • Ged

          Amazing how much the pressure is still falling. How much can that nickel soak up? Seriously.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I just extended the calibration chart – looks like 1200ºC core is around 875ºC Outside core – Alan is verifying

          • Ged

            So, may need a bit more heating? Seems the system is holding up, think it can push it?

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes and we are – expect a bit or glowiness

          • Enrique Ferreyra

            1250 ?

          • Ged

            Uh oh

            Edit: Sensors cut out for a second? Can’t seen now that the scales got compressed by that huge down spike.

          • Bob Greenyer

            looks like there was a drop out, now where is that clone tool?

            Will have to wait for that to clear off – another 25 mins – data will look flat in the meantime

          • Ged

            That was one effective way to get me to calm down! Haha.

          • Bob Greenyer

            we can’t have peoples blood pressure too high!

          • Omega Z

            If blood pressure gets too high, a vessel could explode. NO?
            🙂

          • Mats002

            Tyy would say no more, over and out! I am niot.

          • Ged

            Rest well, over there. Who knows what the morning will hold.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    stop playing with the chart lol.

    • Ged

      Well, I see lines, that’s something!

    • Bob Greenyer

      He was manually changing the hold temp – to get it to 875ºC outer core – which should be 1200ºC inside core (from calibration).

      This caused a momentary drop-out and that meant the scaling is based on zero for everything – after it clears off left it should be more meaningful. Will be no problem in the recorded data – it will just be a momentary outlier.

      • Ged

        Guess it’ll be about an hour to clear off now? At least we can still read the raw data in the snapshots till then.

        • Bob Greenyer

          the full width is 30 mins – so less than 20 mins now to clear – If alan had a faster mating he could choose a 15 min window and it would be clear in a few mins.

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      the “bug” is out now, good chart again.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    stop playing with the chart lol.

    • Ged

      Well, I see lines, that’s something!

    • Bob Greenyer

      He was manually changing the hold temp – to get it to 875ºC outer core – which should be 1200ºC inside core (from calibration).

      This caused a momentary drop-out and that meant the scaling is based on zero for everything – after it clears off left it should be more meaningful. Will be no problem in the recorded data – it will just be a momentary outlier.

      • Ged

        Guess it’ll be about an hour to clear off now? At least we can still read the raw data in the snapshots till then.

        • Bob Greenyer

          the full width is 30 mins – so less than 20 mins now to clear – If alan had a faster mating he could choose a 15 min window and it would be clear in a few mins.

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      the “bug” is out now, good chart again.

  • Guest

    A guy says Parkhomov get 1200 C at the inside (not outside), anybody can confirm?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – that is right – we are adjusting to make that the case in this experiment – he then held at high temps for about 3 hours

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        i redo my post, was 1200 on surface, you are holding to 875?

        • Bob Greenyer

          In the calibration, we had a K-Type in the middle of the right outer sheath inside of the core. At 875ºC reading on the “Outside Core” TC, the core at that point would have been 1200ºC – so we targeting that

  • Guest

    A guy says Parkhomov get 1200 C at the inside (not outside), anybody can confirm?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – that is right – we are adjusting to make that the case in this experiment – he then held at high temps for about 3 hours

      • Enrique Ferreyra

        i redo my post, was 1200 on surface, you are holding to 875?

        • Bob Greenyer

          In the calibration, we had a K-Type in the middle of the right outer sheath inside of the core. At 875ºC reading on the “Outside Core” TC, the core at that point would have been 1200ºC – so are we targeting that

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    A guy says Parkhomov get 1200 on the surface, not inside, anybody can confirm?

    • NT

      Enrique, If you are correct, then this experiment is still 325˚C away from where Dr. Parkhomov was at?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The Nickel would melt – not an option

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          ok, maybe its a wrong understanding of Parkhomov slides

    • Sanjeev

      The slide # 8 says : The surface of the working tube was heated to a temperature of 1200°C over the course of 12 hours by stepwise increase in input electrical heater input power to a
      maximum of 630W.

      So surface was 1200C, unless its a translation error.

      • Sanjeev

        The slide #13 shows the TC placed outside the core tube. And again mentions “a reactor tube surface temperature of 1200°C”.
        So the Ni surely melted. May be alloyed Ni does not melt ?

        • Mats002

          Go for the storm with lightning.

    • Obvious

      The earlier Parkhomov ones were done with the thermocouple on the outside, but buried under a lot of alumina and in a gap made in the heater coil, similar to this version now being tested.

      The last couple of Parkhomov tests were done with the thermocouple on the outside of the fuel tube, but under the heater coils. This should be similar to what Bob has described as being in the fuel reservoir area (in the MFMP dummy), which is in turn under the outer ceramic tube covering the coils.

      The only hotter place is right under the coils themselves, which will probably short out something if attempted.
      Feel free to correct that interpretation, anyone.

      • Eyedoc

        can we tell how many Watts of electric heater input power its at now ?

        • Obvious

          I’m not sure I trust the Volt data as presented to make a Watts calculation, since the display grabs it any instant, which could be anytime during switching the load feed. The instantaneous values need to be integrated somehow.

          Bob might have a recent suitable average that can be used.

          • Obvious

            Actually on picture 30, volts look OK.
            Looks like it should be around 346 W. (Tentatively.)

        • Sanjeev

          Sometimes it shows about 1KW. (A V_rms of 100V)

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    A guy says Parkhomov get 1200 on the surface, not inside, anybody can confirm?

    • NT

      Enrique, If you are correct, then this experiment is still 325˚C away from where Dr. Parkhomov was at?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The Nickel would melt – not an option

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          ok, maybe its a wrong understanding of Parkhomov slides

        • Hank Mills

          Parkhomov used temps as high as 1290C external and produced significant excess heat. That means the internal temp w a s probably at or above the melting point. He was able to get excess heat and we might too if we try.

          • Bob Greenyer

            For you hank, we are considering taking it higher. It is near its design limit, so if it blows – you might get an opportunity to see HAD too.

            I think Alan will after about 2 hours if nothing interesting is happening, he may step down in upper volts.

    • Sanjeev

      The slide # 8 says : The surface of the working tube was heated to a temperature of 1200°C over the course of 12 hours by stepwise increase in input electrical heater input power to a
      maximum of 630W.

      So surface was 1200C, unless its a translation error.

      • Sanjeev

        The slide #13 shows the TC placed outside the core tube. And again mentions “a reactor tube surface temperature of 1200°C”.
        So the Ni surely melted. May be alloyed Ni does not melt ?

        • Mats002

          Go for the storm with lightning.

    • Obvious

      The earlier Parkhomov ones were done with the thermocouple on the outside, but buried under a lot of alumina and in a gap made in the heater coil, similar to this version now being tested.

      The last couple of Parkhomov tests were done with the thermocouple on the outside of the fuel tube (under some alumina paste?), but under the heater coils. This should be similar to what Bob has described as being in the fuel reservoir area (in the MFMP dummy), which is in turn under the outer ceramic tube covering the coils.

      The only hotter place is right under the coils themselves, which will probably short out something if attempted.

      Feel free to correct that interpretation, anyone.

      • Eyedoc

        can we tell how many Watts of electric heater input power its at now ?

        • Obvious

          I’m not sure I trust the Volt data as presented to make a Watts calculation, since the display grabs it any instant, which could be anytime during switching the load feed. The instantaneous values need to be integrated somehow.

          Bob might have a recent suitable average that can be used.

          • Obvious

            Actually on picture 30, volts look OK…er..maybe not
            Looks like it should be around 350 W. (Tentatively.)
            Maybe 550-600 actually.

        • Sanjeev

          Sometimes it shows about 1KW. (A V_rms of 100V)

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Bob Greenyer,

    In the parkhomov-en.pdf document four data points can be gathered.

    1 – His thermocouple was placed on the outside surface of the reactor and covered in cement. It was not measuring internal temperatures.

    2 -Even at 970 C external the COP was at unity or .99.
    3 – At 1020C external the COP was only 1.08.

    4 -To produce a high COP around 3 an external temp of 1290C was required.

    This means that to produce significant excess heat, internal temperatures of over 1500 might be required.

    If we are to see any significant excess heat, I think the reactor should be taken up to 1200 to 1300 external.

    We are simply not in the range where we can expect to see excess heat – at least when considering his original test results.

    Will you crank up the heat?

    I’m going to lose my mind if after following this all day we don’t even try to reach temperatures matching his original tests.

    • Hank Mills

      Remember, the hot cat reaction can keep going far beyond the melting point of nickel until the alumina melts and becomes sapphire. Cures and Rossi have both described how the steel vaporized in one test. I think this is evidence thst the melting point of nickel is not a strict limit in hot cat systems. It may have been in low temp systems, however.

      • Omega Z

        Hank Mills
        I’m pretty confident that once the nickel melts, initiation of the effect stops.
        However, the effect that has already been initiated(In Process) follows through to it’s conclusion. In the runaway, this resulted in the melt down.

        As to the temperature at the nickel core. It may be possible that it is cooler then the outer reactor, but I think because it is at the center & surrounded by heat, that variance may be small like 25`C.

        Note that you can light a bucket of gasoline, but the gasoline in the bucket will stay relatively cool verses the flames on the surface. Apply flames all around the bucket & it will in a short time explode.

        I don’t think it is necessary to reach temperatures beyond 1400`C. You are already pushing the limits of containment & the wires. etc. Your pushing into the realm of expensive & exotic alloys. Your gains are lost to higher costs & shortened life cycle.

        Gas turbines draw in outside air to keep from destroying the turbines. I think 900`C to 1000`C is their working limits & these suffer from shorter life cycle..

        There are situations like military aircraft & such that performance out-ways cost & life-cycle, but cost is a major component in day to day situations. The 1400`C Hot-cat can produce 800`C steam at the turbines which appears to be the cut off line in cost/benefit. This could provide a 50% net conversion efficiency “after” allowing for input energy for the Hot-cat. That’s about a 30% gain over most conventional power plants.

        I would suggest we leave the Exotic stuff to those in the business with the need & can justify the costs & will pay for it. I think the Hot-cat already pushes the extremes of what any sane person would allow in private homes.

        Keep in mind, 10Kw of heat is 10Kw of heat. 200`C or 1400`C, Both will supply the same amount of heat for a 1000 sq.ft home.

        • Mats002

          Com’on, this is a TEST not a safety contest.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Lookin stable at the new temp. Pressure still doing its thing, yet not dragging temperature down with it, which is fascinating.

      • Sanjeev

        Pressure is going down at the rate of 40 psi per hour. So it can take 5-6 hours to reach below atmospheric.(If the rate holds)

        • Bob Greenyer

          you may be right… and then it flatlines!

          • Mats002

            OK, I wish you all a good night and the best for us all. See ya tom.

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          mmm… that guy is with somebody to change guards?
          Im fearing he fall sleep at any moment…

        • Ged

          Assuming we need pressure to drop that low to really kick things off. Wish we knew how low it had to go to saturate the nickel. 5-6 hours isn’t too bad a wait though.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Lookin stable at the new temp. Pressure still doing its thing, yet not dragging temperature down with it, which is fascinating.

      • Sanjeev

        Pressure is going down at the rate of 40 psi per hour. So it can take 5-6 hours to reach below atmospheric.(If the rate holds)

        • Bob Greenyer

          you may be right… and then it flatlines!

          • Mats002

            OK, I wish you all a good night and the best for us all. See ya tom.

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          mmm… that guy is with somebody to change guards?
          Im fearing he fall sleep at any moment…

        • Ged

          Assuming we need pressure to drop that low to really kick things off. Wish we knew how low it had to go to saturate the nickel. 5-6 hours isn’t too bad a wait though.

      • Hank Mills

        Nothing is probably going to happen at this external temperature. It is far too low. It is not even in the range where Parkhomov saw a COP of over 1 in his original tests.

  • Guest9

    will reach a critical point and LENR will start

  • Bob Greenyer

    i am going to bow out now, it is 4:40AM here

    Alan has got a temp directory for screenshots

    http://bit.ly/19NmJrM

    • NT

      Rest, you deserve it…

      • Bob Greenyer

        Cheers guys

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      good nite

    • Ged

      Rest well, Bob. Thanks for everything!

    • BroKeeper

      Awesome, Bob!

  • Bob Greenyer

    i am going to bow out now, it is 4:40AM here

    Alan has got a temp directory for screenshots

    http://bit.ly/19NmJrM

    • NT

      Rest, you deserve it…

      • Bob Greenyer

        Cheers guys

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      good nite

    • Ged

      Rest well, Bob. Thanks for everything!

    • Brokeeper

      Awesome, Bob!

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Some people are pretty sure that Parkhomov had 1200 at the -outer-, and the Lugano report says 1400 outer too, and by the results nickel could have melted and reacted….

    • Obvious

      By 800°C inside, melting of nickel has already begun, due to the very small grain size.
      Sinter = partially melted.
      You can probably melt the powder somewhat with a candle flame or a match.

      • Mats002

        Yes, and at such a small tolerances we should be at the sweet-spot of heat-pulsing the Li to evaporate and form small nano-clusters on to the substrate which is the Nickel micropowder grains partially melted. Heck – what do I know? I stick my neck out.

    • Eyedoc

      so does the fact that AParkhomov increased ‘stepwise’ to a ‘max of 630 W’ heater input have any bearing on this discussion ?

      • Obvious

        The input W are extremely sensitive to the tube construction methods. With alumina powder dumped on, Parkomov reached 1100°C using 165 W.

        • Ged

          Inside or outside?

          • Obvious

            Is it outside anymore when its buried in stuff?
            It was outside, but buried in alumina paste, then the whole reactor covered in alumina powder.
            I don’t think any Parkhomov test has given us a raw outside temperature, such as in this MFMP test. In all cases his thermocouples are partly buried in alumina cement to some degree. The higher of these two live temperature measurements we are getting now is probably close to some of the Parkhomov tests, particularly earlier ones.

          • Ged

            Definitely would have to classify that as inside, or at least closer to inside than outside–that is some serious burying. Also, I don’t believe that claim that 165W can put that high of a temp.

          • Obvious

            Easily. Ask the vap fanatics. They “hit” 1100°C with a few watts. It’s all in the design and level of insulation. (Great place to find spools of Kanthal & Ni80, in stock, fairly cheap, is a vap shop.)

          • Ged

            Super buried in super insulation, that’s for sure.

          • US_Citizen71

            No, less than 500 fahrenheit on a vape no cellulose is burned

          • Obvious

            I don’t know the details, just what I got from the guy at the counter when checking out the wire supply. I suppose there is a hundred different ways to put those together too. ( I wouldn’t want to suck in a 1100 C blast of smoke….ouch)

          • US_Citizen71

            First hand knowledge about 476 fahrenheit for herbals and less for e-liquids because you are only boiling glycerin and propylene glycol for the most part.

          • Obvious

            It seemed to me there were a surprising number of experimenters. I’m pretty sure not turning the active material into smoke is the main idea. I suppose one could heat a ceramic disc to get some thermal mass and heat diffusion. Or something.

          • US_Citizen71

            The pricey stuff does use ceramic heaters, all from china. The whole process is just based off of the boiling points of the various chemicals. It it just fractional distillation of the herbals and near complete on the e-liquids. It is a big market here in Denver, wild time to be living here.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes, and I think time will hopefully tell us more here

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Some people are pretty sure that Parkhomov had 1200 at the -outer-, and the Lugano report says 1400 outer too, and by the results nickel could have melted and reacted….

    • Obvious

      By 800°C inside, melting of nickel has already begun, due to the very small grain size.
      Sinter = partially melted.
      You can probably melt the powder somewhat with a candle flame or a match.

      • Mats002

        Yes, and at such a small tolerances we should be at the sweet-spot of heat-pulsing the Li to evaporate and form small nano-clusters on to the substrate which is the Nickel micropowder grains partially melted. Heck – what do I know? I stick my neck out.

    • Eyedoc

      so does the fact that AParkhomov increased ‘stepwise’ to a ‘max of 630 W’ heater input have any bearing on this discussion ?

      • Obvious

        The input W are extremely sensitive to the tube construction methods. With alumina powder dumped on, Parkomov reached 1100°C using 165 W.

        • Ged

          Inside or outside?

          • Obvious

            Is it outside anymore when its buried in stuff?
            It was outside, but buried in alumina paste, then the whole reactor covered in alumina powder.
            I don’t think any Parkhomov test has given us a raw outside temperature, such as in this MFMP test. In all cases his thermocouples are partly buried in alumina cement to some degree. The higher of these two live temperature measurements we are getting now is probably close to some of the Parkhomov tests, particularly earlier ones.

          • Ged

            Definitely would have to classify that as inside, or at least closer to inside than outside–that is some serious burying. Also, I don’t believe that claim that 165W can put that high of a temp.

            Edit: For instance, no thermal couple directly inside a reactor has ever been remotely that high in temp at that input, that we have seen elsewhere.

          • Obvious

            Easily. Ask the vap fanatics. They “hit” 1100°C with a few watts. It’s all in the design and level of insulation. (Great place to find spools of Kanthal & Ni80, in stock, fairly cheap, is a vap shop.)

          • Ged

            Super buried in super insulation, that’s for sure.

          • US_Citizen71

            No, less than 500 fahrenheit on a vape no cellulose is burned

          • Obvious

            I don’t know the details, just what I got from the guy at the counter when checking out the wire supply. I suppose there is a hundred different ways to put those together too. ( I wouldn’t want to suck in a 1100 C blast of smoke….ouch)

          • US_Citizen71

            First hand knowledge about 476 fahrenheit for herbals and less for e-liquids because you are only boiling glycerin and propylene glycol for the most part.

          • Obvious

            It seemed to me there were a surprising number of experimenters. I’m pretty sure not turning the active material into smoke is the main idea. I suppose one could heat a ceramic disc to get some thermal mass and heat diffusion. Or something.

          • US_Citizen71

            The pricey stuff does use ceramic heaters, all from china. The whole process is just based off of the boiling points of the various chemicals. It it just fractional distillation of the herbals and near complete on the e-liquids. It is a big market here in Denver, wild time to be living here.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes, and I think time will hopefully tell us more here

    • Hank Mills

      This is from Parkhomov’s paper. The external thermocouple wss covered in alumina cement just like in this setup. However, he did not see significant excess heat until 1200C to 1290C. We are notvgoing to see excess heat at this temperature range.

      “Thethermocouple contacted the outer surface of the tube.Both tube ends were sealed with the heat-resisting cement.The entire reactor’s surface was also coated by this cement.”

  • Bob Greenyer

    For you hank, we are considering taking it higher. It is near its design limit, so if it blows – you might get an opportunity to see HAD too.

    I think Alan will after about 2 hours if nothing interesting is happening, he may step down in upper volts.

  • Hank Mills

    So will the MFMP increase the temperature to the range in which Parkhomov saw excess heat or not? 875C external is no where close to the 1200-1290 external temp Parkhomov reached. If that range is not tested, I’ll be dissapointed.

  • Andrey

    BTW.. there is a tweet from UberFacts with 10M followers about ECAT: https://twitter.com/UberFacts/status/583117083623428096

    • nvm

      yeah on 1st april…

  • Ged

    They just bumped the holding temp by 5 degrees, trying to push higher, but at nearly 100% of the power their supply can give. Still some headroom it seems.

  • US_Citizen71

    Someone needs to remind them to do screenshot it has been like 40 minutes since the last one

  • US_Citizen71

    Someone needs to remind them to do screenshot it has been like 40 minutes since the last one

  • Ged

    They are now aiming for 900 C as the outside core holding temp. So, should see it rising for a bit longer.

  • Bill

    I think they discuss to go higher, 900C outside (If I can read correctly)

  • Ged

    They are now aiming for 900 C as the outside core holding temp. So, should see it rising for a bit longer.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    Any particular reason they arent streaming the data on data.hugnetlab.com like last time

    • Sanjeev

      The experiment is set up at some other place, only a webcam is available there, I guess. The data is being recorded locally.

      • Ged

        Accidentally don’t have the data selected at the moment, dang. Now that Bob has gone to bed, we may just have to wait for the final chart tomorrow.

      • Ged

        oh yay, we are back in action!

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    Any particular reason they arent streaming the data on data.hugnetlab.com like last time

    • Sanjeev

      The experiment is set up at some other place, only a webcam is available there, I guess. The data is being recorded locally.

      • Ged

        Accidentally don’t have the data selected at the moment, dang. Now that Bob has gone to bed, we may just have to wait for the final chart tomorrow.

      • Ged

        oh yay, we are back in action!

  • Ged

    Looks like after they hit 900 C, they are going to slowly turn down the temperature and cool down the reactor. Wish they could keep it on and let it settle, as that’s when interesting things seem to happen, but who knows. Sleeping without a fire hazard around is rather important!

    Edit: Should be seeing the last power bump up right now.

  • Ged

    Looks like after they hit 900 C, they are going to slowly turn down the temperature and cool down the reactor. Wish they could keep it on and let it settle, as that’s when interesting things seem to happen, but who knows. Sleeping without a fire hazard around is rather important!

    Edit: Should be seeing the last power bump up right now.

  • Obvious

    No more snapshots?

    • Ged

      Doesn’t seem so. Nothing’s been uploaded to the new drive, but perhaps Alan will do that all at the end in one big info dump.

      • Obvious

        Alan could use a bit of a break I guess.

  • Obvious

    Weird pressure again…

    • US_Citizen71

      Those pressure hills are sort of rhythmic. I wish we had a screenshot.

      • Obvious

        test…. hmm.., too small. I can read mine.
        Actually clicking on it isn’t too bad.

  • Obvious

    Weird pressure again…

    • US_Citizen71

      Those pressure hills are sort of rhythmic. I wish we had a screenshot.

      • Obvious

        test…. hmm.., too small. I can read mine.
        Actually clicking on it isn’t too bad.

        • Physicsdog

          At 925 pm I could hear a baby crying in the background …

  • Guest5

    Is it at negative pressure??

  • Sanjeev
    • Obvious

      Thanks.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        well, since.. like forever it turns out.

  • Sanjeev
    • Obvious

      Thanks.

  • Sanjeev

    The experiment is almost coming to an end.
    The temperature is now held constant at 900C at about 1KW of input and the input is not going down. There is no increase in ratio of the two TC’s, it stayed at 1.14 – 1.15 throughout the experiment.
    I think he cannot increase temperature, so perhaps it will remain like this for some time then shut down.
    Perhaps a restart can be attempted tomorrow to check how the pressure and power behave at 900C ?

    • Obvious

      How do come up with 1 kW input?

      • Sanjeev

        The voltage is 100 V in screenshots.

        • Obvious

          Ah. I see it now. Thanks.
          I can see that they were maxed out now.

    • NT

      A restart with this fuel load would be an interesting experiment with, hopefully, doubling the startup power input procedures. Hoping they can reach the melting point of this nickel material and see what happens along the way. Rossie says that once the Nickel melts the reaction dies, but that may be a bluff, of sorts, to throw folks off the path – who knows? At least trying with this setup can add to the knowledge base while we wait for the Parkhomov material…

  • Sanjeev

    The experiment is almost coming to an end.
    The temperature is now held constant at 900C at about 1KW of input and the input is not going down. There is no increase in ratio of the two TC’s, it stayed at 1.14 – 1.15 throughout the experiment.
    I think he cannot increase temperature, so perhaps it will remain like this for some time then shut down.
    Perhaps a restart can be attempted tomorrow to check how the pressure and power behave at 900C ?

    • Obvious

      How do come up with 1 kW input?

      • Sanjeev

        The voltage is 100 V in screenshots.

        • Obvious

          Ah. I see it now. Thanks.
          I can see that they were maxed out now.
          (I think I was looking at the pressure sensor temp for a while…)

    • NT

      A restart with this fuel load would be an interesting experiment with, hopefully, doubling the startup power input procedures. Hoping they can reach the melting point of this nickel material and see what happens along the way. Rossie says that once the Nickel melts the reaction dies, but that may be a bluff, of sorts, to throw folks off the path – who knows? At least trying with this setup can add to the knowledge base while we wait for the Parkhomov material…

  • David_Kaiser_39

    Why are they stopping?

    • Sanjeev

      Its done ! Next experiment will be soon.

      • David_Kaiser_39

        But didnt they wanted to go up to 1200C. .?

        • David_Kaiser_39

          Ok, sorry. Their power supply cannot deliver more..

          • Bob Greenyer

            The inside core temp was well over 1200ºC as per the calibration.

          • Hi Bob,

            so you think the powder wasn’t “correct”?
            Will Alan do another test with the parkhomov powder?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Firstly, data is data – there is a huge wealth of information in what was created last night. We need to get that out to everyone and analyse it.

            I will write a review in another place to avoid repeating things

  • David_Kaiser_39

    Why are they stopping?

    • Sanjeev

      Its done ! Next experiment will be soon.

      • David_Kaiser_39

        But didnt they wanted to go up to 1200C. .?

        • David_Kaiser_39

          Ok, sorry. Their power supply cannot deliver more..

          • Bob Greenyer

            The inside core temp was well over 1200ºC as per the calibration.

          • Hi Bob,

            so you think the powder wasn’t “correct”?
            Will Alan do another test with the parkhomov powder?

            Is it possible that the powder is getting worse when it is in contact with normal air over time?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Firstly, data is data – there is a huge wealth of information in what was created last night. We need to get that out to everyone and analyse it.

            I will write a review in another place to avoid repeating things

  • pg

    Anyone can summarise what we can conclude from this experiment?

    • Nigel Appleton

      Yes.
      That’s a long time to wait not to reach target temperature

      Anyone else find it frustrating that Parkhomov has been able to do so many experiments with his very basic, even suboptimal, equipment and materials, whilst the relatively well-equipped and mob-handed MFMP have done so few?
      I know MFMP people have jobs to do, families to support and so on…..

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would not say that I am frustrated since I have meanwhile seen enough failed experiments. Who knows how many attempts Parkhomov needed until he found an appropriate setup? What one could learn from this event is that a test run with a new device should not be stopped before the target temperature is reached. (Besides, stopping it too early makes it useless from a methodological point of view, as we have seen in the Lugano case.) Maybe the temperature problem could have been foreseen by extrapolating the calibration data, but as we all know hindsight is easier than foresight.

        The positive outcome of this test is that the GlowStick appears to be gas-tight and mechanically stable, at least until about 900C. That’s reassuring, and a solid basis for the following experiments.

        • artefact

          The reactor did not break and can be restarted. With a better power supply maybe it can start a fire. And next time the power up time can be shorter because the LiAlh4 has already decomposed.

          • Mats002

            And H should have been adsorbed into the nickel lattice.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          “Who knows how many attempts Parkhomov needed until he found an appropriate setup? ”

          Listen to what you’re saying. He HAS (supposedly) found the appropriate setup. Imagine you were sitting on the biggest discovery of the millenium–why wouldn’t you show _precisely_ how it’s done so as to speed up successful replications? It makes no sense!! I mean, what was the whole point of Bob’s visit?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            There are certainly open questions with regard to Parkhomov’s experiments. But note at least that he reported excess heat at a reactor temperature that was far higher than what has been reached in the current GlowStick test. This was not yet an adequate replication attempt. In addition, there are always unknowns as long as an effect is not fully understood, which means that even a successful experimenter may not be able to name every detail which might have been essential. This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable situation – the only thing one can do is to keep trying.

    • Mats002

      The Variac could not produce enough power to bring the device to the temperature where Parkhomov started to see XH. MFMP need russian quality variacs or euoropean 220 V outlets giving 2200 W. Is this why Rossi use three phase power for HT? Anyways thank you MFMP for a good show!

      Next time…

  • pg

    Anyone can summarise what we can conclude from this experiment?

    • Nigel Appleton

      Yes.
      That’s a long time to wait not to reach target temperature

      Anyone else find it frustrating that Parkhomov has been able to do so many experiments with his very basic, even suboptimal, equipment and materials, whilst the relatively well-equipped and mob-handed MFMP have done so few?
      I know MFMP people have jobs to do, families to support and so on…..

      • Sophareth Camsonne

        Because Parkhomov is much more than a PhD or Engineer. Mastering theories as a former professor, he can control, simplify any experiments step.

      • henk

        Parkhomov’s equipment is certainly not suboptimal for the task to show excess heat. Getting nice and shiny equipment and create elaborate test protocolls can easily become a main distraction in replicating the Rossi Effect.
        The key success factors here are focus, dedication and perseverance, virtues that Rossi and Parkhomov share and, for many good reasons, MFMP seems to lack a bit sofar.
        It’s been almost 6 months since the Lugano Report was published.

        • fritz194

          I don´t think that shiny equipment makes something more trustworthy.
          Think about the pressure meter setup:
          You see the reactor, the fitting, the tube and the pressure meter in a single picture.
          Ok, the meter might be broken – but you can test/calibrate it – before the experiment and afterwards. Everybody knows whats inside such meter.
          If you think about an automated setup – lots of things can go wrong.
          There can be problematic wiring, wrong calibration settings due to conversion, it could be the wrong input …. and so on – much more prone to any speculation.

      • Thomas Clarke

        The difference is that MFMP do their experiments much more carefully, and therefore get a lot more data from them.

        That means that positive results from MFMP would be believed by everyone, whereas positives from Parkhomov have question marks (especially because of the cut and paste on the results from the second test).

        Anyway – I’m not sure that Parkhomov has done so many experiments. We have not seen results from very many.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would not say that I am frustrated since I have meanwhile seen enough failed experiments. Who knows how many attempts Parkhomov needed until he found an appropriate setup? What one could learn from this event is that a test run with a new device should not be stopped before the target temperature is reached. (Besides, stopping it too early makes it useless from a methodological point of view, as we have seen in the Lugano case.) Maybe the temperature problem could have been foreseen by extrapolating the calibration data, but as we all know hindsight is easier than foresight.

        The positive outcome of this test is that the GlowStick appears to be gas-tight and mechanically stable, at least until about 900C. That’s reassuring, and a solid basis for the following experiments.

        • artefact

          The reactor did not break and can be restarted. With a better power supply maybe it can start a fire. And next time the power up time can be shorter because the LiAlh4 has already decomposed.

          • Mats002

            And H should have been adsorbed into the nickel lattice.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          “Who knows how many attempts Parkhomov needed until he found an appropriate setup? ”

          Listen to what you’re saying. He HAS (supposedly) found the appropriate setup. Imagine you were sitting on the biggest discovery of the millenium–why wouldn’t you show _precisely_ how it’s done so as to speed up successful replications? It makes no sense!! I mean, what was the whole point of Bob’s visit?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            There are certainly open questions with regard to Parkhomov’s experiments. But note at least that he reported excess heat at a reactor temperature that was far higher than what has been reached in the current GlowStick test. This was not yet an adequate replication attempt. In addition, there are always unknowns as long as an effect is not fully understood, which means that even a successful experimenter may not be able to name every detail which might have been essential. This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable situation – the only thing one can do is to keep trying.

    • Sophareth Camsonne

      Kim surely !

    • toussaint françois

      A failure so far ?

    • Mats002

      The Variac could not produce enough power to bring the device to the temperature where Parkhomov started to see XH. MFMP need russian quality variacs or euoropean 220 V outlets giving 2200 W. Is this why Rossi use three phase power for HT? Anyways thank you MFMP for a good show!

      Next time…

  • Obvious

    Thanks Alan for your hard work.

  • Obvious

    Thanks Alan for your hard work.

  • Jaja6984

    Too low temperature to ignite LENR? Or what is the conclusion from this experiment?

  • Jonas Matuzas

    Realy, can anybody summarize experiment? what was the goal and what was acheaved.

  • rororo

    Someone should tell them the stream is still streaming…. Baby is crying!

  • Omega Z

    Hank Mills
    I’m pretty confident that once the nickel melts, initiation of the effect stops.
    However, the effect that has already been initiated(In Process) follows through to it’s conclusion. In the runaway, this resulted in the melt down.

    As to the temperature at the nickel core. It may be possible that it is cooler then the outer reactor, but I think because it is at the center & surrounded by heat, that variance may be small like 25`C.

    Note that you can light a bucket of gasoline, but the gasoline in the bucket will stay relatively cool verses the flames on the surface. Apply flames all around the bucket & it will in a short time explode.

    I don’t think it is necessary to reach temperatures beyond 1400`C. You are already pushing the limits of containment & the wires. etc. Your pushing into the realm of expensive & exotic alloys. Your gains are lost to higher costs & shortened life cycle.

    Gas turbines draw in outside air to keep from destroying the turbines. I think 900`C to 1000`C is their working limits & these suffer from shorter life cycle..

    There are situations like military aircraft & such that performance out-ways cost & life-cycle, but cost is a major component in day to day situations. The 1400`C Hot-cat can produce 800`C steam at the turbines which appears to be the cut off line in cost/benefit. This could provide a 50% net conversion efficiency “after” allowing for input energy for the Hot-cat. That’s about a 30% gain over most conventional power plants.

    I would suggest we leave the Exotic stuff to those in the business with the need & can justify the costs & will pay for it. I think the Hot-cat already pushes the extremes of what any sane person would allow in private homes.

    Keep in mind, 10Kw of heat is 10Kw of heat. 200`C or 1400`C, Both will supply the same amount of heat for a 1000 sq.ft home.

    • Mats002

      Com’on, this is a TEST not a safety contest.

  • Guest

    Realy. Can anybody summarize the experiment? what was the goal and that we achieved ?

  • georgehants

    As Mr. Rossi is so far ahead, would it really do him any harm to publish a very basic instruction manual for people to follow, just to confirm the effect?

    • Owen Geiger

      Good idea. It could be a stripped down design that doesn’t compete with his. Like you say, just something to confirm the effect.

  • georgehants

    As Mr. Rossi is so far ahead, would it really do him any harm to publish a very basic, but workable instruction manual for people to follow, just to confirm the effect?
    He would then not be remembered as only a capitalist just interested in profit.

    • Owen Geiger

      Good idea. It could be a stripped down design that doesn’t compete with his. Like you say, just something to confirm the effect.

    • private5

      The Lugano report is the instruction manual for the professonals .i.e Prof. Parkhomov

  • Daniel Maris

    Thanks for that clarification Hank as it is really useful and hasn’t really been presented here yet as far as I know. Most useful.

  • Jonas Matuzas

    Can anyone summarize the experiment? What was the goal and that was achieved ?

  • Gerard McEk

    It is frustrating to recognitie that the MFMP reactor test results considerably differ from the results of Parkhomov. In the first place is the difference in pressure: MFMP reached about 35 Bar and Alexander 5 Bar, very strange! Secondly AGP found that the temperature with a fueled reactor started to separate from the not fueled curve at about 700C, MFMP did not see that, strange. Would the different type of Nickel be the reason?
    I also assume that Brian Ahern had no positive results, because there was no feedback. I hope I am wrong.

    • Brian is now at 850°C and sees a + of 5°C compared to the control run.
      But that is in the range of measurement errors.

      • Daniel Maris

        Where can you see the comparison with the control run?

  • Gerard McEk

    It is frustrating to recognitie that the MFMP reactor test results considerably differ from the results of Parkhomov. In the first place is the difference in pressure: MFMP reached about 35 Bar and Alexander 5 Bar, very strange! Secondly AGP found that the temperature with a fueled reactor started to separate from the not fueled curve at about 700C, MFMP did not see that, strange. Would the different type of Nickel be the reason?
    I also assume that Brian Ahern had no positive results, because there was no feedback. I hope I am wrong.

    • Brian is now at 850°C and sees a + of 5°C compared to the control run.
      But that is in the range of measurement errors.

      • Arnaud

        Who is now at 850°C? Brian Ahern ?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I find it really infuriating that here we are, well into 2015, when Rossi is supposedly running an industrial plant for many months and Parkhomov has replicated his work many numerous times, yet there doesn’t seem to be a shred of evidence that the reaction actually works outside of those two.

    For me, there has always been a gut feeling that this thing is just too good to be true. And scarily, that gut feeling continues to be validated time and again.

    • Gerrit

      Before Parkhomov, we only had Rossi. Assume MFMP will produce excess heat and then some “major lab” will try replication and produce a null result, would you see that as “validation” of your gut feeling ?

      There isn’t a day that I don’t question the whole LENR story – not just Rossi, I have gotten used to that feeling of uncertainty. But everyday I look at the evidence I come to the conclusion that it is probably very true.

      This is not the time to give up and I am thankful that the MFMP is actually doing the experiments.

      I just wait for the MFMP to produce a success or Industrial Heat to showcase their plant next year.

      • private5

        Yes, please keep trying but please make sure you have a positive result before coming online.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I find it really infuriating that here we are, well into 2015, when Rossi is supposedly running an industrial plant for many months and Parkhomov has replicated his work numerous times, yet outside of those two there doesn’t seem to be a shred of evidence that the reaction actually works.

    For me, there has always been a gut feeling that this thing is just too good to be true. And scarily, that gut feeling continues to be validated time and again.

    • Gerrit

      Before Parkhomov, we only had Rossi. Assume MFMP will produce excess heat and then some “major lab” will try replication and produce a null result, would you see that as “validation” of your gut feeling ?

      There isn’t a day that I don’t question the whole LENR story – not just Rossi, I have gotten used to that feeling of uncertainty. But everyday I look at the evidence I come to the conclusion that it is probably very true.

      This is not the time to give up and I am thankful that the MFMP is actually doing the experiments.

      I just wait for the MFMP to produce a success or Industrial Heat to showcase their plant next year.

      • private5

        Yes, please keep trying but please make sure you have a positive result before coming online.

  • Bob Greenyer

    the last screen grabs are here
    http://bit.ly/19NmJrM

    Alan took the outside core to 900ºC – about 1225ºC internal temp

    He was not prepared to have it run overnight unnatended
    so the agreed protocol was to step it down, this might have revealed interesting data

    The raw data will be both a treasure trove for understanding this complex system from a pressure point of view
    and a perfect calibration for a run with AP Ni
    We also need to get the LiAlH4 tested to see if it is not of natural isotopic ratio

    I have a line of communication to Dr. Parkhomov.

    We must get the data out ASAP for analysis.

    • Daniel Maris

      So there was no excess heat?

      • Ged

        It diverged from calibration some, but may not be significant (14% or so at most higher). Patience is important when running this it seems. We’ll have to see with the full data is released.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I am not sure if the obtained pressure data are applicable if another sort of nickel powder is used. In contrast to palladium, nickel adsorbs hydrogen mainly at the surface, whereas usually only little amounts penetrate deeper into the lattice. Therefore, surface area and possible surface defects should be decisive, which would mean that same amounts of powder might lead to very different pressure profiles. I would also not exclude the possibility that impurities and coatings or differences in the sintering behaviour influence the adsorption process.

  • Bob Greenyer

    the last screen grabs are here
    http://bit.ly/19NmJrM

    Alan took the outside core to 900ºC – about 1225ºC internal temp

    He was not prepared to have it run overnight unnatended
    so the agreed protocol was to step it down, this might have revealed interesting data

    The raw data will be both a treasure trove for understanding this complex system from a pressure point of view
    and a perfect calibration for a run with AP Ni
    We also need to get the LiAlH4 tested to see if it is not of natural isotopic ratio

    I have a line of communication to Dr. Parkhomov.

    We must get the data out ASAP for analysis.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I am not sure if the obtained pressure data are applicable if another sort of nickel powder is used. In contrast to palladium, nickel adsorbs hydrogen mainly at the surface, whereas usually only little amounts penetrate deeper into the lattice. Therefore, surface area and possible surface defects should be decisive, which would mean that same amounts of powder might lead to very different pressure profiles. I would also not exclude the possibility that impurities and coatings or differences in the sintering behaviour influence the adsorption process.

  • Daniel Maris

    Yes, I am reluctant to criticise an open effort but it would help if we had some info on (a) the goal (b) what signs are being looked for and (c) the overall position on excess heat.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan is asleep – Need to get the data out

  • Daniel Maris

    Can someone clarify – did Parkhamov get results at 1200C internal temperature? Or was it 1200C outside temperature? Some people seem to be assuming the latter, but that was no my understanding.

    • G Whit Thomp

      Look at the Parkhomov slides. He shows the thermocouple between the heater sleeve and the reactor core tube.

  • Hank Mills

    The test was a failure when it comes to finding significant excess heat. Some interesting data was produced, but that is not the point. Parkhomov found excess heat over and over again with a far less sophisticated setup. Why? Because his focus was on creating the conditions needed. Last nights test was not even in the proper temperature range to match Parkhomov’s original experiments. I hope the MFMP will make sure all future tests they run are capable of producing the temperatures needed to actually produce results. I find it tragic that the MFMP has so much brain power, skill, and experience, but they sometimes fail to design experiments and systems that have the greatest chance of producing excess heat. I hope Piantelli’s overly cautious attitude is not rubbing off on them. Rossi and Parkhomov push the limits with their testing, and they get results. It is time to go all out with temperature. If the wire fails, so be it. 1300 external or bust.

    • Ged

      I agree, it wasn’t a likely significant amount of excess heat–certainly not on the order of Parkhomov or Rossi–but the behavior did diverge from calibration and it’s possible there was some. A lot was learned. Bear in mind this was a different nickel powder of lower quality too, and may not be capable of large excess. All these are questions this test helps provide data to clarify, and that is very good. Also note that their power supply was maxed by the time they hit 900C external (about 1.1kW), so no way to go higher.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Some pertinent points Ged! We must go on & much thanks to Bob Geenyer for his efforts & sharing!

      • US_Citizen71

        That would be 550 watts per coil then. He needs more power.

    • Gerard McEk

      I think you are a bit harsh on the guys of MFMP, Hank. They are doing a terrific job with the means they have. As I said below I find the differences in pressure found in their- compared to AP’s latest test extremely (worrying) large and an explanation should be found. Maybe it is the type of Ni as Bob Greenyer suggests. The tested set-up shows that MFMP has the mechanical and control part in hand now the fuel and the electrical part. If AP’s test cannot be copied with his own Nickel, then we have to reconsider the situation.

      • US_Citizen71

        Maybe it is simply a function of temperature. I believe Parkhomov got his reactor hotter sooner than the test last night. None of the temperatures reported by the thermocouples last night were even within 10% of the top temperatures Parkhomov reported. I think as the temperature increases the loading increases in rate as well. The lower temperature test last night didn’t allow the rate to reach the same quickness that Parkhomov reached. I think if they had let it continue the loading would have finished at some point and then the excess they were looking for might have been found.

        Looking at the pressure data there appears to be a cyclic pattern in the drops; a small decrease followed by a rebound; followed by a big decrease; followed by a rebound and finally a large chaotic permanent decrease of pressure. This appeared to repeat about every 10 to 12 minutes. Solving the cause of that cycling I think might lead to understanding the effect in general.

    • G Whit Thomp

      I regard the experiment as quite successful. Thermal control was very good, good data logging etc. The openness should also be commended. An experiment of this nature and result would simply never be reported in a university or company let alone letting people watch in real time.

    • timycelyn

      Hank, I feel you are being a bit harsh here. I suspect (see my post above) that this ‘let’s try it whilst we wait for Parkhomov’s powder to arrive’ run using some “random” nickel powder got all the drive it needed (see Bob’s note on the true internal temperature that was ~1250C). The powder just was of low or no activity.

      The guys have gained valuable experience in an experimentally very successful run – no blow ups, no leaks – all very good, in fact.

      Patience. I’m waiting for the return match with Parkhomov’s power – it’s arrived now….

      • the metallurgy of the powder may be a key.
        Celani found out that trace of (some metal)the key for his constantan performance.

        I agree that it looks like a good blank run.

        if the pressure stay to high with AGP nickel, is there the possibility that there is too much LiAlH4 in the tube ? maybe a quantity that reach only 5bars should be prefered? (naive idea)

    • Sanjeev

      It seems you are not very pleased with MFMP. Don’t you wish we had more teams in the field ? So that we don’t have to push just 2-3 poor guys to do all the replication work in the world (out of 7 billion of us).

      I seriously suggest going ahead and forming your own team to replicate the E-Cat, most of which is now open source. You and your friend Sterling have personal contacts with many good builders and overunity researchers. You need to get a few of them together. Someone with a simple lab, power supplies, TCs etc, one doing data collection and instrumentation, and another documentation… and you are good to go. You take the lead or at least advise.

      I gave you the exact same suggestion in your guest post, but you ignored it. It seems you know a lot about the E-Cat and you know how to setup an overunity experiment and what problems and errors such experiments usually have. You know how to solve them. So what is stopping you ?

      Just make another guest post here asking for ideas to set up a new open science team. Get a feel for how much donation and help you will receive. I will gladly donate whatever I can, and I’m sure others in this community will support it.

  • Hank Mills

    The test was a failure when it comes to finding significant excess heat. Some interesting data was produced, but that is not the point. Parkhomov found excess heat over and over again with a far less sophisticated setup. Why? Because his focus was on creating the conditions needed. Last nights test was not even in the proper temperature range to match Parkhomov’s original experiments. I hope the MFMP will make sure all future tests they run are capable of producing the temperatures needed to actually produce results. I find it tragic that the MFMP has so much brain power, skill, and experience, but they sometimes fail to design experiments and systems that have the greatest chance of producing excess heat. I hope Piantelli’s overly cautious attitude is not rubbing off on them. Rossi and Parkhomov push the limits with their testing, and they get results. It is time to go all out with temperature. If the wire fails, so be it. 1300 external or bust.

    • Ged

      I agree, it wasn’t a likely significant amount of excess heat–certainly not on the order of Parkhomov or Rossi–but the behavior did diverge from calibration and it’s possible there was some. A lot was learned. Bear in mind this was a different nickel powder of lower quality too, and may not be capable of large excess. All these are questions this test helps provide data to clarify, and that is very good. Also note that their power supply was maxed by the time they hit 900C external (about 1.1kW), so no way to go higher.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Some pertinent points Ged! We must go on & much thanks to Bob Geenyer for his efforts & sharing!

      • US_Citizen71

        That would be 550 watts per coil then. He needs more power.

    • Gerard McEk

      I think you are a bit harsh on the guys of MFMP, Hank. They are doing a terrific job with the means they have. As I said below I find the differences in pressure found in their- compared to AP’s latest test extremely (worrying) large and an explanation should be found. Maybe it is the type of Ni as Bob Greenyer suggests. The tested set-up shows that MFMP has the mechanical and control part in hand now the fuel and the electrical part. If AP’s test cannot be copied with his own Nickel, then we have to reconsider the situation.

      • US_Citizen71

        Maybe it is simply a function of temperature. I believe Parkhomov got his reactor hotter sooner than the test last night. None of the temperatures reported by the thermocouples last night were even within 10% of the top temperatures Parkhomov reported. I think as the temperature increases the loading increases in rate as well. The lower temperature test last night didn’t allow the rate to reach the same quickness that Parkhomov reached. I think if they had let it continue the loading would have finished at some point and then the excess they were looking for might have been found.

        Looking at the pressure data there appears to be a cyclic pattern in the drops; a small decrease followed by a rebound; followed by a big decrease; followed by a rebound and finally a large chaotic permanent decrease of pressure. This appeared to repeat about every 10 to 12 minutes. Solving the cause of that cycling I think might lead to understanding the effect in general.

    • G Whit Thomp

      I regard the experiment as quite successful. Thermal control was very good, good data logging etc. The openness should also be commended. An experiment of this nature and result would simply never be reported in a university or company let alone letting people watch in real time.

    • timycelyn

      Hank, I feel you are being a bit harsh here. I suspect (see my post above) that this ‘let’s try it whilst we wait for Parkhomov’s powder to arrive’ run using some “random” nickel powder got all the drive it needed (see Bob’s note on the true internal temperature that was ~1250C). The powder just was of low or no activity.

      The guys have gained valuable experience in an experimentally very successful run – no blow ups, no leaks – all very good, in fact.

      Patience. I’m waiting for the return match with Parkhomov’s power – it’s arrived now….

      • the metallurgy of the powder may be a key.
        Celani found out that trace of (some metal)the key for his constantan performance.

        I agree that it looks like a good blank run.

        if the pressure stay to high with AGP nickel, is there the possibility that there is too much LiAlH4 in the tube ? maybe a quantity that reach only 5bars should be prefered? (naive idea)

    • toussaint françois

      Agreed and I hope that MFMP don’t have a hidden agenda.

    • Sanjeev

      It seems you are not very pleased with MFMP. Don’t you wish we had more teams in the field ? So that we don’t have to push just 2-3 poor guys to do all the replication work in the world (out of 7 billion of us).

      I seriously suggest going ahead and forming your own team to replicate the E-Cat, most of which is now open source. You and your friend Sterling have personal contacts with many good builders and overunity researchers. You need to get a few of them together. Someone with a simple lab, power supplies, TCs etc, one doing data collection and instrumentation, and another documentation… and you are good to go. You take the lead or at least advise.

      I gave you the exact same suggestion in your guest post, but you ignored it. It seems you know a lot about the E-Cat and you know how to setup an overunity experiment and what problems and errors such experiments usually have. You know how to solve them. So what is stopping you ?

      Just make another guest post here asking for ideas to set up a new open science team. Get a feel for how much donation and help you will receive. I will gladly donate whatever I can, and I’m sure others in this community will support it.

  • lars

    is it posible to save energy by sending enegy pulses with intervalls so the heater doesnt cool down between into the heater?

    • lars

      I mean can you turn the input power off in intervalls and save energy with same result because it is a glowing heater that doesnt cool down between offs and ons?

  • timycelyn

    Comparing this run with the Parkhomov data we have seen, there is a major difference in the behaviour of the hydrogen gas pressure. Parkhomov reached his maximum pressure of five bar at a temperature of 200C, then the pressure fell back to atmospheric at around 700C, and then negative pressure of up to -0.5 bar was pulled by the time fall reaction temperature was reached.

    Whilst there has been some questioning of the Parkhomov pressure results, in the context of a possible leak, I feel these must be at least partially valid due to the negative pressure achieved beyond 700C. That is very significant.

    Contrasting the MFMP’s present run, we see much higher pressures, and no onset of pressure decline until a heater temperature of over 600C was reached – compared with Parkhomov’s 200 C . At 700 C, where Parkhomov’s internal pressure is down to atmospheric, this experiment was still (depending upon which temperature you follow) at a pressure in the order of +200 psi.

    However there were good signs in the experiment. The first was that the pressure was indeed falling at high temperatures, but little and late. Also, I was greatly encouraged by the fact that high pressures were achieved and held during the climb to temperature. This gives me some confidence in the integrity of the reactor.

    At first sight, these results would suggest to me that the Nickel/Lithal mixture used in this experiment was of “low activity”. As high temperatures were reached it showed some ability to absorb hydrogen, but with a much weaker drive than the Parkhomov material.

    I am truly looking forward to the MFMP guys deploying their learning and the experimental techniques they are now refining, to Parkhomov’s powder. I get the sense we really are on the cusp of something.

    • G Whit Thomp

      I think Parkhomov’s pressure could be the result of a leak. Consider a leak that acted like a flap or poppet valve. It would open at high internal pressure but close at zero pressure. After closure the pressure drop seen by MFMP would result in a negative internal pressure. Also, I do not believe Parkhomov’s gauge was intended to measure negative pressure. I believe those readings were estimates of ‘needle below zero’.

      • timycelyn

        I agree, it’s a perfectly viable alternative explanation. I took another look at the graph and the pressure decline is depressingly exponential, I admit.

        I hadn’t looked into the detail of how he measured the negative pressure, and that is, to me, key. If it is an artefact of the crude measurement, and in fact negative = atmospheric, then a leak seems the most likely. If it is truly negative, then that’s a whole different situation.

        The alternative ‘poppet valve’ explanation for the absence of high pressures in Parkhomov’s work I have more trouble with. We all know that this can happen, but I really struggle to believe it would with these types of materials of construction. You need elastomers, maybe plastics, or leaf spring type action in metals to see this type of behaviour. I cannot, of course, exclude it, but I certainly do not assign high probability to it.

        No, for me, having read your comment a lot hinges on that negative pressure. If it was real, is suggests Parthomov’s power was really ‘drinking’ the hydrogen, which would sit nicely with its apparent thermal activity. On the other hand, if it’s just a measurement error, then that bit of corroboration disappears…

        • G Whit Thomp

          I assume Parkhomov’s negative pressure is below atmospheric pressure but we should be careful about accepting the accuracy of the measurement.

          As a poppet valve model how about a dust bead of ceramic over a very small pore? What if most of the pressure was released and then more hydrogen was adsorbed to get below atmospheric pressure?

          It may well be a difference in the nickel. I think the important thing here is to recognize alternate explanations are possible.

          • timycelyn

            Nice try, but I’m still not in the market for poppet valves! A nice little grain of ceramic that just beautifully seals is a most obliging way…..nope – that’s pushing the boat out too far for me.

            For me, it goes this way. If the vacuum reading is spurious, then it could be a good old simple leak – although I also agree with the point other have made about the steps in that pressure decay being ‘un leaklike’.

            But if that vacuum reading is real, something significant is going on with the hydrogen – something is adsorbing it like crazy. Of couse, it could be the stainless…..

          • G Whit Thomp

            Perhaps I am looking for too simple an answer and you for too complex a one. Here is another. AGP used a mechanical manometer with a pressure tube to it and expansion chamber inside the gauge. MFMP used a transducer at the end on the reactor. It is probable that there was much more free space in the AGP system and much of it relatively cool.

            The extra expansion space would result in the much lower maximum pressure seen by AGP. If the molten Al acted as a getter for the entire volume this could drive the pressure negative.

            I still suspect a leak because it slowly returned to atmospheric.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Wasn’t it so that Parkhomov used an additional stainless steel tube inside the reactor so he could pull out the charge in one piece without breaking the alumina tube? (I mean, it was, since I saw it, but I don’t remember if it was the same run we are comparing with now.) A steel tube could have also absorbed some hydrogen and lowered the pressure.

      • Matt Sevrens

        Leaks only make sense if the pressure loss is exponential not step wise

        • G Whit Thomp

          Please read timycelyn comment

  • timycelyn

    Comparing this run with the Parkhomov data we have seen, there is a major difference in the behaviour of the hydrogen gas pressure. Parkhomov reached his maximum pressure of five bar at a temperature of 200C, then the pressure fell back to atmospheric at around 700C, and then negative pressure of up to -0.5 bar was pulled by the time fall reaction temperature was reached.

    Whilst there has been some questioning of the Parkhomov pressure results, in the context of a possible leak, I feel these must be at least partially valid due to the negative pressure achieved beyond 700C. That is very significant.

    Contrasting the MFMP’s present run, we see much higher pressures, and no onset of pressure decline until a heater temperature of over 600C was reached – compared with Parkhomov’s 200 C . At 700 C, where Parkhomov’s internal pressure is down to atmospheric, this experiment was still (depending upon which temperature you follow) at a pressure in the order of +200 psi.

    However there were good signs in the experiment. The first was that the pressure was indeed falling at high temperatures, albeit little and late. Also, I was greatly encouraged by the fact that high pressures were achieved and held during the climb to temperature. This gives me some confidence in the integrity of the reactor.

    At first sight, these results would suggest to me that the Nickel/Lithal mixture used in this experiment was of “low activity”. As high temperatures were reached it showed some ability to absorb hydrogen, but with a much weaker drive than the Parkhomov material.

    I am truly looking forward to the MFMP guys deploying their learning and the experimental techniques they are now refining, to Parkhomov’s powder. I get the sense we really are on the cusp of something.

    • G Whit Thomp

      I think Parkhomov’s pressure could be the result of a leak. Consider a leak that acted like a flap or poppet valve. It would open at high internal pressure but close at zero pressure. After closure the pressure drop seen by MFMP would result in a negative internal pressure. Also, I do not believe Parkhomov’s gauge was intended to measure negative pressure. I believe those readings were estimates of ‘needle below zero’.

      • timycelyn

        I agree, a leak is a viable alternative explanation. I took another look at the graph and the pressure decline is depressingly exponential, I admit.

        I hadn’t looked into the detail of how he measured the negative pressure, and that is, to me, key. If it is an artefact of the crude measurement, and in fact negative = atmospheric, then a leak seems the most likely. If it is truly negative, then that’s a whole different situation.

        The alternative ‘poppet valve’ explanation for the absence of high pressures in Parkhomov’s work I have more trouble with. We all know that this can happen, but I really struggle to believe it would with these types of materials of construction. You need elastomers, maybe plastics, or leaf spring type action in metals to see this type of behaviour. I cannot, of course, exclude it, but I certainly do not assign high probability to it.

        No, for me, having read your comment a lot hinges on that negative pressure. If it was real, it suggests Parthomov’s powder was really ‘drinking’ the hydrogen, which would sit nicely with its apparent thermal activity. On the other hand, if it’s just a measurement error, then that bit of corroboration disappears…

        • G Whit Thomp

          I assume Parkhomov’s negative pressure is below atmospheric pressure but we should be careful about accepting the accuracy of the measurement.

          As a poppet valve model how about a dust bead of ceramic over a very small pore? What if most of the pressure was released and then more hydrogen was adsorbed to get below atmospheric pressure?

          It may well be a difference in the nickel. I think the important thing here is to recognize alternate explanations are possible.

          • timycelyn

            Nice try, but I’m still not in the market for poppet valves! A nice little grain of ceramic that just beautifully seals is a most obliging way…..nope – that’s pushing the boat out too far for me.

            For me, it goes this way. If the vacuum reading is spurious, then it could be a good old simple leak – although I also agree with the point other have made about the steps in that pressure decay being ‘un leaklike’.

            But if that vacuum reading is real, something significant is going on with the hydrogen – something is adsorbing it like crazy. Of couse, it could be the stainless…..

          • G Whit Thomp

            Perhaps I am looking for too simple an answer and you for too complex a one. Here is another. AGP used a mechanical manometer with a pressure tube to it and expansion chamber inside the gauge. MFMP used a transducer at the end on the reactor. It is probable that there was much more free space in the AGP system and much of it relatively cool.

            The extra expansion space would result in the much lower maximum pressure seen by AGP. If the molten Al acted as a getter for the entire volume this could drive the pressure negative.

            I still suspect a leak because it slowly returned to atmospheric.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Wasn’t it so that Parkhomov used an additional stainless steel tube inside the reactor so he could pull out the charge in one piece without breaking the alumina tube? (I mean, it was, since I saw it, but I don’t remember if it was the same run we are comparing with now.) A steel tube could have also absorbed some hydrogen and lowered the pressure.

      • Matt Sevrens

        Leaks only make sense if the pressure loss is exponential not step wise

        • G Whit Thomp

          Please read timycelyn comment

  • Ged

    One of the biggest points I see is that the pressure never bottomed out. We know from past LENR experiments that a high loading percent (above 90%) of hydrogen into the lattice is required. This may not be absolutely true, particularly with these high temp reactors or molten reactors, but in this case we did not see any sign of saturation of the nickel, which may be a requirement. It’s really hard to say due to the high pressure here–could be there was just too much material to saturate at a time scale that makes it doable in a day.

    • timycelyn

      It didn’t even look like it was slowing down……

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The > 90% ratio was determined for palladium. You would need extremely high pressures to get a similar saturation in nickel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_hydride .

      • Ged

        That is measuring by weight percentage, which isn’t that helpful as nickel is far heavier per atom than hydrogen (can never be 90% by weight). Molar fraction is what you want. None the less, I believe it’s 90% of saturation capacity, not Molar and definitely not weight percent, that matters.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          0.002 % by weight would equal a molar fraction of no more than 5.5%:

          0.002 g H2 = 0.992 mmol
          0.998 g Ni = 17 mmol

          Fraction = 0.992 / (17 + 0.992) = 0.551 (5.5 %)
          Ratio = 0.992 / 17 = 0.05835 (5.835%)

          The atomic ratio would come to 0.1176 .

          Nickel captures hydrogen mainly on its surface, or in surface defects. For that reason alone, grain size and other properties of the powder might be a critical factor, which makes comparisons between experiments more difficult.

          • Ged

            And exactly why saturation capacity is the better metric. That is easy to see by observing a pressure level off. We don’t see that here.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            In principle, I agree. Regarding the causes of the pressure decrease, reality might be more complex, though. Think of the Li/Al alloy, or hydrogen ad/absorption by the reactor walls. I would also not exclude the possibility that hydrogen atoms form cluster, a process that would presumably lead as well to a pressure drop:

            http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/MagneHydrogen-2012.pdf

          • Ged

            Indeedly so. Thus a leveling off of pressure means hydrogen has finished partitioning to available sinks at or near their saturation for that temp. But as you say, calculating the absolute hydrogen absorption a priori is not trivial and probably not possible at this time.

  • Ged

    One of the biggest points I see is that the pressure never bottomed out. We know from past LENR experiments that a high loading percent (above 90%) of hydrogen into the lattice is required. This may not be absolutely true, particularly with these high temp reactors or molten reactors, but in this case we did not see any sign of saturation of the nickel, which may be a requirement. It’s really hard to say due to the high pressure here–could be there was just too much material to saturate at a time scale that makes it doable in a day.

    • timycelyn

      It didn’t even look like it was slowing down……

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The > 90% ratio was determined for palladium. You would need extremely high pressures to get a similar saturation in nickel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_hydride .

      • Ged

        That is measuring by weight percentage, which isn’t that helpful as nickel is far heavier per atom than hydrogen (can never be 90% by weight). Molar fraction is what you want. None the less, I believe it’s 90% of saturation capacity, not Molar and definitely not weight percent, that matters.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          0.002 % by weight would equal a molar fraction of no more than 5.5%:

          0.002 g H2 = 0.992 mmol
          0.998 g Ni = 17 mmol

          Fraction = 0.992 / (17 + 0.992) = 0.551 (5.5 %)
          Ratio = 0.992 / 17 = 0.05835 (5.835%)

          The atomic ratio would come to 0.1176 .

          Nickel captures hydrogen mainly on its surface, or in surface defects. For that reason alone, grain size and other properties of the powder might be a critical factor, which makes comparisons between experiments more difficult.

          • Ged

            And exactly why saturation capacity is the better metric. That is easy to see by observing a pressure level off. We don’t see that here.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            In principle, I agree. Regarding the causes of the pressure decrease, reality might be more complex, though. Think of the Li/Al alloy, or hydrogen ad/absorption by the reactor walls. I would also not exclude the possibility that hydrogen atoms form cluster, a process that would presumably lead as well to a pressure drop:

            http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/MagneHydrogen-2012.pdf

          • Ged

            Indeedly so. Thus a leveling off of pressure means hydrogen has finished partitioning to available sinks at or near their saturation for that temp. But as you say, calculating the absolute hydrogen absorption a priori is not trivial and probably not possible at this time.

  • Achi

    Rather than breaking the reactor open why don’t you hook it up to a power supply capable of the hogher temperatures and give it another go? The data about how a cooled reactor reheats could prove to be quite valuable.

    • Obvious

      In its present state, it is an ideal control device.

      • Obvious

        Test it again 10 more times as-is.

  • Achi

    Rather than breaking the reactor open why don’t you hook it up to a power supply capable of the higher temperatures and give it another go? The data about how a cooled reactor reheats could prove to be quite valuable.

    • Obvious

      In its present state, it is an ideal control device.

      • Obvious

        Test it again 10 more times as-is.
        When you have the time.
        Please.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Raney nickel + LiAlH can be a more effective (it is pyrophoric and more difficult to handle, but it should not be impossible to pack in the tube) mixture for LENR. More hydrogen is already in Ni.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Raney nickel + LiAlH can be a more effective (it is pyrophoric and more difficult to handle, but it should not be impossible to pack in the tube) mixture for LENR. More hydrogen is already in Ni.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel

  • fritz194

    I don´t think that shiny equipment makes something more trustworthy.
    Think about the pressure meter setup:
    You see the reactor, the fitting, the tube and the pressure meter in a single picture.
    Ok, the meter might be broken – but you can test/calibrate it – before the experiment and afterwards. Everybody knows whats inside such meter.
    If you think about an automated setup – lots of things can go wrong.
    There can be problematic wiring, wrong calibration settings due to conversion, it could be the wrong input …. and so on – much more prone to any speculation.

  • William Harrison

    In my less than unscientific opinion, MFMP is doing more harm that good with these “tests” They need to replicate what has worked before. Wait a couple of more days for the correct powder, get the correct power supply and replicate. If you want to experiment with the rig, do not do it in front of the whole world on you tube. Your tests are being taken by critics as failures and will cloud your successes. REPLICATE THE PARKHOMOV FINDINGS! In the open, and straight up..

    • James Thomas

      I guess some see the glass as half full, and others half empty.

      Many here are sick of secretive closed door science. This is a noble experiment in truly open-science which presents both failures and successes. This is not an exercise in placating the critics.

      Some get it, some don’t. Some applaud and support the efforts, others not so much.

      • TomR

        Thank you James for pointing that out. Your second paragraph is so true.

  • Private Citizen

    Great to see open science working. While this is characterized as a somewhat spontaneous throw-away experiment, next time please

    Improve the live casting so that observers can see more than a headache inducing blur as we wait for intermittent screen caps from whomever is still awake

    Prepare shift workers for a longer test; the thing took almost 12 hours to warm up, so you didn’t leave much room for sustained observation

    Perhaps allow for more input power on the heat source, as apparently there was little headroom

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, given the fact MFMP have been in this game for a few years now, those omissions were odd.

      I would add: give us some bullet points on what the experiment is seeking to demonstrate and what signs you are looking for.

      • Bob Matulis

        Agreed. A nice summary of what is to be expected (temp and pressure) at various input power would be helpful. Having a baseline run with no fuel heated up to 1300C would be a good start. Quantifying what would constitute positive results (COP>1) at various inputs and core temperatures would be helpful when following the experiments.

    • Mike Henderson

      I would prefer to see the effort go toward testing dozens of reactors in parallel. There’s a lot of variables in play here. Making one device that gives a COP > 3 would be swell. Finding the configuration that gives a COP > 30 would be world-changing. Peace in the middle east. End of offshore drilling. Cheap desalination makes deserts bloom. Take CO2 back from the atmosphere. Feed Africa. Flying cars.

  • Private Citizen

    Great to see open science working. While this is characterized as a somewhat spontaneous throw-away experiment, next time please

    Improve the live casting so that observers can see more than a headache inducing blur as we wait for intermittent screen caps from whomever is still awake

    Prepare shift workers for a longer test; the thing took almost 12 hours to warm up, so you didn’t leave much room for sustained observation

    Perhaps allow for more input power on the heat source, as apparently there was little headroom

    • Mike Henderson

      I would prefer to see the effort go toward testing dozens of reactors in parallel. There’s a lot of variables in play here. Making one device that gives a COP > 3 would be swell. Finding the configuration that gives a COP > 30 would be world-changing. Peace in the middle east. End of offshore drilling. Cheap desalination makes deserts bloom. Take CO2 back from the atmosphere. Feed Africa. Flying cars.

  • lars

    while broadcasting live, could it be possible to have two tubes besides eachother, both with same input but one with no fuel and one with fuel? so it will be easy to see the fueled one glowing more and the unfueld glowing less?

    • Ged

      The idea of the GlowStick as I understand it is to do that very thing but in series. So one long tube with two compartments getting exactly the same power.

      • Sanjeev

        With a problem, that they are also heating each other by radiation and conduction/convection.

        If you want to set up a control, ideally it should be totally isolated from the active.

        • Ged

          I have to disagree. While there will be some cross talk, it goes both ways and thus washes out in the calibration. But what it gives is an internal control, which is the most powerful and useful types. All the problem a separate control with separate variables brings is eliminated.

          • Sanjeev

            I have to disagree with your disagreement 😀
            In dummy run, both will heat each other equally, so the calibration will be good. But with powder, the active one will lose more heat, as it is at higher temperature (if its working) and the control will receive heat instead of being at equilibrium.

            I’m no expert, but I feel this can be a problem. It will lower the COP a bit in best case. May be I’m wrong.

          • Ged

            It may make the results more -conservative-, which is good, but if you are worried, just put more space between cells. Also, comparison with calibration will allow ratiometric calculations with vastly more statistical power.

            If blank runs, which everyone has been doing ad infinitum were so good, then why are there always so many questions and challenges to the validity of such controls? An internal control address so many of those issues. In my work, we are very lucky that some of our experiments have internal controls. Though there is some cross talk, it is so minor relative to the total power confirmed by an internal control, it is incredible the strengthening of experimental data it brings. Our work where we are not afforded that is always more error prone and harder to substantiate relatively speaking–much more control work needed for similar experimental power.

            So, I am afraid I will never agree with you on this one :); first hand experience and all.

          • Obvious

            I think you are right. And I will add that the proliferation of designs, almost never the same twice, do nothing to reduce the uncertainties in the control data, and most likely increase the range of uncertainty.

        • US_Citizen71

          One additional change might be to run in parallel instead as well. If RF from the reaction is inducing a current in the heating coil as some have theorized then that current would heat the control in series, but not in parallel.

  • lars

    while broadcasting live, could it be possible to have two tubes besides eachother, both with same input but one with no fuel and one with fuel? so it will be easy to see the fueled one glowing more and the unfueld glowing less?

    • Ged

      The idea of the GlowStick as I understand it is to do that very thing but in series. So one long tube with two compartments getting exactly the same power.

      • Sanjeev

        With a problem, that they are also heating each other by radiation and conduction/convection.

        If you want to set up a control, ideally it should be totally isolated from the active.

        • Ged

          I have to disagree. While there will be some cross talk, it goes both ways and thus washes out in the calibration. But what it gives is an internal control, which is the most powerful and useful types. All the problem a separate control with separate variables brings is eliminated.

          • Sanjeev

            I have to disagree with your disagreement 😀
            In dummy run, both will heat each other equally, so the calibration will be good. But with powder, the active one will lose more heat, as it is at higher temperature (if its working) and the control will receive heat instead of being at equilibrium.

            I’m no expert, but I feel this can be a problem. It will lower the COP a bit in best case. May be I’m wrong.

          • Ged

            It may make the results more -conservative-, which is good, but if you are worried, just put more space between cells. Also, comparison with calibration will allow ratiometric calculations with vastly more statistical power.

            If blank runs, which everyone has been doing ad infinitum were so good, then why are there always so many questions and challenges to the validity of such controls? An internal control address so many of those issues. In my work, we are very lucky that some of our experiments have internal controls. Though there is some cross talk, it is so minor relative to the total power conferred by an internal control, it is incredible the strengthening of experimental data it brings. Our work where we are not afforded that is always more error prone and harder to substantiate relatively speaking–much more control work needed for similar experimental power.

            So, I am afraid I will never agree with you on this one :); first hand experience and all.

          • Obvious

            I think you are right. And I will add that the proliferation of designs, almost never the same twice, do nothing to reduce the uncertainties in the control data, and most likely increase the range of uncertainty.

        • US_Citizen71

          One additional change might be to run in parallel instead as well. If RF from the reaction is inducing a current in the heating coil as some have theorized then that current would heat the control in series, but not in parallel.

  • Andrew

    A curious thought just occurred . Was the input voltage 240@60hZ or 240@50hz. Maybe the frequency of the electricity plays a greater role.

  • Andrew

    A curious thought just occurred . Was the input voltage 240@60hZ or 240@50hz. Maybe the frequency of the electricity plays a greater role.

  • Herb Gillis

    What is so special about Parkhomov’s powder? If it works at MFMP or anywhere else can it (the powder) be reproduced on demand?

    • Mike Henderson

      I believe that Parkhomov used an off-the-shelf commercial Ni powder from a Russian supplier. The microstructure of the powder appears “wispier” … filaments that are longer and narrower. That might facilitate the reaction in a couple of ways such as faster diffusion through the crystal lattice, or a higher frequency of edge boundaries / grain boundaries, or some coating effect as LiAlH4 decomposition products melt and wet the Ni fillaments.

      • Mike Ivanov

        There is even a phone number of supplier on the photo of bottle with Ni powder used by Parkhomov. Why do not call and ask them?

  • Herb Gillis

    What is so special about Parkhomov’s powder? If it works at MFMP or anywhere else can it (the powder) be reproduced on demand?

    • Mike Henderson

      I believe that Parkhomov used an off-the-shelf commercial Ni powder from a Russian supplier. The microstructure of the powder appears “wispier” … filaments that are longer and narrower. That might facilitate the reaction in a couple of ways such as faster diffusion through the crystal lattice, or a higher frequency of edge boundaries / grain boundaries, or some coating effect as LiAlH4 decomposition products melt and wet the Ni fillaments.

      • Mike Ivanov

        There is even a phone number of supplier on the photo of bottle with Ni powder used by Parkhomov. Why do not call and ask them?

  • ecatworld

    I’d like to thank the team members from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project for their efforts to put yesterday’s experiment together and sharing it with us. I found it very interesting, and they have shown a great spirit of openness and adventure in allowing anyone who is interested to witness an experiment in process. They have shown how the internet can be a laboratory, and it has been a great education to follow what they are doing.

    This was a scientific experiment, not a demonstration, so of course the results were not predetermined. There’s lots of data to take away, to compile, and compare to Parkhomov’s and others’ tests. I am sure they will be reflecting carefully on what they learned in this test, following the comments here and elsewhere and taking them into account as they plan for future experiments. So thanks to the MFMP!

    • MontagueWithnail

      Here here

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks guys. We have had the opportunity to reveal a lot – not all that we would have liked – but sometimes nature and nurture have conspired against our best wishes.

        It is the community that makes it possible.

        I for one, tip my hat to Alan, he created a wonderful experiment

    • TomR

      Everyone of us should publicly thank MFMP for all the do.

      • Leo Kaas

        I strongly agree, MFMP has done a remarkable job.

      • Ged

        You are so right. They are volunteers who work so hard and put their own money and donations to good use, while letting us watch in real time. Thank you, MFMP.

      • HAL9000

        I grok MFMP!

    • Skip

      Agreed, Frank.
      It also wasn’t called, or an attempted replication of anything. Alan with the rest of MFMP did an experiment. Similar to other experiments. Period. Live. For us.
      If you want someone to do what you want. Pay them, or do it yourself.
      Anyone who has a problem with that, get over it.
      (They are happy to receive constructive critism, not whining or demands)

    • Bob K

      I would also like to thank Bob Greenyer and the entire MFMP team for all the time , energy, research, communication etc. that I am sure exceeds their donated funds. These guys are Doers, not Talkers.

  • Frank Acland

    I’d like to thank the team members from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project for their efforts to put yesterday’s experiment together and sharing it with us. I found it very interesting, and they have shown a great spirit of openness and adventure in allowing anyone who is interested to witness an experiment in process. They have shown how the internet can be a laboratory, and it has been a great education to follow what they are doing.

    This was a scientific experiment, not a demonstration, so of course the results were not predetermined. There’s lots of data to take away, to compile, and compare to Parkhomov’s and others’ tests. I am sure they will be reflecting carefully on what they learned in this test, following the comments here and elsewhere and taking them into account as they plan for future experiments. So thanks to the MFMP!

    • Montague Withnail

      Here here

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks guys. We have had the opportunity to reveal a lot – not all that we would have liked – but sometimes nature and nurture have conspired against our best wishes.

        It is the community that makes it possible.

        I for one, tip my hat to Alan, he created a wonderful experiment

    • TomR

      Everyone of us should publicly thank MFMP for all the do.

      • Leo Kaas

        I strongly agree, MFMP has done a remarkable job.

      • Ged

        You are so right. They are volunteers who work so hard and put their own money and donations to good use, while letting us watch in real time. Thank you, MFMP.

      • HAL9000

        I grok MFMP!

    • Skip

      Agreed, Frank.
      It also wasn’t called, or an attempted replication of anything. Alan with the rest of MFMP did an experiment. Similar to other experiments. Period. Live. For us.
      If you want someone to do what you want. Pay them, or do it yourself.
      Anyone who has a problem with that, get over it.
      (They are happy to receive constructive critism, not whining or demands)

    • Bob K

      I would also like to thank Bob Greenyer and the entire MFMP team for all the time , energy, research, communication etc. that I am sure exceeds their donated funds. These guys are Doers, not Talkers.

    • Commentor

      Thanks MFMP! Was a great experiment. Can’t wait for the next one!

  • DaWebbie

    Maybe people would benefit from not over obsessing with each 12 hour long live casting, as this can lead to disappointment…
    I think it’s great that the MFMP managed to setup a run where the reactor didn’t break! They are also learning a lot on different practical aspects. I’m sure Parkhomov had quite a few failures of his own before he got things running.

    • Bob Greenyer

      All of Dr. Parkhomov’s experiments have failed eventually, either through heater failure or because of core breach.

      I guess it depends on your idea of failure.

      This was a very successful experiment in that it worked through the entire temperature range, was clearly gas tight and produced wonderful, hitherto not available pressure data.

      If success is only granted if excess heat is seen, well, we can’t pretend it did that – as we are live.

      • DaWebbie

        Yes, maybe I shouldn’t have used the word failure – didn’t mean it in a negative way, I meant it as not having replicated Parkhomov’s results.

        I think you guys are doing a great job and have made a lot of progress so far!

  • Tom More

    i thinkt it would be easier to invite parkhomov…..

    • Bob Greenyer

      We will see him again at ICCF.

  • TomR

    Thank you James for pointing that out. Your second paragraph is so true.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Sorry, I didn’t find anything about LiAlH in this pdf.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We will see him again at ICCF.

  • Bob Greenyer

    All of Dr. Parkhomov’s experiments have failed eventually, either through heater failure or because of core breach.

  • Axil Axil

    I was interested in how the pressure behaved in the experiment. To my despair, the experiment ended way to soon to see the pressure flatline. The pressure was still going down at the end of the experiment. Parkhomov ran the experiment in his living room for 3 days, Alan Goldwater was concerned about keeping the hot nuclear reactor unattended in his garage overnight while he slept, understandable, it was a long day, he was tired, he wanted to sleep, so the experiment was turned off. There should be some provision made to run an experiment for days without the fear of a house fire interrupting the generation of data.

    The experiment could be brought up to high temperature rapidly since we can see the pressure in the reactor react. As long as the pressure is below the tube pressure rating, then get the tube hot fast to save time, then let the pressure fall as it may. Parkhomov can afford to take his time, he is fearless. If an experiment is to be limited to one day, provisions must be made to maximize that time.

    Alan Goldwater used a ramrod to pack the fuel into the tube, Parkhomov used a long tube with a large volume in the core cavity because he wanted to use Epoxy to seal the cold tube ends. This may be why there is a large pressure difference between the two experiments. Parhomov had a very large reactor volume to work with because of the long tube that was mostly empty whereas Goldwater had hardly any space remaining in the tube that he used.

    The Goldwater experiment looked nothing like the Parkhomov experiment. The Parkhomov electrical heater was different from Goldwater’s electrical feed.

    • Obvious

      Besides the pressure data, my favourite part about this experiment is that it used the same set up twice without catastrophic failure. The design is looking stable. Needs more runs to test its longetivity ,but so far so good in the robustness department.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, he built a great experiment

    • Bob Greenyer

      On the data given to us, the dead volume in both reactors was the same.

      the Ni and the LiAlH4 were from different sources.

      Alan had his son on standby if there seemed to be something interesting excess heat wise – as there wasn’t it was decided to run it for a few more hours and then deliberately step down “as if” it was Parkhomov’s experiment – that did not show positive data. The offer of a son to drive 100 miles to baby sit a reactor over night on short notice is not one that you can take up every day – so best to hold fire.

      The data is first time data and ads to the corpus of understanding.

      • Axil Axil

        What needs to change to get the pressure in the MFMP experiment to behave like the Parkhomov’s experiment?

        What needs to change to get the input power in the MFMP experiment to behave like the Parkhomov’s experiment?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well – before we make to many changes, we need to get and review Dr. Parkhomov’s raw data, I have sent him a link to ours.

      • Axil Axil

        Maybe Russian lithium is different than American lithium. In America, Lithium 6 is a controlled substance. The lithium that is available in America might only be lithium 7. Does this matter?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are aware of this conjecture. We trying to arrange to do ICPMS on the LiAlH4 we used to assay its isotopic ratios and discount or otherwise this line of thinking. Including shipping we think we can do this for about $100 so we plan to do it.

          • Mike Ivanov

            We may see a conspiracy here: group of oil magnates have organized to add inhibitors which stop LENR in all related chemical reagents supplied to laboratories 🙂

      • Axil Axil

        The pressure drop had not resolved itself by the end of the Goldwater experiment as it had done in the Parkhomov experiment.

        • Bob Greenyer

          No.

          Alan hopes to do experiments in his back yard later on- so there is no worries about fire.

      • Axil Axil

        On the data given to us, the dead volume in both reactors was the same.

        If memory serves, the pipe that carried the gas to the huge pressure meter that Parkhomove used was a quarter inch or more, and it was very long. How could the hydrogen gas volume be the same between the Goldwater system and the Parkhomove system? That long pipe has to have carried a large volume of hydrogen, and then the meter was huge. I deduce that the hydrogen proportional volume inside the Parkhomove reactor must have been greatly reduced by the carrying capacity of the pipe and the meter.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Here is a rough graph I made from the raw 5 min average data.

          Note: Pressure gauge is reading less than 1psi at the bottom, could be offset from atmospheric – need to check with Alan, this is not the internal temperatures which should have been hight but the “outside core temp”.

          http://bit.ly/1NHCqhx

          • Axil Axil

            The pressure shown by this plot is 12 BAR at the maximum temperature. Is the link that you have provided the correct one? If so, I don’t get the point, sorry.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you do a qualitative shape comparison with APs chart – there are two bumps. The big thing is the pressure differential, leak or ad/absorption – open to some debate. What is pretty clear is that Alans cell is not leaking given the steady state cool pressure which is around 3.5 bar.

  • Axil Axil

    I was interested in how the pressure behaved in the experiment. To my despair, the experiment ended way to soon to see the pressure flatline. The pressure was still going down at the end of the experiment. Parkhomov ran the experiment in his living room for 3 days, Alan Goldwater was concerned about keeping the hot nuclear reactor unattended in his garage overnight while he slept, understandable, it was a long day, he was tired, he wanted to sleep, so the experiment was turned off. There should be some provision made to run an experiment for days without the fear of a house fire interrupting the generation of data.

    The experiment could be brought up to high temperature rapidly since we can see the pressure in the reactor react. As long as the pressure is below the tube pressure rating, then get the tube hot fast to save time, then let the pressure fall as it may. Parkhomov can afford to take his time, he is fearless. If an experiment is to be limited to one day, provisions must be made to maximize that time.

    Alan Goldwater used a ramrod to pack the fuel into the tube, Parkhomov used a long tube with a large volume in the core cavity because he wanted to use Epoxy to seal the cold tube ends. This may be why there is a large pressure difference between the two experiments. Parhomov had a very large reactor volume to work with because of the long tube that was mostly empty whereas Goldwater had hardly any space remaining in the tube that he used.

    The Goldwater experiment looked nothing like the Parkhomov experiment. The Parkhomov electrical heater was different from Goldwater’s electrical feed.

    • Obvious

      Besides the pressure data, my favourite part about this experiment is that it used the same set up twice without catastrophic failure. The design is looking stable. Needs more runs to test its longetivity ,but so far so good in the robustness department.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, he built a great experiment

    • Bob Greenyer

      On the data given to us, the dead volume in both reactors was the same.

      the Ni and the LiAlH4 were from different sources.

      Alan had his son on standby if there seemed to be something interesting excess heat wise – as there wasn’t it was decided to run it for a few more hours and then deliberately step down “as if” it was Parkhomov’s experiment – that did not show positive data. The offer of a son to drive 100 miles to baby sit a reactor over night on short notice is not one that you can take up every day – so best to hold fire.

      The data is first time data and ads to the corpus of understanding.

      • Axil Axil

        What needs to change to get the pressure in the MFMP experiment to behave like the Parkhomov’s experiment?

        What needs to change to get the input power in the MFMP experiment to behave like the Parkhomov’s experiment or for that fact, the Lagono experiment?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well – before we make to many changes, we need to get and review Dr. Parkhomov’s raw data, I have sent him a link to ours.

      • Axil Axil

        Maybe Russian lithium is different than American lithium. In America, Lithium 6 is a controlled substance. The lithium that is available in America might only be lithium 7. Does this matter?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are aware of this conjecture. We trying to arrange to do ICPMS on the LiAlH4 we used to assay its isotopic ratios and discount or otherwise this line of thinking. Including shipping we think we can do this for about $100 so we plan to do it.

          • Mike Ivanov

            We may see a conspiracy here: group of oil magnates have organized to add inhibitors which stop LENR in all related chemical reagents supplied to laboratories 🙂

      • Axil Axil

        The pressure drop had not resolved itself by the end of the Goldwater experiment as it had done in the Parkhomov experiment.

        • Bob Greenyer

          No.

          Alan hopes to do experiments in his back yard later on- so there is no worries about fire.

      • Axil Axil

        On the data given to us, the dead volume in both reactors was the same.

        If memory serves, the pipe that carried the gas to the huge pressure meter that Parkhomove used was a quarter inch or more, and it was very long. How could the hydrogen gas volume be the same between the Goldwater system and the Parkhomove system? That long pipe has to have carried a large volume of hydrogen, and then the meter was huge. I deduce that the hydrogen proportional volume inside the Parkhomove reactor must have been greatly reduced by the carrying capacity of the pipe and the meter.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Here is a rough graph I made from the raw 5 min average data.

          Note: Pressure gauge is reading less than 1psi at the bottom, could be offset from atmospheric – need to check with Alan, this is not the internal temperatures which should have been higher but the “outside core temp”.

          http://bit.ly/1NHCqhx

          Note: This sensor measures PSIG or “Pounds per Square Inch Gauge”. The “Gauge” means that it reads 0 at the ambient air pressure (not at 1 bar, but the local air pressure of the moment). So this is likely to be 3.5 bar approx.

          • Axil Axil

            The pressure shown by this plot is 12 BAR at the maximum temperature. Is the link that you have provided the correct one? If so, I don’t get the point, sorry.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you do a qualitative shape comparison with APs chart – there are two bumps. The big thing is the pressure differential, leak or ad/absorption – open to some debate. What is pretty clear is that Alans cell is not leaking given the steady state cool pressure which is around 3.5 bar.

  • Bob Greenyer

    All data for *GlowStick* GS2 made public… Thank Alan!

    http://bit.ly/1IbuTsQ

  • Bob Greenyer

    All data for *GlowStick* GS2 made public… Thank Alan!

    http://bit.ly/1IbuTsQ

  • Private Citizen

    Any feedback from Parkhomov or Rossi yet on the test?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am having a stilted conversation with Dr. Parkhomov.

      He is being diligent and first understanding the design and other parameters of the experiment.

      We plan to do ICPMS on the LiAlH4 we used to see if there is anything fishy in it so we can rule that out.

  • Private Citizen

    Any feedback from Parkhomov or Rossi yet on the test?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am having a stilted conversation with Dr. Parkhomov.

      He is being diligent and first understanding the design and other parameters of the experiment.

      We plan to do ICPMS on the LiAlH4 we used to see if there is anything fishy in it so we can rule that out.

      • Robert Hunt

        Can you verify the dead volume of the guage Parkhomov used in his last experiment. It looks like it was not designed to minimize the volume of the expansion chamber and could be adding a lot of extra volume to the system and reducing the overall pressure. This could account for the pressure difference between the two experiments.

  • Armand Vos

    Great job MFMP, this is really speeding up now, soon it seems that media wide coverage will no doubt follow. Its great to see the Rossi effect being replicated to the extent that it has.

    • Bob Matulis

      I very much appreciate the hard work MFMP. The pictures of version 2 of dog bone look really nice! Onward and forward. Cheers.

  • Stephen

    It was the first time I watched a live test and I was really captivated. I think this way of working is brilliant and I would like to thank MFMP for sharing this. And everyone who was contributing to the forums for their insights. Like everyone I had the hope for excess heat but even though that didn’t seem to occur it seemed to me interesting things were happening. The apparent stepping down in pressure and occasional spikes and dips as the temperature increased was interesting it reminded me of water glugging out of a bottle. I understand the drops in pressure were due to the hydrogen being absorbed in the nickel. Were the step changes understood in the end? Was it related to the duty cycle or some other behaviour? It almost seemed as the hydrogen was being absorbed to a point it resisted further absorption then changed or got transported some how to allow the next step. I wondered if the nature of the nickel powder such as surface area, roughness, cracks etc as well as the isotope ratios etc would explain the different absorption rate. Also do we know from the PVT measurements how much of the hydrogen is absorbed? Does the sintered nickel change volume? Will this be analysed after test. Also can we see what happens to the absorbed hydrogen? Is it released after switch down. This data set from this test will certainly help and inform the further tests I think. I have high hopes that with a little patience and Parkhomovs continued support and your continued discussions the right mix will be found.

  • Bob Matulis

    I very much appreciate the hard work MFMP. The pictures of version 2 of dog bone look really nice! Onward and forward. Cheers.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Update from Alan

    “Cold pressure this morning was 36 psi ~2.5 atm. It was a flat line over one hour, so no gross leakage.”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Update from Alan

    “Cold pressure this morning was 36 psi ~2.5 atm. It was a flat line over one hour, so no gross leakage.”

    Note: This sensor measures PSIG or “Pounds per Square Inch Gauge”. The “Gauge” means that it reads 0 at the ambient air pressure (not at 1 bar, but the local air pressure of the moment). So this is likely to be 3.5 bar approx.

    • Private5

      Heat it up again!!!

  • Sanjeev

    Ratio of outside core to outside heater temperatures. There is a very small trend.
    Click for larger image.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks sanjeev

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks for the data !
        Any plans to restart the reactor ? It must have soaked some H2 😉

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think Alan might be taking a day off – very intense build, calibrations etc etc.

          • Sanjeev

            That’s good.

  • Sanjeev

    Ratio of outside core to outside heater temperatures. There is a very small trend.
    Click for larger image.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks sanjeev

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks for the data !
        Any plans to restart the reactor ? It must have soaked some H2 😉

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think Alan might be taking a day off – very intense build, calibrations etc etc.

          • Sanjeev

            That’s good.

  • Sanjeev

    Temperatures. Again there is some divergence in active run.
    Calibration and active plotted together.
    Click to see full image.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks

    • Obvious

      Nice.
      Any way to put a useable Watts along the X axis?
      I’ll do it when I get some time, but Easter, family, and children conspire (correctly) against me hiding in the office plotting graphs at present…
      I’m barely allowed to peek in here today at all.

      • Sanjeev

        With Power (Active run power data only).
        Power graph looks solid because its noisy, its actually a line graph.
        Pressure graph is posted by Bob below.

        • Obvious

          Actually, I meant Watts vs Temperature. I am interested to see how much the control diverges from the active, including both inner and outer thermocouples
          Thanks for the effort.

          • Sanjeev

            Can’t be done in a simple way I guess. There are many values of T for a single step of P. Perhaps you have a better tool to do that.

          • Obvious

            I know it will be a bother. Probably both T and V^2/Rsub(linearized to temp) will have to be RMS’d over discrete time periods somehow to normalize them to each other. Something like that… Maybe Monday I can have a go at it.

          • Sanjeev

            Perhaps this can help. Its the difference between the core and heater temperatures.

          • Bob Matulis

            Very nice! One more tweak and I think we will be there. Rather than horizontal axis being based on time ( baseline power was ramped up faster) is there any way to compress the horizontal axis for the test run so it’s energy in match up for both runs. I realize some inaccuracies would be involved since a same amount of power would have more time to allow heat flow.

            But it might still be informative to align them. For example at 800w the divergence is triple in the active. Wow!

            Actually, this could be simply done by selecting 10 or 20 points of given power and charting vs temps.

          • Sanjeev

            See the plot of power vs temp by Alan above. He probably integrated the wild power data and it shows no excess at all. The divergence is interesting anyway.

    • Bob Matulis

      Any explanation for the larger divergence in the active run? Would additional heat generated by the nickel be expected to create a greater divergence between the outer core and outside heater?

      • Sanjeev

        Experts in such experiments should be able to provide some explanation.
        I can point out some interesting things in this graph e.g. when the calibration outside_heater was at 700C, the corresponding outside_core was 740C, and when the active outside_heater was at 700C, the outside_core was 800C. So the core in active run was 60C hotter than calibration. Its not much but its positive. One can argue that the extra 60C came from inside the core.
        I’m not sure if I’m right here, so someone please verify this.

        • Private5

          If the uncertainty is +5 and -5 degrees C, you still have room for your argument.
          60 C access heat is significant, one should try energyin/energyout ratio

          • Sanjeev

            After seeing the powers, I realized that it can be explained by the 100W difference in power. See the new chart. There is divergence because more power is being fed.

    • SG

      Forgive me… Click where?

      • Sanjeev

        On the image.

  • Guest

    Temperatures. Again there is some divergence in active run.
    Calibration and active plotted together.
    Click to see full image.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks

      • lars

        When the heater is warmed up, can you turn the input power off for let say 5 sec and then on for 5 sec and so on, so you save energy and still have the same result because it is a glowing heater that doesnt have time to cool down between the short offs and ons?

    • Obvious

      Nice.
      Any way to put a useable Watts along the X axis?
      I’ll do it when I get some time, but Easter, family, and children conspire (correctly) against me hiding in the office plotting graphs at present…
      I’m barely allowed to peek in here today at all.

      • Sanjeev

        With Power (Active run power data only).
        Power graph looks solid because its noisy, its actually a line graph.
        Pressure graph is posted by Bob below.

        • Obvious

          Actually, I meant Watts vs Temperature. I am interested to see how much the control diverges from the active, including both inner and outer thermocouples.
          Thanks for the effort.

          • Sanjeev

            Can’t be done in a simple way I guess. There are many values of T for a single step of P. Perhaps you have a better tool to do that.

          • Obvious

            I know it will be a bother. Probably both T and V^2/Rsub(linearized to temp) will have to be RMS’d over discrete time periods somehow to normalize them to each other. Something like that… Maybe Monday I can have a go at it.

          • Sanjeev

            Perhaps this can help. Its the difference between the core and heater temperatures.

          • Bob Matulis

            Very nice! One more tweak and I think we will be there. Rather than horizontal axis being based on time ( baseline power was ramped up faster) is there any way to compress the horizontal axis for the test run so it’s energy in match up for both runs. I realize some inaccuracies would be involved since a same amount of power would have more time to allow heat flow.

            But it might still be informative to align them. For example at 800w the divergence is triple in the active. Wow!

            Actually, this could be simply done by selecting 10 or 20 points of given power and charting vs temps.

          • Sanjeev

            See the plot of power vs temp by Alan above. He probably integrated the wild power data and it shows no excess at all. The divergence is interesting anyway.

    • Bob Matulis

      Any explanation for the larger divergence in the active run? Would additional heat generated by the nickel be expected to create a greater divergence between the outer core and outside heater?

      • Sanjeev

        Experts in such experiments should be able to provide some explanation.
        I can point out some interesting things in this graph e.g. when the calibration outside_heater was at 700C, the corresponding outside_core was 740C, and when the active outside_heater was at 700C, the outside_core was 800C. So the core in active run was 60C hotter than calibration. Its not much but its positive. One can argue that the extra 60C came from inside the core.
        I’m not sure if I’m right here, so someone please verify this.

        • Private5

          If the uncertainty is +5 and -5 degrees C, you still have room for your argument.
          60 C access heat is significant, one should try energyin/energyout ratio

          • Sanjeev

            After seeing the powers, I realized that it can be explained by the 100W difference in power. See the new chart. There is divergence because more power is being fed.

    • SG

      Forgive me… Click where?

      • Sanjeev

        On the image.

  • Sanjeev

    New chart ( I had to delete the old one because it was confusing).
    Calibration and active plotted together.
    Click it to see the full image.

    • Mr. Moho

      For input power you have to plot the moving average of the full (1-second) raw data. It won’t show human-readable results otherwise.

      • Sanjeev

        This was posted by Alan G on MFMP website a few minutes ago. It clearly shows the results.

        http://magicsound.us/MFMP/GS2_Power_vs_Temp.jpg

        • Obvious

          Very interesting.
          This, with the outside temps also, would most excellent.
          I wonder if the “noise” can be smoothed out without losing too much detail.

  • Sanjeev

    New chart ( I had to delete the old one because it was confusing).
    Calibration and active plotted together.
    Click it to see the full image.

  • Zack Iszard

    A negative result is disappointing, but I must say I’m very, very impressed with the quality of data. This is a powerful and rich test apparatus you guys have constructed! With this experiment, a positive result will be that much more obvious and credible.

    The temperature limit of 900 C was a longevity measure, yes?

    • Jarea1

      I can only agree to your coment about the quality and credibility. The experiment is an example of open science. Once MFMP find LENR it will be clear and sound thanks to all this reference data.
      MFMP is doing a great job. I wonder why not all the experiments (paid by our taxes) are done like that. This kind of transparency should be a must in science!

  • Zack Iszard

    A negative result is disappointing, but I must say I’m very, very impressed with the quality of data. This is a powerful and rich test apparatus you guys have constructed! With this experiment, a positive result will be that much more obvious and credible.

    The temperature limit of 900 C was a longevity measure, yes?

    • Jarea

      I can only agree to your coment about the quality and credibility. The experiment is an example of open science. Once MFMP find LENR it will be clear and sound thanks to all this reference data.
      MFMP is doing a great job. I wonder why not all the experiments (paid by our taxes) are done like that. This kind of transparency should be a must in science!

  • lars

    is it possible to create energy by using differences in temperatures between the glowing LENR tube and an nearby heatisolated area?

    • lars

      * create electricity I mean

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dr. Parkhomov intends to supply some of his LiAlH4 to the MFMP

    Whilst we have samples of Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel, some of which have reached destination, we could never do a like for like (on key aspects) replication without having the same LiAlH4 that he used – particularly considering the questions surrounding the removal of 6Li from western chemical suppliers.

    The simplest thing is to use the same powder, in an email I received this morning Dr. Parkhomov agrees and intends to get some to us.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Concerning the nickel powder, there are basically three things about it: 1) chemical composition, 2) shape and size, and 3) grain structure coming from the amount and type of cold working applied in the manufacturing process. Composition one can analyse, shape and size one can measure, but the grain structure is harder to measure and to characterise. To reproduce it, basically one needs not less than a full manufacturing recipe. I guess it’s possible to reverse engineer a powder, but it might take many failed attempts. We also remember the story of Rossi’s 90-year old worker who made powder for him, so it could be a key. Given all this, would it make sense to order more of the Russian powder that Parkhomov used from its manufacturer, so that its availability would not be a looming limiting factor?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Also, as shown in the report of my visit to him, he mixes in a pestle and mortar, this may result in some work hardening or otherwise compression of the powders together.

        There are moves to order some by various parties. I have also asked him to order 0.5kg and bring it with him to ICCF for further distribution.

        A sample was sent from Bob Higgins to Dr. Edmund Storms, which should arrive shortly, we will of course publish the elemental and structural details.

        • EEStorFanFibb

          are you insane bob? ap can’t transport that chemical in his luggage. it’s classified a “dangerous good”. that would be a clear violation of international law and completely unsafe. vow to never do that or i’ll have no choice but to report this to the authorities.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If that’s a problem, maybe he could come by train.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            a dangerous good like this (class 4.3) is still regulated when transported by road and rail and still REQUIRES the proper packaging, markings and documentation. and it must be classified, prepared, packaged shipped and received by TDG certified people. no exceptions. it’s the law around the globe. for good reason. in a word: public safety. harsh penalties including jail result from the improper shipping of such chemicals. i wont hesitate to inform the authorities if bob persists in this plan. sorry.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Do you mean LAH or Ni? I understood he was planning to bring nickel. I agree that LAH would be class 4.3 (emits flammable gas if gets H2O).

          • EEStorFanFibb

            Hmmmm… although Bob’s post doesn’t contain a reference to LAH in it now (perhaps Bob edited his post???) I thought for sure it did when I first read that he said he wanted AP to bring .5kg of ???.

            My apologies if I misunderstood. Regardless, certain nickel powders can easily be a dangerous good as well, probably depending on the mesh size, and therefore must also be classified, packaged, marked and documented according to highly specific global regulations.

            See this MSDS for example, Specifically, Section 14. https://www.fishersci.ca/viewmsds.do?catNo=AC193611000

            Shipping Name: METAL POWDERS, FLAMMABLE, N.O.S.
            Hazard Class: 4.1
            UN Number: UN3089
            Packing Group: II

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Your example is Raney nickel which is angrier than ordinary (it’s not only ground, but each particle is a complicated mesh with much larger surface area than judging from the particle size).

          • EEStorFanFibb

            If you go to http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/ can you find a nickel powder product (there are several) that isn’t clearly classified as “UN number: 3089 Class: 4.1 Packing group: II”?

            I can’t. metal powders are typically classified as “UN number: 3089 Class: 4.1 Packing group: II” and need to be packaged, marked and documented as such. Bob is clearly being irresponsible here.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Vale Nickel 255’s MSDS http://www.vale.com/EN/business/mining/nickel/product-safety-information/SafetyDataSheets/Nickel%20200_EU_EN_v3.pdf , page 7-8, Transport information, Civil aviation: Not regulated, US transportation: not regulated if less than 100 pounds.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            that sds is only germaine to that particular commercial product. the grain size might be large enough to be deemed not a class 4.1.

            the point is, a certified dangerous good shipper must classify the material being sent out. and make a sincere attempt to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the regulations. nothing of the sort is going on here. mfmp appear to be just going along doing whatever the hell they feel like and that’s disappointing.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you are talking about Nickel, I have a few euro coins.

            If you are talking about LiAlH4 – I specifically did not say how he would get it to us.

    • Obvious

      What needs to be brought in luggage to Padua is a 4 channel thermocouple data logger to be given to Dr. Parkhomov.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually – he has that kind of thing covered – a decent way of measuring and logging power would be more helpful.

        • Obvious

          I’m not sure something that would help that would fit in normal luggage…
          If he is using the same thermocouple to measure temperature and operate a thermostat, then backup by another thermocouple channel would be helpful, IMO. Especially if temperature is a proxy for calorimetry. More measurements would be better.

    • Eyedoc

      ‘removal of 6Li from western chemical suppliers.’ ….. seriously ? How would that be done ? By every supplier ?? WHY ??

      Sorry if I have missed something here (or my ignorance is showing) .

      • Obvious

        The story about Li6 has been turned around somewhere.

        • Eyedoc

          So its LI7 that’s missing ? Same questions apply

          • Obvious

            No.
            Way back, Li was processed for Li6 for military use. The leftover Li7 (most of it) was returned, at a very high purity, back into the chemical supply chain. Since chemically, in most uses this would make no difference, this was never mentioned. In theory you could order a jar of some lithium-based reagent, and get some of this processed Li, depleted in Li6.
            Of course there is no way to extract Li6 from all commercial supply of Li. This would bottleneck the entire Li supply chain.

          • Eyedoc

            OK. Thanks for clearing that up.
            Also, in the theory I’ve seen, it was the Li7 that was being used & depleted in LENR (or do I have that backwards)

          • Obvious

            Yes, that is the theory, based on the Lugano work. Possibly others.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dr. Parkhomov intends to supply some of his LiAlH4 to the MFMP

    Whilst we have samples of Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel, some of which have reached destination, we could never do a like for like (on key aspects) replication without having the same LiAlH4 that he used – particularly considering the questions surrounding the removal of 6Li from western chemical suppliers.

    The simplest thing is to use the same powder, in an email I received this morning Dr. Parkhomov agrees and intends to get some to us.

    • Robert Hunt

      Please make sure you follow all international laws for shipping hazardous materials. The US Government can come down really hard if your paper work is not in order when shipping hazardous material. I recall a company in Alaska that was driven out of bussiness for shipping batteries without any paper work. It may be quicker to buy LiAlH4 in the US that has the right isotope ratio ratio or order it from the company in Europe that can handle the proper shipping.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Concerning the nickel powder, there are basically three things about it: 1) chemical composition, 2) shape and size, and 3) grain structure coming from the amount and type of cold working applied in the manufacturing process. Composition one can analyse, shape and size one can measure, but the grain structure is harder to measure and to characterise. To reproduce it, basically one needs not less than a full manufacturing recipe. I guess it’s possible to reverse engineer a powder, but it might take many failed attempts. We also remember the story of Rossi’s 90-year old worker who made powder for him, so it could be a key. Given all this, would it make sense to order more of the Russian powder that Parkhomov used from its manufacturer, so that its availability would not be a looming limiting factor?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Also, as shown in the report of my visit to him, he mixes in a pestle and mortar, this may result in some work hardening or otherwise compression of the powders together.

        There are moves to order some by various parties. I have also asked him to order 0.5kg and bring it with him to ICCF for further distribution.

        A sample was sent from Bob Higgins to Dr. Edmund Storms, which should arrive shortly, we will of course publish the elemental and structural details.

        • are you insane bob? ap can’t transport that chemical in his luggage. it’s classified a “dangerous good”. that would be a clear violation of international law and completely unsafe. vow to never do that or i’ll have no choice but to report this to the authorities.

          • martin

            Since when nickle powder become ‘dangerous good’? Mr. spy !!

          • finely ground nickel powder might also be a dangerous good by international law. id need to look it up and classify it properly. fine powder metals are often quite flammable. the point is someone certified, trained and knowledgeable needs to make the judgment call.

          • Ged

            Individual transport is not the same as bulk (or how do you think MFMP and Parkhomov got their supplies in the first place). If you think you are right, provide the direct reference. LiAlH4 can’t go by passenger plane or rail, but I see no restrictions for other modes. See: http://m.hazmattool.com/info.php?a=Lithium+aluminum+hydride&b=UN1410&c=4.3 and http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt49.2.173&rgn=div5#se49.2.173_1211

          • Ged wrote: “how do you think MFMP and Parkhomov got their supplies in the first place”

            I assume they do what all legally responsible users of “dangerous goods” do – they order their dangerous chemicals from a supplier who ships, marks and documents according to regulations. Whether the ordering organization has a certified dangerous goods Receiver is another thing.

            There is no “individual transport” exemption that would allow a person to take a class 4.1 or class 4.3 substance on a plane, train or ship in their luggage.

          • Ged

            I posted you the actually regulations. Did you read them? You can certainly drive them. Also, I see no law about documentation if “non-bulk”

          • uh, the packing authorization section you point to doesn’t say anything about what quantities can be transported by what mode. The bulk and non bulk designations refer to how it must be packaged, what containers are permissible, etc. And note 8A says there are no exceptions. That means there is no quantity where LAH is exempt from specific packing requirements.

            Now, driving a certain amount of LAH around in your car might still be permissible under an obscure personal use exemption, but I doubt it and MFMP and others trying to move these chemicals are going to have to point to the specific regulations where such an exemption exists or their ass is going to be grass. You have failed miserably to find such an exemption.

            In any event, it would certainly be highly illegal to travel by plane with ANY amount of LAH in your luggage – see section nine of your link [(9A) Passenger aircraft/rail >>> Forbidden]. That means there is no amount that is ok to bring on a passenger airplane. Only cargo airplanes (couriers) can be used for transporting this chemical. AND that’s only if the shipment is packaged, marked and documented in a specific way in complete compliance with international dangerous goods regulations for that chemical.

            And it’s clear that MFMP have probably broken the law when they used regular mail to send nickel powder around the world. As all nickel powders are classified as dangerous goods [Class 4.1]. http://www.hazmattool.com/info.php?a=Metal+powders%2C+flammable%2C+n.o.s.&b=UN3089&c=4.1

            Note from the link that nickel powder [classified as Metal powders, flammable, n.o.s.] can be shipped on a passenger aircraft. that DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN PUT IT IN YOUR LUGGAGE. Once again… the shipment must be packaged, marked and documented in a specific way in complete compliance with international dangerous goods regulations for that class. And the entire chain of custody must be certified in dangerous goods (courier again).

            Take heed Bob and others. You are playing with more than just LENR fire.

          • Ged

            You are acting hilarious, and going dangerously close to irrational troll territory. First, I stated that you can’t take it by passenger plane already, so your attempt to look smart fails. Secondly, your logic fails as it is clear what is bulk and non-bulk. Look at the cargo plane, anything less than 15 kg is non-bulk. Pretty simple. Thirdly, despite your claims, you can transport by ship on deck or below. Forthly, there is no where you send this non-descript “documentation” you list; if you want to mail this, you just fill out a hazard sheet provided right at the mail counter, very easy and used for explosives which LiAlH4 is not. We don’t live in police states, and folks carry around explosives like fire works; stuff far more hazardous than LiAlH4 such as black powder can be had by bulk. And that is the lesser explosive materials people use and transport legally! Have you seen the YouTube vids of hunters using the big stuff, and taking out whole trees? LiAlH4 is hardly dangerous with what you can put in a vial by comparison, you need to have your sense of context and scope fixed. You’ll find more dangerous over the counter cleaners and fertalizers.

            No, you’re acting absurdly over the top, and no law is on your side. Even regulations (not the same power or thing as laws) are mostly for liability, i.e. Whom to blaim if there is an accident and lawsuit results. You are acting no less absurd than Gary Wright with his attempts to call down the NRC on Rossi, which ended up making him a laughing stock and joke. You really lack concepts of personal liberty. Whatever you do, don’t look up Biohackers, as it may be too stressful to read what private citizens can do outside this police state imagination.

            Go on though if you want and keep up these pointlessly vague threats, it amuses but makes you look bad regrettably.

          • LOL, have you ever been trained or certified in the transportation of dangerous goods? I have – for both air AND road at least 5 or 6 times. In my work I receive dangerous goods on a daily basis and prepare dangerous good shipments on a weekly basis. Have you ever prepared a dangerous goods shipment like the one pictured below? Because that’s what is required to transport LAH. Have you ever used the book below?? Do you know what those box markings mean? And at http://www.hazmattool.com/info.php?a=Lithium%20aluminum%20hydride&b=UN1410&c=4.3 did you actually click on the links across from 211 and 242 to see what they reference? “Bulk” and “non bulk” have nothing to do with the quantity limits for transport. Don’t believe me? maybe this will help. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/172.301

            Also pictured below is a dangerous goods shipping document for air. That’s the kind of “documentation” a LAH shipment would require. Shipping documents by road can look quite different but the information contained is similar.

            Lastly, so because I follow international law that exists to protect the public I lack “personal liberty”? really? ….. I think I’ll leave that one alone because that statement speaks volumes about your ignorance. What more could I possibly add?

          • Ged

            Well, I’ve been dealing with receiving dangerous goods quite a bit longer than you, then. The problem is you take this beyond the extreme. You are miss-aiming your threats by treating them like a commercial carrier rather than user.

            1. No difference between bulk and non-bulk? You were trained on this? I guess you have forgotten. In addition to all shipping rules being broken up by bulk and non-bulk (211 and 214 in this instance), I’ll give you a hint, it has to do with size and nature of containers (thus amounts; though you could pack less in a bulk container than it holds, the converse is not true–think what 15kg means for a container).

            2. The slips and packages you show are for commercial carriers. When you mail with them, they generally handle this with you when the package is given to them for transport for their liability not yours as they are responsible once they accept and take your money not you (and they mark the package and will often put their labels over anything you put on); unless you want to pre print and expedite, which I already said. They can always refuse. Your job is just to make sure you used the right container (they often check before acceptance). If you didn’t and you -lie- to the carrier and something goes wrong that endangers the other goods or transporter, then you are liable and thus sue-able or court-aable depending on severity. If the carrier failed to have the proper transporting outer box and labels and form yet still transport your material, -they- are liable due to doing the transport and accepting it. This has nothing to do with personal transport.

            3. Don’t try to argue by absudium, that is a fallacy. A vial of LiAlH4 is no danger to “the public”. Far less than a car full of bleach, ammonium and fertilizer coming back from a grocery store, or kerosene from a hardware store. Making threats about seems more naive in action than anything, as it calls question the understanding in scope or how LiAlH4 behaves and works.

            4. Making vague threats is unethical when you know nothing about what someone has done. In fact, you are trying to imply impropriety a priori with no information or knowledge, particularly when transport of hazardous materials is common and easy, including explosives, and generally the responsibility of the carrier. You try to make it sound like a big deal to transport, and thereby use that as “evidence” against them because they have mentioned no ordeal. Hate to break it to you, but any commercial carrier will have no problem setting you up with a proper box and filling out the CAS related form. And in personal transport you assume the liability yourself (but I am pretty sure this whole discussion is about commercial mailing, thus the one you threaten is the commercial carrier not MFMP).

            This is why you are being hilarious, and maybe histerical, and sadly trollish. Threatening to do what?, “turn them in”?, them being the commercial carrier doing the shipping?, call whom?, all because they said they are going to “try” to ship something entirely shippable? Are you trying to claim they aren’t doing right what they have not yet done, which isn’t even their action to do but a commercial carrier’s, all when you have no knowledge on the matter? This is an Aesop waiting to happen.

            In fact, you could get in trouble for making false claims and slanderous statements. It is one thing to simply share what should be done, and another to threaten uselessly. Unless you have direct proof they lied to and tricked a commercial carrier who did not do due dilligence, there is no issue. And then, if they did and you had proof, whom would you turn to? The carrier. So, who is their carrier? Has it even been mailed yet (they said Parkhomov would “try”)? How would you know?

            So, unless you have such direct proof, speak no more on this matter. I am sure your heart is in the right place, but this has been extreme beyond reason.

          • Ged wrote: [my comments, point by point follow below]

            “1. No difference between bulk and non-bulk?”

            Don’t misrepeat what I said.

            “In addition to all shipping rules being broken up by bulk and non-bulk (211 and 214 in this instance), I’ll give you a hint, it has to do with size and nature of containers (thus amounts; though you could pack less in a bulk container than it holds, the converse is not true–think what 15kg means for a container).”

            I have no idea what you are saying there. It’s nonsensical gibberish.

            “2. The slips and packages you show are for commercial carriers. ”

            Substances that are deemed by IATA to be DGs cannot by definition be shipped by regular mail, except in very rare circumstances. LAH and many nickel powders are in fact classified by international governing bodies as DGs and must be shipped by commercial carriers, such as Fedex, DHL, UPS, etc.

            “When you mail with them, …”

            Not possible.

            “…they generally handle this with you when the package is given to them for transport for their liability not yours as they are responsible once they accept and take your money not you (and they mark the package and will often put their labels over anything you put on);”

            Not true. No regular postal service will do this for you.

            “Your job is just to make sure you used the right container (they often check before acceptance). ”

            There is much more than that. Packaging requirements (methods and materials) are very specific, as well as the use of UN certified containers, specific box markings, hazard labelling and documentation requirements are also very specific and compliance is MANADATORY. Shippers must also be certified. LAH and flammable metal powders are in fact DGs for a reason.

            “If you didn’t and you -lie- to the carrier and something goes wrong that endangers the other goods or transporter, then you are liable and thus sue-able or court-aable depending on severity. If the carrier failed to have the proper transporting outer box and labels and form yet still transport your material, -they- are liable due to doing the transport and accepting it.”

            liability exists for anyone who does not follow regulations, from the person who prepares the shipment for transport, to the carrier and also the receiver.

            “This has nothing to do with personal transport.”

            Transporting substances classified as Dangerous Goods by the UN’s governing body on one’s person is completely prohibited. That is my main point.

            “A vial of LiAlH4 is no danger to “the public”.

            IATA and all national authorities disagree with you on that. LAH is a classified as a Class 4.3 DG. It even has it’s own (non-generic) shipping name and UN number:

            LITHIUM ALUMINUM HYDRIDE
            Hazard Class: 4.3
            UN Number: UN1410

            This is because it is extremely hazardous by all modes of transport and poses a serious hazard to the public as a toxic agent as well as a being highly flammable. Being a Packing Group 1 substance (all the nastiest chemicals are in packing group 1) also indicates it is a very hazardous substance and great care and compliance with transport regulations are required.

            “Far less than a car full of bleach, ammonium and fertilizer coming back from a grocery store, or kerosene from a hardware store. ”

            There are personal transport exemptions for consumer products such as these that allow people to move them from store to home. Note that none of these products you listed here can be transported by regular mail. When they are shipped they have to be shipped according to TDG regulations. There are some “limited quantity” exemptions as well that apply in some cases to road transport.

            “Making threats about seems more naive in action than anything, as it calls question the understanding in scope or how LiAlH4 behaves and works.
            4. Making vague threats is unethical when you know nothing about what someone has done. ”

            Here is what BG wrote:

            “I have also asked him to order 0.5kg and bring it with him to ICCF for further distribution.”

            And then I wrote in response:

            “AP can’t transport that chemical in his luggage. it’s classified a “dangerous good”. that would be a clear violation of international law and completely unsafe. vow to never do that or i’ll have no choice but to report this to the authorities.”

            Nothing vague about that “threat” as you call it. Nothing irresponsible about my position either.

            It is everyone’s responsibility to keep the public safe. BG has admitted to mailing nickel powders in regular mail and finely ground nickel powder is very often classified as a Class 4.1 DG and must also be shipped according to regulations and not via regular post. By his own words, BG’s MO seems to be to be unaware of or willing to skirt these shipping regulations.

            “In fact, you are trying to imply impropriety a priori with no information or knowledge,”

            I am responding to a very clear intentional statement by BG to have AP break the law and endanger the public.

            “Hate to break it to you, but any commercial carrier will have no problem setting you up with a proper box and filling out the CAS related form.”

            No carrier that I know of will classify, package, mark, label or document a DG shipment for you.

            “And in personal transport you assume the liability yourself”

            There is no such thing as the legal transportation of Packing Group 1, Class 4.3 DGs by “person.”

            “This is why you are being hilarious, and maybe histerical, and sadly trollish. Threatening to do what?, “turn them in”?, them being the commercial carrier doing the shipping?, call whom?, all because they said they are going to “try” to ship something entirely shippable? Are you trying to claim they aren’t doing right what they have not yet done, which isn’t even their action to do but a commercial carrier’s, all when you have no knowledge on the matter? This is an Aesop waiting to happen.”

            more gibberish.

            “In fact, you could get in trouble for making false claims and slanderous statements. It is one thing to simply share what should be done, and another to threaten uselessly.

            I have done my duty and followed my responsibilities here. If someone goes ahead and breaks the law and endangers the public then they are liable to face the consequences for their actions.

            “Unless you have direct proof they lied to and tricked a commercial carrier who did not do due dilligence, there is no issue. ”

            I have BG’s stated intent to break the law and have AP “bring” LAH to a conference.

            “And then, if they did and you had proof, whom would you turn to?”

            First I turn to BG and tell him not to request that AP break the law. And make it clear that I won’t stand idly by if I see evidence that he’s going ahead with this plan anyway.

            “So, unless you have such direct proof, speak no more on this matter. I am sure your heart is in the right place, but this has been extreme beyond reason.”

            Don’t bother telling me what I can and cannot say. Your position is both nonsensical and uninformed. Anyone that says LAH can be shipped by mail or can be carried on one’s person when they are travelling around the country has clearly demonstrated that fact and need not comment further.

          • well, since.. like forever it turns out.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If that’s a problem, maybe he could come by train.

          • a dangerous good like this (class 4.3) is still regulated when transported by road and rail and still REQUIRES the proper packaging, markings and documentation. and it must be classified, prepared, packaged shipped and received by TDG certified people. no exceptions. it’s the law around the globe. for good reason. in a word: public safety. harsh penalties including jail result from the improper shipping of such chemicals. i wont hesitate to inform the authorities if bob persists in this plan. sorry.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Do you mean LAH or Ni? I understood he was planning to bring nickel. I agree that LAH would be class 4.3 (emits flammable gas if gets H2O).

          • Hmmmm… although Bob’s post doesn’t contain a reference to LAH in it now (perhaps Bob edited his post???) I thought for sure it did when I first read that he said he wanted AP to bring .5kg of ???.

            My apologies if I misunderstood. Regardless, certain nickel powders can easily be a dangerous good as well, probably depending on the mesh size, and therefore must also be classified, packaged, marked and documented according to highly specific global regulations.

            See this MSDS for example, Specifically, Section 14. https://www.fishersci.ca/viewmsds.do?catNo=AC193611000

            Shipping Name: METAL POWDERS, FLAMMABLE, N.O.S.
            Hazard Class: 4.1
            UN Number: UN3089
            Packing Group: II

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Your example is Raney nickel which is angrier than ordinary (it’s not only ground, but each particle is a complicated mesh with much larger surface area than judging from the particle size).

          • If you go to http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/ can you find a nickel powder product (there are several) that isn’t clearly classified as “UN number: 3089 Class: 4.1 Packing group: II”?

            I can’t. metal powders are typically classified as “UN number: 3089 Class: 4.1 Packing group: II” and need to be packaged, marked and documented as such. Bob is clearly being irresponsible here.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Vale Nickel 255’s MSDS http://www.vale.com/EN/business/mining/nickel/product-safety-information/SafetyDataSheets/Nickel%20200_EU_EN_v3.pdf , page 7-8, Transport information, Civil aviation: Not regulated, US transportation: not regulated if less than 100 pounds.

          • that sds is only germaine to that particular commercial product. the grain size might be large enough to be deemed not a class 4.1.

            the point is, a certified dangerous good shipper must classify the material being sent out. and make a sincere attempt to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the regulations. nothing of the sort is going on here. mfmp appear to be just going along doing whatever the hell they feel like and that’s disappointing.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you are talking about Nickel, I have a few euro coins.

            If you are talking about LiAlH4 – I specifically did not say how he would get it to us.

    • Obvious

      What needs to be brought in luggage to Padua is a 4 channel thermocouple data logger to be given to Dr. Parkhomov.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually – he has that kind of thing covered – a decent way of measuring and logging power would be more helpful.

        • Obvious

          I’m not sure something like that kind of help would fit in normal luggage…
          If he is using the same thermocouple to measure temperature and operate a thermostat, then backup by another thermocouple channel would be helpful, IMO. Especially if temperature is a proxy for calorimetry. More measurements would be better.

    • Eyedoc

      ‘removal of 6Li from western chemical suppliers.’ ….. seriously ? How would that be done ? By every supplier ?? WHY ??

      Sorry if I have missed something here (or my ignorance is showing) .

      • Obvious

        The story about Li6 has been turned around somewhere.

        • Eyedoc

          So its LI7 that’s missing ? Same questions apply

          • Obvious

            No.
            Way back, Li was processed for Li6 for military use. The leftover Li7 (most of it) was returned, at a very high purity, back into the chemical supply chain. Since chemically, in most uses this would make no difference, this was never mentioned. In theory you could order a jar of some lithium-based reagent, and get some of this processed Li, depleted in Li6.
            Of course there is no way to extract Li6 from all commercial supply of Li. This would bottleneck the entire Li supply chain.

          • Eyedoc

            OK. Thanks for clearing that up.
            Also, in the theory I’ve seen, it was the Li7 that was being used & depleted in LENR (or do I have that backwards)

          • Obvious

            Yes, that is the theory, based on the Lugano work. Possibly others.

  • georgehants

    “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”

    Thomas A. Edison

  • georgehants

    “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”

    Thomas A. Edison

  • For all who understand german and know the “chaos computer club”, one of europeans greatest computer hacker clubs and very influential to mainstream media, may be interested in presentation held on an event (easteregg) of them:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1306-Chaos-Computer-Club-Easterhegg-2015-LENR-course/

    • artefact

      Very nice.

      • so it is not chaos computer club… but a friend organization ? or is it just another naming?

        • It seem they are related, and CCC is the congress of CCC :
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress

          • @AlainCo:
            The event “easterhegg” is organized and hosted by Chaos Computer Club.
            The presenters (in this LENR presentation a person with alias “poelzi”)
            at this event don’t have to be member of Chaos computer club. So this
            presentation is not directly related to officials of CCC and don’t
            reflect the oppinion of CCC officials.

            The presenter seems a bit confused and overwhelmed. Maybe he just was
            very nervous. But all in all it’s very positive about LENR.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The same speaker gave also a quite enthusiastic lecture about Stoyan Sarg’s BSM-SG theory:

            http://www.podcast.de/episode/264423971/Easterhegg+2015%3A+BSM-SG/

        • artefact

          Its an event by the CCC where there was a talk by someone not directly from CCC. Most of the talks given there are not from the CCC but from whoever has to say something.

          But yes, the CCC has some events like the Communication Congress or the Easterhegg or the Communication Camp. All are from the CCC. The talks are from individuals not directly affiliated to CCC though.

  • For all who understand german and know the “chaos computer club”, one of europeans greatest computer hacker clubs and very influential to mainstream media, may be interested in presentation held on an event (easteregg) of them:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1306-Chaos-Computer-Club-Easterhegg-2015-LENR-course/

    • artefact

      Very nice.
      The presentation about LENR is made as a talk at EASTERHEGG by poelzi.
      EASTERHEGG is an event from the German CCC (Chaos Comunication Club (a hacker club) )
      CCC also do other events like the caos comunication congress every year. The talks are not done by the CCC themself but by everyone who wants and the topic is related to technology (mostly IT topics but “hacking” is a broad topic).
      Normaly the attendees are open minded so the talk could spread the word a bit.

      • so it is not chaos computer club… but a friend organization ? or is it just another naming?

        • It seem they are related, and CCC is the congress of CCC :
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress

          • @AlainCo:
            The event “easterhegg” is organized and hosted by Chaos Computer Club.
            The presenters (in this LENR presentation a person with alias “poelzi”)
            at this event don’t have to be member of Chaos computer club. So this
            presentation is not directly related to officials of CCC and don’t
            reflect the oppinion of CCC officials.

            The presenter seems a bit confused and overwhelmed. Maybe he just was
            very nervous. But all in all it’s very positive about LENR (maybe too positive, it is not objective). But I guess this guy isn’t taken credible. He doesn’t appear competent and stutters a lot 🙁
            He seems not to be very educated in nuclear physics, because he’s mixing up a few things when he talks about basics of fusion and hot fusion as introduction. He also doesn’t highlight the possibility of nuclear transmutation instead fusion.

            He covers latest results of Parkhomov and MFMP. But is mixing up their relations to each other.

            The Chaos Communication Congress, also an event organized and hosted by Chaos Computer Club, is held every year between christmas and new year and is heavily focused on computer and security topics.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The same speaker gave also a quite enthusiastic lecture about Stoyan Sarg’s BSM-SG theory:

            http://www.podcast.de/episode/264423971/Easterhegg+2015%3A+BSM-SG/

        • artefact

          Its an event by the CCC where there was a talk by someone not directly from CCC. Most of the talks given there are not from the CCC but from whoever has to say something.

          But yes, the CCC has some events like the Communication Congress or the Easterhegg or the Communication Camp. All are from the CCC. The talks are from individuals not directly affiliated to CCC though.

  • Mats002

    Ecco added graphs made from yesterday data at MFMP glowstick, UPDATE#5.

    I might have to take back the summary statement ‘no XH’, which I of course do with a smile on my face 🙂

    See: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/477-glowstick#!Cal_710w_720C

    As usual MFMP leave it up to the audience to interpret data. How to interpret this DATA?
    Happy easter!

    • Obvious

      That is the plot I was waiting for.
      I’m not sure what to say about it… maybe that measuring the outside with a bare thermocouple wire is not such a good idea in terms of reliability?

      • Obvious

        Now a newer version comes out, with greater separation between inner thermocouples…

        From MFMP site, Ecco version…

        http://i.imgur.com/g4uTWRH.png

        • Mats002

          The ‘spread’ of the active run is going on both side of the reference run. I give a cigar for active run ‘spread’ going above reference run. The power input is supposed to be the same, where is those curves? My 2 cents.

          • Obvious

            What I think we are looking at is the difference in heat capacity between loaded and empty tubes with a T4 variance from inner to outer thermocouples over a short distance. This is modified by the emission of heat at close to the absorption frequency of the thermocouple wires while immersed in/blocked by an alumina filter, which selectively passes the IR frequencies close to that of the thermocouple itself in the loaded run.
            Something like that…, these statements are a bit “off the cuff”.

          • Mats002

            An ape do not understand that. We (I) need an obvious result. XH with a lot of extra knowledge is not enough. Sorry.

          • Obvious

            I don’t think there is excess heat, just a bit of extra temperature measurement in this case.

          • Mats002

            More power and/or more cycling of heat and reheating and/or wrong Li isotopes and/or – hardest of all and last to rule out – Ni properties. If Parkhomov Ni is used successfully in replication we are at the same position as FP with Pd. Use the correct batch, but how was it produced?

          • Obvious

            Re: weird: I would have expected that the outside coil temperatures between runs would be a lot closer, and the inside temps (outside tube)to be where the greatest deviation would occur in this experiment. Without a reaction.

        • Sanjeev

          The divergence is because of the outside_heater_active temperature falling behind the calibration, its not because of core temperature rising faster. So no excess here.

          One would expect the heater values to match exactly in the active and calibration runs, because nothing extra has been added at that place in the tube after calibration. But they do not match.

          • Obvious

            I did not think there was real excess heat here, this time, based just on watching the temperature climb quite regularly during the live experiment.

            I did strongly suspect that these temperatures, from “control” to loaded were not going be the same, and probably were going significantly different.

            That the inside was measured hotter I anticipated, but the outside measured cooler is not quite what I expected for the loaded run.

        • Obvious

          My version is starting to look a lot like this one, but with the control inner and the loaded inner readings a bit closer together, so that some of the peaks of the control just touch some of the valleys in the loaded run.
          I was lazy and just used 9 Ohms across the board, which gives slightly higher Watts (I estimated about 13 W high on the upper end). Since the control doesn’t go that high it makes no difference really for comparison.

          • Obvious

            With rough Watts averaging…

  • Mats002

    Ecco added graphs made from yesterday data at MFMP glowstick, UPDATE#5.

    I might have to take back the summary statement ‘no XH’, which I of course do with a smile on my face 🙂

    See: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/477-glowstick#!Cal_710w_720C

    As usual MFMP leave it up to the audience to interpret data. How to interpret this DATA?
    Happy easter!

    • Obvious

      That is the plot I was waiting for.
      I’m not sure what to say about it… maybe that measuring the outside with a bare thermocouple wire is not such a good idea in terms of reliability?

      • Obvious

        Now a newer version comes out, with greater separation between inner thermocouples…
        (This is more like what I expected to see.)

        From MFMP site, Ecco version…

        http://i.imgur.com/g4uTWRH.png

        • Mats002

          The ‘spread’ of the active run is going on both side of the reference run. I give a cigar for active run ‘spread’ going above reference run. The power input is supposed to be the same, where is those curves? My 2 cents.

          • Obvious

            What I think we are looking at is the difference in heat capacity between loaded and empty tubes with a T4 variance from inner to outer thermocouples over a short distance. This is modified by the emission of heat at close to the absorption frequency of the thermocouple wires while immersed in/blocked by an alumina filter, which selectively passes the IR frequencies close to that of the thermocouple itself in the loaded run…. and the thermocouple is being a normal thermocouple also. Something like that…, these statements are a bit “off the cuff”.

          • Mats002

            An ape do not understand that. We (I) need an obvious result. XH with a lot of extra knowledge is not enough. Sorry.

          • Obvious

            I don’t think there is excess heat, just a bit of extra temperature measurement in this case.
            I will wait until they stop fiddling with the power values before getting too worked up about the plots. (It still looks a little weird).

          • Mats002

            More power and/or more cycling of heat and reheating and/or wrong Li isotopes and/or – hardest of all and last to rule out – Ni properties. If Parkhomov Ni is used successfully in replication we are at the same position as FP with Pd. Use the correct batch, but how was it produced?

          • Obvious

            Re: weird: I would have expected that the outside coil temperatures between runs would be a lot closer, and the inside temps (outside tube)to be where the greatest deviation would occur in this experiment. Without a reaction.

        • Sanjeev

          The divergence is because of the outside_heater_active temperature falling behind the calibration, its not because of core temperature rising faster. So no excess here.

          One would expect the heater values to match exactly in the active and calibration runs, because nothing extra has been added at that place in the tube after calibration. But they do not match.

          • Obvious

            I did not think there was real excess heat here, this time, based just on watching the temperature climb quite regularly during the live experiment.

            I did strongly suspect that these temperatures, from “control” to loaded were not going be the same, and probably were going significantly different.

            That the inside was measured hotter I anticipated, but the outside measured cooler is not quite what I expected for the loaded run.

        • Obvious

          My version is starting to look a lot like this one, but with the control inner and the loaded inner readings a bit closer together, so that some of the peaks of the control just touch some of the valleys in the loaded run.
          I was lazy and just used 9 Ohms across the board, which gives slightly higher Watts (I estimated about 13 W high on the upper end). Since the control doesn’t go that high it makes no difference really for comparison.

          • Obvious

            With aggressive Watts averaging…

  • Wake me up when someone actually tries to duplicate the Rossi fuel formula. Why do I need a live YouTube feed to watch paint dry?

    1) 55% nickel powder (99.999% pure)

    2) About 39% iron powder

    3) Approximately 6% lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4)

    • Alain Samoun

      You do not have to watch the youtube feed if it is so painful to you. Some of us like and appreciate the efforts of MFMP to show their work live, and somehow be part of it. Don’t worry we will wake you up when something great happens. In the same time please refrain your comments showing that you do not know the scientific method.

      • Instead of using the fuel formula of the proven Master, they are using the fuel formula of the unproven student. Does that really make any sense?

        • Matt Sevrens

          You’ve kind of got a point. How does it hurt to add some iron?

    • Mr. Moho

      Where did you read that 39% is iron powder?

      • One of the chemists who visits this forum did an analysis of the fuel results derived from the Lugano test report. I don’t remember his name. Anyone interested in reproducing Rossi’s device should look at the report themselves and figure out the likely proportions that Rossi actually used.

        • Mr. Moho

          I believe you’re referring to this analysis: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/11-Askanalys-pdf/

          There was no mention of iron being prominently abundant in the Lugano fuel powder, but after reading the Lugano report again to be sure, exact weight percentages for elements besides Nickel, Lithium and Aluminium haven’t been measured either.

          So I guess it’s plausible, given that some of the granules analyzed were reportedly rich in iron, that iron content might have been higher than it would seem at first.

          Lithium cannot be detected with EDS analysis as performed in the first document I linked, but Aluminium can and there wasn’t any, apparently.

          • Mats002

            Edström was new to me! Powder before (old) was 14.48 Fe by weight and after (new) was 0 Fe. Not that the author of the report use ‘seams to be’ often, that suggests to me an open mind but also afraid of being wrong. Please fellow Swedes here – what is your opinion reading this document?

          • Same guy

            Not that is supposed to be Note that…

          • Obvious

            I had “old” as being used in the reactor 6 months, and “new” as before being run for 6 months.

            Translated from first paragraph: “One bottle is called the “NEW” and contained the nickel powder Rossi used in the reactor, taken before any activity has occurred. The second bottle is called “OLD” and it contained the powder used in one of Rossi’s reactor for about 6 months. This bottle also contained approximately 1 gram of powder.”

          • Mats002

            You might be right, but then 0 Fe in fuel and 14.48% in ash. Far from 39% iron.

          • Eyedoc

            Thank you. Are you sure this is what is said? Proper translations are very important to us at this point…. So Fe was created, and not used in the fuel ! 🙂 another mystery

          • Obvious

            I am pretty sure. I did the translation myself three times over.
            The “new” and “old” does get confusing. I would have done it the other way around. The report writer wonders if the nickel could have be coating the iron particles in the fuel, near the end of the report, and suggests that iron could maybe be the catalyst.

          • Mr. Moho

            Yep, it’s confusing and got me confused too.

            After looking at the photos more carefully, I think that with “old” they meant “ash”, or “spent fuel”. You can see that particles have agglomerated and look smoother, meaning that they must have been heated/used.

          • Obvious

            Note that Rossi labeled the bottles, and we know he has a certain genius for seeding confusion…

          • Eyedoc

            Yes, Please ….translation is important….’old’ = pre or post reaction ?

        • Mats002

          You can search this forum including all in the discus frame on top of the page. Please confirm your claim.

          • 1 gram of fuel (1000 milligrams) recipe
            —————————–
            Posted by Steven N. Karels

            Nickel powder = 550 milligrams

            LiAlH4 = 60 milligrams

            Iron powder = 390 milligrams

            particle size is reported to be a few microns

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/09/determining-the-fuel-composition-for-an-e-cat-reactor-steven-karels/

          • Mats002

            I do not see DATA, only people making claims.

          • I said anyone wishing to reproduce the Rossi device should look at the Swiss test report data directly. This chemist spent some time and did some work. Others may calculate a different formula based on the available data. Steven Karels based his numbers directly on the report, and we have seen microscope pictures of the fuel that show iron dust. Andrea Rossi is the original source of the E-Cat. Go to the original source and independent tests of the original source if you wish the truth.

          • Mats002

            Andrea Rossi will not answer (as I understand the situation) and the original sources of the fuel compostion before and after is in the Edström report. What did I miss here?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Part of the point of the video, regardless of the capability of the experimentalists upstream, is that the live data is shown/recorded and cannot be un-shown. i.e. the published raw data will match the recording that people could, if they are inclined to do so, watch. There is nothing that requires anyone to watch, indeed the vast majority of the planets population did not.

  • Wake me up when someone actually tries to duplicate the Rossi fuel formula. Why do I need a live YouTube feed to watch paint dry?

    1) 55% nickel powder (99.999% pure)

    2) About 39% iron powder

    3) Approximately 6% lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4)

    • Alain Samoun

      You do not have to watch the youtube feed if it is so painful to you. Some of us like and appreciate the efforts of MFMP to show their work live, and somehow be part of it. Don’t worry we will wake you up when something great happens. In the same time please refrain your comments showing that you do not know the scientific method.

      • Instead of using the fuel formula of the proven Master, they are using the fuel formula of the unproven student. Does that really make any sense?

        • Matt Sevrens

          You’ve kind of got a point. How does it hurt to add some iron?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Part of the point of the video, regardless of the capability of the experimentalists upstream, is that the live data is shown/recorded and cannot be un-shown. i.e. the published raw data will have to match the recording that people could, if they are inclined to do so, watch. It is about a confidence thing. There is nothing that requires anyone to watch, indeed the vast majority of the planets population did not.

      Recording stuff behind closed doors off-line – does not matter what the data is, you still have to take the claimants word for it.

  • Guru

    In Parkhomov graphs is clearly visiblea few DROPS (decreases) in heater power and shortly after every drop is visible swift rise in reactor temperature. These drops have function for sure.

    In MFMP graphs these drops are missing.

  • Hank Mills

    I propose the following: the MFMP perform the exact same experiment pushing the Kanthal to just below the melting point with a more capable power supply. I think if we can obtain a minimum of 1100C (1200-1300 would be better) the experiment would have a very high chance of showing significant excess heat.

    If the MFMP does not want to do this, would someone send me an exact part list plus where they can be ordered minus the pressure gauges and thermocouples? I may know someone who would be willing to perform it.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Can anyone answer why we’ve never tried Iron in the fuel. I know Parkhomov didn’t but as far as I can see he doctored his graphs and no one seems to want to accept that or even get an answer from him. Why not just try was Rossi actually used?

    • Eyedoc

      But we don’t really know what Rossi used. AP has experimented on his own & revealed exactly what he used and seems very cooperatively minded, so thats where we are.
      That said, I agree that at some point Fe would be interesting to add

    • Freethinker

      Interesting.

      Exactly what graphs was doctored? How are you sure they were doctored?

      • Matt Sevrens

        Multiple sections of the section of the graph where excess heat was shown repeat pixel for pixel. There were claims that it was a compression issue but that was debunked.

        I don’t think he fully doctored it. I think he saw excess heat but altered the graph to make it look cleaner than it was. Which is stupid.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I thought a more natural explanation was that his PID or whatever controller algorithm tended to produce similar feedback oscillations before converging.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Can anyone answer why we’ve never tried Iron in the fuel. I know Parkhomov didn’t but as far as I can see he doctored his graphs and no one seems to want to accept that or even get an answer from him. Why not just try was Rossi actually used?

    • Eyedoc

      But we don’t really know what Rossi used. AP has experimented on his own & revealed exactly what he used and seems very cooperatively minded, so thats where we are.
      That said, I agree that at some point Fe would be interesting to add

    • Freethinker

      Interesting.

      Exactly what graphs was doctored? How are you sure they were doctored?

      • Matt Sevrens

        Multiple sections of the section of the graph where excess heat was shown repeat pixel for pixel. There were claims that it was a compression issue but that was debunked.

        I don’t think he fully doctored it. I think he saw excess heat but altered the graph to make it look cleaner than it was. Which is stupid.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I thought a more natural explanation was that his PID or whatever controller algorithm tended to produce similar feedback oscillations before converging.

    • clovis ray

      matt
      Testing has only just began, I to think iron of some kind would be part of the mix .
      is just fits in, but there are lots of fuel resting to come alan and the guys have now gotten our reactor calibrated, test can start soon. patents grasshopper,

  • Guru

    Parkhomov graphs have few drops in heater power. After these drops, a surge in reactor temperature is visible. Few such events per one run.
    In MFMP graphs these drops are not visible. Maybe these drops are important.

  • Guru

    Parkhomov graphs have few drops in heater power. After these drops, a surge in reactor temperature is visible. Few such events per one run.
    In MFMP graphs these drops are not visible. Maybe these drops are important.

  • Mats002

    Yes maybe. You would need exactly his equipment to prove or disprove I presume.

  • Mats002

    Yes maybe. You would need exactly his equipment to prove or disprove I presume.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    finely ground nickel powder might also be a dangerous good by international law. id need to look it up and classify it properly. fine powder metals are often quite flammable. the point is someone certified, trained and knowledgeable needs to make the judgment call.

    • Ged

      Individual transport is not the same as bulk (or how do you think MFMP and Parkhomov got their supplies in the first place). If you think you are right, provide the direct reference. LiAlH4 can’t go by passenger plane or rail, but I see no restrictions for other modes. See: http://m.hazmattool.com/info.php?a=Lithium+aluminum+hydride&b=UN1410&c=4.3 and http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt49.2.173&rgn=div5#se49.2.173_1211

      • EEStorFanFibb

        Ged wrote: “how do you think MFMP and Parkhomov got their supplies in the first place”

        I assume they do what all legally responsible users of “dangerous goods” do – they order their dangerous chemicals from a supplier who ships, marks and documents according to regulations. Whether the ordering organization has a certified dangerous goods Receiver is another thing.

        There is no “individual transport” exemption that would allow a person to take a class 4.1 or class 4.3 substance on a plane, train or ship in their luggage.

        • Ged

          I posted you the actually regulations. Did you read them? You can certainly drive them. Also, I see no law about documentation if “non-bulk”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Couple of things,

    1. Dr. Parkhomov was using FeCrAl, Russian analogue of Kanthal A1, if we were to replicate him, we would need this exact same wire.

    2. The internal core temperature was far higher than 900ºC in Alan’s test, as per the published calibrations. Please review the calibration graph here – http://bit.ly/1Cjsxjm – and the data published http://bit.ly/1IbuTsQ where you can see that 900ºC was reached when the core outside temp was around 790ºC. Bob Higgins explains why

    “The thermal model for Alan’s thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is
    different than Parkhomov’s. Alan’s thermocouple is in a center gap in the
    heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.
    He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick
    alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not
    covered (not insulated). Thus, there is thermal load to the environment
    (radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the
    thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface
    temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils. Fortunately, Alan
    measured this differential in temperature between where he had the
    thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature.”

    It is a little hard to get ones head around. It is estimated that the core temp was over 1200ºC. Alan is prepared to try and melt it, however, Easter, then leaving for ICCF 19 on Tuesday is in the way.

    3. If anyone can point to trusted source showing a certified full assay of the fuel in the Lugano reactor, please do so, that we may consider the claims for Iron content. With such fuel data, calls for “replicating Lugano” would be easier to approach. I have in my spreadsheet given some reasons why Iron may be useful. – http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA – principally, it is a fuel and progresses to 62Ni, in theory it would extend a run. Since Parkhomov has claimed important results with a simple fuel mix, it is worth replicating that first.

    • Freethinker

      There have been graphs presented in this forum portraying the input power. As I only find the RMS voltage, I don’t understand where that data comes from. Are there any supplementary data apart from the one you point out here, placed elsewhere?

      • Bob Greenyer

        it is calculated from the volts and the known resistance of the wires.

        • Freethinker

          🙂 Thanks.

          Elementary, P=U²/R.

          A value of the resistance would be nice too, as I seem not to find it.

      • AlanG

        The resistance of the heater coil against temperature was carefully calibrated before the live test. The power was then calculated for each 1-second sample using Ohms law.

        The inside core temperature was also carefully calibrated against the outside core, giving a second-order polynomial with very good fit. That in turn was used to calculate the inside core temperature during the run with fuel, when it was not possible to have a thermocouple inside the tube. You can see the result of these calculations in the graph at:
        http://magicsound.us/MFMP/Power_vs_Temp-cal_and_test.jpg

        Alan

        • Mats002

          What about the cooling down at the end curves? Seeing a chart from Sanjeev far below, 1 day ago, made me wonder what kind of differences to find on that part. If the step down in power was made the same in both runs it might be interesting.

        • Freethinker

          Ok. But I fail to find that value of the carefully calibrated resistance.
          Nice graph.

          • artefact

            Around 200 – 300C its 9.0 Ohm and at 900C it is 9.1 Ohm.

          • Freethinker

            thanx

    • Mr. Moho

      Hi Bob, as for 3), this analysis was linked on a different discussion branch here:
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/09/determining-the-fuel-composition-for-an-e-cat-reactor-steven-karels/

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes we know that. and the assumption I think is that since the fuel ends up as 62Ni and, as I have said before, the reaction chain for Fe (assuming piantelli) is that it tends to 62Ni (need to run that) the bulk of the rest should be Iron and Manganese.

        Why?

        Because, Iron and Manganese are transition metals and should therefore act as fuel.

        But we don’t know for sure, so calls for “replication” are actually a call for a more assumptive analogue than Dr. Parkhomovs.

      • “I would say Rossi put high carbon steel powder”

        That is an interesting speculation. It would make sense, but I have no idea if it is true or not.

        • Mr. Moho

          I don’t think that anybody can tell if it’s true or not at this stage.

    • AlanG

      My concern in designing the overall test protocol was not to damage
      the heater or cell structure during calibration, so that it could be
      used unchanged for the run with fuel. Parkhomov’s history of failed heater coils
      led me to be cautious in that regard. If there was any evidence that
      the calibration was flawed, the entire experiment would be invalidated.
      ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”

      In
      retrospect, I could have done some things differently but I am
      confident that the data I collected is accurate and valuable. This was
      without doubt a null result for the fuel components used. And the entire
      system is now proven to be reliable and ready for further tests with
      different fuel materials. I welcome reasonable suggestion for future test protocols, like a temperature ramp with abrupt steps or pauses, which can be easily programmed into the system.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I think if replications become VERY difficult, then perhaps what Parkhomov is doing and in fact finding out from Parkhomov what DID NOT work might be as valuable as “the formula”.

      When Parkhomov came on the scene, there was a “burst” of enthusiasm that LENR may be VERY easy to replace.

      It possible that while building a LENR device is rather easy, getting the right mix may well be more of a challenge then we realize.

      However, it might also be one simple detail. Over time, if results are not possible, then attention to such details becomes more and more critical.

      I think your current path and your sharing of your progress here is a good and solid practical road. I mean you could have waited for Parkhomove fuel sample, but you did not! (good for you!).

      And I dare say, you ARE making and becoming part of history! In fact you already are!!!

      Keep up the work Bob, we appreciate your efforts!

      All the best

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

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks, but this is a crowd thing, we’re lighting the New Fire together

  • Bob Greenyer

    Couple of things,

    1. Dr. Parkhomov was using FeCrAl, Russian analogue of Kanthal A1, if we were to replicate him, we would need this exact same wire.

    2. The internal core temperature was far higher than 900ºC in Alan’s test, as per the published calibrations. Please review the calibration graph here – http://bit.ly/1Cjsxjm – and the data published http://bit.ly/1IbuTsQ where you can see that 900ºC was reached when the core outside temp was around 790ºC. Bob Higgins explains why

    “The thermal model for Alan’s thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is
    different than Parkhomov’s. Alan’s thermocouple is in a center gap in the
    heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.
    He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick
    alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not
    covered (not insulated). Thus, there is thermal load to the environment
    (radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the
    thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface
    temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils. Fortunately, Alan
    measured this differential in temperature between where he had the
    thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature.”

    It is a little hard to get ones head around. It is estimated that the core temp was over 1200ºC. Alan is prepared to try and melt it, however, Easter, then leaving for ICCF 19 on Tuesday is in the way.

    3. If anyone can point to trusted source showing a certified full assay of the fuel in the Lugano reactor, please do so, that we may consider the claims for Iron content. With such fuel data, calls for “replicating Lugano” would be easier to approach. I have in my spreadsheet given some reasons why Iron may be useful. – http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA – principally, it is a fuel and progresses to 62Ni, in theory it would extend a run. Since Parkhomov has claimed important results with a simple fuel mix, it is worth replicating that first.

    • MWerner

      I have a question about the temperature controller. The pwm frequency is about 0.1Hz. I think a 60Hz triac controller would be more like Rossi’s. The high frequency switching transients may be important. A relay clunking on and off slowly does not seem the same as what we have seen elsewhere with regard to EMC in the coiled heater.
      Sure wish the experiment could run until the pressure stabilizes. As long as the the pressure is falling and there isn’t a leak, hydrogen is still being absorbed. We don’t know what happens when the nickel is saturated with hydrogen.

    • Freethinker

      There have been graphs presented in this forum portraying the input power. As I only find the RMS voltage, I don’t understand where that data comes from. Are there any supplementary data apart from the one you point out here, placed elsewhere?

      • Bob Greenyer

        it is calculated from the volts and the known resistance of the wires.

        • Freethinker

          🙂 Thanks.

          Elementary, P=U²/R.

          A value of the resistance would be nice too, as I seem not to find it.

      • AlanG

        The resistance of the heater coil against temperature was carefully calibrated before the live test. The power was then calculated for each 1-second sample using Ohms law.

        The inside core temperature was also carefully calibrated against the outside core, giving a second-order polynomial with very good fit. That in turn was used to calculate the inside core temperature during the run with fuel, when it was not possible to have a thermocouple inside the tube. You can see the result of these calculations in the graph at:
        http://magicsound.us/MFMP/Power_vs_Temp-cal_and_test.jpg

        Alan

        • Mats002

          What about the cooling down at the end curves? Seeing a chart from Sanjeev far below, 1 day ago, made me wonder what kind of differences to find on that part. If the step down in power was made the same in both runs it might be interesting.

        • Freethinker

          Ok. But I fail to find that value of the carefully calibrated resistance.
          Nice graph.

          • artefact

            Around 200 – 300C its 9.0 Ohm and at 900C it is 9.1 Ohm.

          • Freethinker

            thanx

    • AlanG

      My concern in designing the overall test protocol was not to damage
      the heater or cell structure during calibration, so that it could be
      used unchanged for the run with fuel. Parkhomov’s history of failed heater coils
      led me to be cautious in that regard. If there was any evidence that
      the calibration was flawed, the entire experiment would be invalidated.
      ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”

      In
      retrospect, I could have done some things differently but I am
      confident that the data I collected is accurate and valuable. This was
      without doubt a null result for the fuel components used. And the entire
      system is now proven to be reliable and ready for further tests with
      different fuel materials. I welcome reasonable suggestion for future test protocols, like a temperature ramp with abrupt steps or pauses, which can be easily programmed into the system.

      • clovis ray

        good job, Alan your doing excellent work,

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I think if replications become VERY difficult, then perhaps what Parkhomov is doing and in fact finding out from Parkhomov what DID NOT work might be as valuable as “the formula”.

      When Parkhomov came on the scene, there was a “burst” of enthusiasm that LENR may be VERY easy to replace.

      It possible that while building a LENR device is rather easy, getting the right mix may well be more of a challenge then we realize.

      However, it might also be one simple detail. Over time, if results are not possible, then attention to such details becomes more and more critical.

      I think your current path and your sharing of your progress here is a good and solid practical road. I mean you could have waited for Parkhomove fuel sample, but you did not! (good for you!).

      And I dare say, you ARE making and becoming part of history! In fact you already are!!!

      Keep up the work Bob, we appreciate your efforts!

      All the best

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

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks, but this is a crowd thing, we’re lighting the New Fire together

  • VisionandWisdom

    It seems to me that the LENR community is already in great danger of muddying the science and producing reliably reportable DATA by all trying to get in on the act and do their own experiment?

    This is precisely what knocked down the whole ‘Cold Fusion’ debate and theory last time it got exciting.

    I do not mean that no experiments should be done, but before you get excited and rush off to try and perform your own experiment with a slightly different fuel mixture or a slightly different heating element etc………we should be working slower and in a FAR more focussed way.

    Outside of Rossi, it appears that Parkhomov is leading the way in producing some encouraging results from experiments.

    I suggest we all work closely with him to try and replicate EXACTLY what he is doing in order to show it can be reproduced consistently.

    Please try to put any personal vanity and trophy holding thoughts aside and concentrate on proving the whole concept beyond all reasonable doubt first.

    There is a group on here now which is trying to put together a document which brings all the Parkhomov experiment details together with the goal of allowing almost anyone to follow this document and re-produce a working reactor in a small suitable lab/space.

    Please I implore everyone to read this document and work towards getting it completed so that this stage in our scientific journey is accurately recorded before the blood rises to all our heads and we flounder in the muddied science (?) that we have created.

    I wish to offer a great big well done and cheer of encouragement to all you scientists trying to improve this world with your experiments. + To all the administrators of this site for getting us all together.

    LENR will change the World, if we can prove it and re-produce it.

    Good luck

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, we know the exact composition of Parkhomov’s fuel.
      Because it’s only nickel and LiAlH4 there are only four elements (well, maybe some trace elements in the nickel and a little N2 and O2 from the air) that we have to can keep track of. With a full analytical package of Parkhomov’s ash (and an analysis of the gas for helium) it will be easier nail down the mechanism.

    • Mike Henderson

      I disagree.

      This is an engineering problem with a highly speculative theoretical foundation. Think Edison’s light bulb: he tried 2000 variations of filaments, voltage, evacuation / fill gases, etc before he hit on a workable design. He applied what he learned from unsuccessful attempts to subsequent trials and says there were no failures at all, only 2000 steps in a process.

      The internet allows us to crowdsource Edison’s 2000-step process. If each attempt is faithfully and openly reported, others can learn from it and explore other fuels, ceramics, heat profiles, pressures, and such. Parkhomov’s reactor is not and identical twin of Rossi’s reactor. Let’s prove they work and find what makes them work.

      • VisionandWisdom

        A fair point Mike. I however would still be very nervous that as soon as you introduce too many variables, choices and theories that the whole goal can become clouded.
        Sometimes too much information is just that.

        Also Edison was one man working under his own instruction towards a single goal.
        What we have here with LENR, is many individuals trying to achieve the same goal via slightly different approaches but no clearly recorded collaboration between them.

        • GreenWin

          VaW, make a good point. Would not the “crowdsource” process be at least more quantitative if there was organized assignment to each experiment? Is this not what Edison was effective at doing? In which case would creating an organized hierarchy of “crowdsourced” experiments not only streamline the open science experience — but also thrust it into the Big Science model that has failed us today?

    • LCD

      I agree with wisdom. It is very important to get one, at least one version working reliably before going off in other directions. This is in fact how science works, build off of what we know works.

      • GreenWin

        I tend to agree with LCD and VaW. Only because this is the accepted norm for scientific method. However, Mike Henderson argues persuasively for the “Edisonian” approach, distributed across many experimenter nodes. Is there any reason we should not pursue both avenues? One obeys the “method”, the other allows the “big iron” approach of trying hundreds+ variations to see what if any works.

        We also suggest the LENR community not overlook the contributions made by various government elements, esp. the U.S. DTRA and Navy which have sponsored study of LENR for nearly a decade.

        • Hi all

          It is a two stage process:

          1) The first step is to focus on a Parkhomov style replication, in order to establish the anomaly exists at a higher probability level toward 5 Sigma.

          2) That said, the Edisonian approach is the correct one to take ONCE! replication is established. You take the Edisonian approach in order to discover the underlying physics, so as to find its boundaries and typify its physics so that theorists have ground on which to base a theory that is supported by scientific experimental data.

          The Edisonian approach is also the one you take in the exploitation phase, that is after all what Edison did, when inventing light bulbs. Rossi is already at that stage but the rest of us and the world need that third public external replication, then we will have the seed of data needed to proceed.

          There is no reason both strands can not be taken if there is sufficient resources, but the focus at the moment has to be on replication.

          Kind Regards walker

          • I support your vision.

            Brian Ahern just confirmed that LiAlD4 does not work at 1150C

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1181-Brian-Ahern-Parkhomov-replication/?postID=3692#post3692

            8>

          • Obvious

            …. did not work in this test….
            One null is not a total negative.
            Information gained nevertheless.
            Good stuff.

          • Right.
            I was just noticing the deuterium, known (as Peter Gluck emphasis) as not working. It is very hard to replicate, exactly.
            Even if MFMP did not replicated exactly, they tried harder than average.

          • Obvious

            It is hard to put the LAD experiment in context.
            If Ni-deuterium has never shown positive results, then perhaps this is one more nail in the coffin of Ni-D LENR.
            On the other hand, it seems to be that this was an absolutely unique experiment. I am not aware that a Rossi-like ceramic tube LAD and Ni experiment has been done before, ever. If IH and Rossi tried it, they aren’t going to say probably anyways.
            If it had worked, it would have open a bunch of new doors.
            So absolutely this experiment was worth doing. Considering the reproducibility problems with Ni-LAH, this last experiment with LAD probably has not confirmed that it cannot work, at least just yet.
            Several more attempts would help solidify the conjecture that LAD-Ni heated to high temperature in a ceramic tube, without electrical heating wires wrapped around it, does not work readily/often/repeatably.

          • After a successful LiAlH4 experiment, LiAlD4 was absolutely a good idea.
            My first reaction was dubious because it happened before the LiAlH4…

            anyway it is an interesting result, as one can take it a a good “blank”.
            One skeptic cannot state that it is very different because lithium, because hydrogen, because aluminium, because…. and so and so…

            anyway as your enthusiasm show, changing the parameters instead of replicating is a human instinct to discover new direction. As Ian Walker state, and as MFMP try hard, I prefer first identical replication, then changing the measurement setup to check if it is an artifact, then change in the protocol to see what works better or less.

          • Obvious

            Sometimes the shortcuts through the woods are good, sometimes they just end at a hidden location with toilet paper laying around…

          • Montague Withnail

            Mitchell Swartz claimed Ni-D worked in his Nanor reactors. Actually he says that COP increases proportionately with the ratio of D to 1H in his experiments. Hagelstein favours D + 1H => 3He as being the main reaction taking place in Ni-H and has cried out for experimenters to look for 3He (in vain as far as I know).

          • Bob Greenyer

            According to Piantelli – D does not work with Ni as it is not a fermion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We tried to tell him, D is not a fermion and so will not interact with Nickel according to Piantelli.

            We also said, that Piantelli and Celani had both many times said it does not work based on experiments. So this experiment can add support to that knowledge.

    • clovis ray

      Hey to your first point, http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/02/e-cat-world-collaborative-project-proposal-to-create-instruction-document-on-how-to-replicate-parkhomov/ and the MF/MP
      They are the best the world can offer, at the present time, as you can see, in Greenwin comment they are aligned with some of the best minds in the business, along with Dr. parkhomov, All help is appreciated, if you can or know someone that can help by all means enlist them, and to your other point, they are keeping excellent data, in all sections of the test being preformed, they just need some help right, with getting some ash analyzed,

    • rats123

      I too am tired of seeing so many variations. Just get one going!

    • Sanjeev

      So far, null result with LAD again.

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1181-Brian-Ahern-Parkhomov-replication/?postID=3713#post3713

      We can’t force them to try the powder that’s reported to work. There is anyway no guarantee that LAH will work either, we already saw a null result with LAH. So its all hit and miss.

      I do suspect that those who are trying “something different” suffer from ego and perhaps want to show that they achieved something original, superior… not just a copy. This is causing harm and delay, but I can suggest no solution, except wait for an honest and reasonable person to replicate.

  • lars

    I am swedish and read the Edström report from Lugano. Before use (fuel) was only C, O, Ni detected. After 6 months use (ash) was a lot detected.

  • lars

    I am swedish and read the Edström report from Lugano. Before use (fuel) was only C, O, Ni detected. After 6 months use (ash) was a lot detected.

    • lars

      about iron he says it is so little it is most most likely a contamination
      he also say they can not explain how the ash can come from the fuel because it is so totally different

      • lars

        *I mean they think there was no iron before use

      • From:

        http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

        “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used. In addition the fuel is found to be mixed with a component containing hydrogen, i.e. probably a chemical hydride. From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, *Fe* and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of *C* and O. It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed.*

        I remember seeing microscope pictures of Rossi’s fuel, or maybe it was Defkalion’s fuel. The pictures showed tiny pieces of steel mixed in with the nickel grains. If someone remembers this picture, please post a link if they have one.

    • lars

      before use
      Element Wt% C 15.98 – O 1.72 – Ni 82.30
      after use
      Element Wt% C 21.40 – O 12.65 – Mg 0.86 – Si 0.80 – P 0.99 – Ca 2.83 – Fe 14.48 – Cu 6.96 – Ni 39.02

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, we know the exact composition of Parkhomov’s fuel.
    Because it’s only nickel and LiAlH4 there are only four elements (well, maybe some trace elements in the nickel and a little N2 and O2 from the air) that we have to can keep track of. With a full analytical package of Parkhomov’s ash (and an analysis of the gas for helium) it will be easier nail down the mechanism.

  • When will bob higgins start his experiment with the original parkhomov powder?

    • Bob Greenyer

      He says the calorimeter is another 10 days out, but he might do thermometry. I think we are going to wait a few days for the SEM / EDX from Edmund Storms on Dr. Parkhomov’s Ni.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, I missed this before posting above. Great idea. Would Ed be willing to run your fuel/ash EDX for the next experiment?

  • When will bob higgins start his experiment with the original parkhomov powder?

    • Bob Greenyer

      He says the calorimeter is another 10 days out, but he might do thermometry. I think we are going to wait a few days for the SEM / EDX from Edmund Storms on Dr. Parkhomov’s Ni.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, I missed this before posting above. Great idea. Would Ed be willing to run your fuel/ash EDX for the next experiment?

  • Mike Henderson

    I disagree.

    This is an engineering problem with a highly speculative theoretical foundation. Think Edison’s light bulb: he tried 2000 variations of filaments, voltage, evacuation / fill gases, etc before he hit on a workable design. He applied what he learned from unsuccessful attempts to subsequent trials and says there were no failures at all, only 2000 steps in a process.

    The internet allows us to crowdsource Edison’s 2000-step process. If each attempt is faithfully and openly reported, others can learn from it and explore other fuels, ceramics, heat profiles, pressures, and such. Parkhomov’s reactor is not and identical twin of Rossi’s reactor. Let’s prove they work and find what makes them work.

  • LCD

    I agree with wisdom. It is very important to get one, at least one version working reliably before going off in other directions. This is in fact how science works, build off of what we know works.

    • GreenWin

      I tend to agree with LCD and VaW. Only because this is the accepted norm for scientific method. However, Mike Henderson argues persuasively for the “Edisonian” approach, distributed across many experimenter nodes. Is there any reason we should not pursue both avenues? One obeys the “method”, the other allows the “big iron” approach of trying hundreds+ variations to see what if any works.

      We also suggest the LENR community not overlook the contributions made by various government elements, esp. the U.S. DTRA and Navy which have sponsored study of LENR for nearly a decade.

      • Hi all

        It is a two stage process:

        1) The first step is to focus on a Parkhomov style replication, in order to establish the anomaly exists at a higher probability level toward 5 Sigma.

        2) That said, the Edisonian approach is the correct one to take ONCE! replication is established. You take the Edisonian approach in order to discover the underlying physics, so as to find its boundaries and typify its physics so that theorists have ground on which to base a theory that is supported by scientific experimental data.

        There is no reason both strands can not be taken if there is sufficient resources, but the focus at them moment has to be on replication.

        Kind Regards walker

        • I support your vision.

          Brian Ahern just confirmed that LiAlD4 does not work at 1150C

          http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1181-Brian-Ahern-Parkhomov-replication/?postID=3692#post3692

          8>

          • Obvious

            …. did not work in this test….
            One null is not a total negative.
            Information gained nevertheless.
            Good stuff.

          • Right.
            I was just noticing the deuterium, known (as Peter Gluck emphasis) as not working. It is very hard to replicate, exactly.
            Even if MFMP did not replicated exactly, they tried harder than average.

          • Obvious

            It is hard to put the LAD experiment in context.
            If Ni-deuterium has never shown positive results, then perhaps this is one more nail in the coffin of Ni-D LENR.
            On the other hand, it seems to be that this was an absolutely unique experiment. I am not aware that a Rossi-like ceramic tube LAD and Ni experiment has been done before, ever. If IH and Rossi tried it, they aren’t going to say probably anyways.
            If it had worked, it would have open a bunch of new doors.
            So absolutely this experiment was worth doing. Considering the reproducibility problems with Ni-LAH, this last experiment with LAD probably has not confirmed that it cannot work, at least just yet.
            Several more attempts would help solidify the conjecture that LAD-Ni heated to high temperature in a ceramic tube, without electrical heating wires wrapped around it, does not work readily/often/repeatably.

          • After a successful LiAlH4 experiment, LiAlD4 was absolutely a good idea.
            My first reaction was dubious because it happened before the LiAlH4…

            anyway it is an interesting result, as one can take it a a good “blank”.
            One skeptic cannot state that it is very different because lithium, because hydrogen, because aluminium, because…. and so and so…

            anyway as your enthusiasm show, changing the parameters instead of replicating is a human instinct to discover new direction. As Ian Walker state, and as MFMP try hard, I prefer first identical replication, then changing the measurement setup to check if it is an artifact, then change in the protocol to see what works better or less.

          • Obvious

            Sometimes the shortcuts through the woods are good, sometimes they just end at a hidden location with toilet paper laying around…

          • MontagueWithnail

            Mitchell Swartz claimed Ni-D worked in his Nanor reactors. Actually he says that COP increases proportionately with the ratio of D to 1H in his experiments. Hagelstein favours D + 1H => 3He as being the main reaction taking place in Ni-H and has cried out for experimenters to look for 3He (in vain as far as I know).

          • Bob Greenyer

            According to Piantelli – D does not work with Ni as it is not a fermion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We tried to tell him, D is not a fermion and so will not interact with Nickel according to Piantelli.

            We also said, that Piantelli and Celani had both many times said it does not work based on experiments. So this experiment can add support to that knowledge.

  • I can think of a number of reasons why this would be useful. Would you say the magnetic properties and thus acoustic wave generating properties would be one possibility?

  • Ged

    You actinghilarious, and going dangerously close to irrational troll territory. First, I stated that you can’t take it by passenger plane already, so your attempt to look smart fails. Secondly, your logic fails as it is clear what is bulk and non-bulk. Look at the cargo plane, anything less than 15 kg is non-bulk. Pretty simple. Thirdly, despite your claims, you can transport by ship on deck or below. Forthly, there is no where you send this non-descript “documentation” you list; if you want to mail this, you just fill out a hazard sheet provided right at the mail counter, very easy and used for explosives which LiAlH4 is not. We don’t live in police states, and folks carry around explosives like fire works; stuff far more hazardous than LiAlH4 such as black powder can be had by bulk. And that is the lesser explosive materials people use and transport legally! Have you seen the YouTube vids of hunters using the big stuff, aand taking out while trees? LiAlH4 is hardly dangerous with what you can put in a vial, you need to have your sense of context and scope fixed. you’ll find more dangerous over the counter cleaners and fertalizers.

    No, you’re acting absurdly over the top, and no law is on your side. Even regulations (not the same power or thing as laws) are mostly for liability, i.e. Whom to blaim if there is an accident and lawsuit results. You are acting no less absurd than Gary Wright with his attempts to call down the NRC on Rossi, which ended up making him a laughing stock and joke. You really lack concepts of personal liberty. Whatever you do, don’t look up Biohackers, as it may be too stressful to read what private citizens can do outside this police state imagination.

    Go on though, do keep up your pointless vague threats, it amuses me, like watching a rat in a maze.

  • GreenWin

    In his 2007 DTRA LENR discussion re detecting a signal for LENR, Dr. Michael Melich, (Navy Postgraduate School, Rossi Board Advisers JNP) suggests transmutation is far more sensitive than excess heat. Perhaps MFMP can find a partner willing to loan the use of XPS spectroscopy to analyze the ash from their present experiments. We now have U Illinois, Georgia Tech, U Missouri SKINR, Texas Tech AHE – Rob Duncan, GW University – Dave Nagel, SRI Mike McKubre, Dr. Yeong Kim – Purdue University, and potential industrial partners STMicro, JET, JWK/Navy or… a federally funded national lab e.g. INL, LLNL, Sandia, etc.

    There is no loss in creating an alliance with organizations better equipped than MFMP. Perhaps more importantly, is the invitation to support grass roots science – rather than positioning one or other an adversary. The perception of “community science” is not lost on industry, academia, or government. It was the purpose of ARPAnet – the foundation of today’s internet (in spite of Algore’s claim.) Good luck Bob and all dedicated contributors to MFMP!

    • Bob Greenyer

      We asked SKINR and they said they did not have the resources to help us.

      We have kind offers of help from EarthTech to do SEM and EDX also, but this technique cannot see light elements.

      At the moment we are looking at bought for ICP-MS analysis which may cost less than $100 a time. This is affordable and also attractive from the point of view they will be a third party who’s reputation is founded on just showing what they see.

  • GreenWin

    In his 2007 DTRA LENR discussion re detecting a signal for LENR, Dr. Michael Melich, (Navy Postgraduate School, Rossi Board Advisers JNP) suggests transmutation is far more sensitive than excess heat. Perhaps MFMP can find a partner willing to loan the use of XPS spectroscopy to analyze the ash from their present experiments. We now have U Illinois, Georgia Tech, U Missouri SKINR, Texas Tech AHE – Rob Duncan, GW University – Dave Nagel, SRI Mike McKubre, Dr. Yeong Kim – Purdue University, and potential industrial partners STMicro, JET, JWK/Navy or… a federally funded national lab e.g. INL, LLNL, Sandia, etc.

    There is no loss in creating an alliance with organizations better equipped than MFMP. Perhaps more importantly, is the invitation to support grass roots science – rather than positioning one or other an adversary. The perception of “community science” is not lost on industry, academia, or government. It was the purpose of ARPAnet – the foundation of today’s internet (in spite of Algore’s claim.) Good luck Bob and all dedicated contributors to MFMP!

    • Bob Greenyer

      We asked SKINR and they said they did not have the resources to help us.

      We have kind offers of help from EarthTech to do SEM and EDX also, but this technique cannot see light elements.

      At the moment we are looking at bought for ICP-MS analysis which may cost less than $100 a time. This is affordable and also attractive from the point of view they will be a third party who’s reputation is founded on just showing what they see.

  • GreenWin

    VaW, make a good point. Would not the “crowdsource” process be at least more quantitative if there was organized assignment to each experiment? Is this not what Edison was effective at doing? In which case would creating an organized hierarchy of “crowdsourced” experiments not only streamline the open science experience — but also thrust it into the Big Science model that has failed us today?

  • Ged

    Well, I’ve been dealing with receiving dangerous goods quite a bit longer than you, then. The problem is you take this beyond the extreme. You are miss-aiming your threats by treating them like a commercial carrier rather than user.

    1. No difference between bulk and non-bulk? You were trained on this? I guess you have forgotten. In addition to all shipping rules being broken up by bulk and non-bulk (211 and 214 in this instance), I’ll give you a hint, it has to do with size and nature of containers (thus amounts; though you could pack less in a bulk container than it holds, the converse is not true–think what 15kg means for a container).

    2. The slips and packages you show are for commercial carriers. When you mail with them, they generally handle this with you when the package is given to them for transport for their liability not yours as they are responsible once they accept and take your money not you (and they mark the package and will often put their labels over anything you put on); unless you want to pre print and expedite, which I already said. They can always refuse. Your job is just to make sure you used the right container (they often check before acceptance). If you didn’t and you -lie- to the carrier and something goes wrong that endangers the other goods or transporter, then you are liable and thus sue-able or court-aable depending on severity. If the carrier failed to have the proper transporting outer box and labels and form yet still transport your material, -they- are liable due to doing the transport and accepting it. This has nothing to do with personal transport.

    3. Don’t try to argue by absudium, that is a fallacy. A vial of LiAlH4 is no danger to “the public”. Far less than a car full of bleach, ammonium and fertilizer coming back from a grocery store, or kerosene from a hardware store. Making threats about seems more naive in action than anything, as it calls question the understanding in scope or how LiAlH4 behaves and works.

    4. Making vague threats is unethical when you know nothing about what someone has done. In fact, you are trying to imply impropriety a priori with no information or knowledge, particularly when transport of hazardous materials is common and easy, including explosives, and generally the responsibility of the carrier. You try to make it sound like a big deal to transport, and thereby use that as “evidence” against them because they have mentioned no ordeal. Hate to break it to you, but any commercial carrier will have no problem setting you up with a proper box and filling out the CAS related form. And in personal transport you assume the liability yourself (but I am pretty sure this whole discussion is about commercial mailing, thus the one you threaten is the commercial carrier not MFMP).

    This is why you are being hilarious, and maybe histerical, and sadly trollish. Threatening to do what?, “turn them in”?, them being the commercial carrier doing the shipping?, call whom?, all because they said they are going to “try” to ship something entirely shippable? Are you trying to claim they aren’t doing right what they have not yet done, which isn’t even their action to do but a commercial carrier’s, all when you have no knowledge on the matter? This is an Aesop waiting to happen.

    In fact, you could get in trouble for making false claims and slanderous statements. It is one thing to simply share what should be done, and another to threaten uselessly. Unless you have direct proof they lied to and tricked a commercial carrier who did not do due dilligence, there is no issue. And then, if they did and you had proof, whom would you turn to? The carrier. So, who is their carrier? Has it even been mailed yet (they said Parkhomov would “try”)? How would you know?

    So, unless you have such direct proof, speak no more on this matter. I am sure your heart is in the right place, but this has been extreme beyond reason.

  • From:

    http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used. In addition the fuel is found to be mixed with a component containing hydrogen, i.e. probably a chemical hydride. From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, *Fe* and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of *C* and O. It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed.*

    I remember seeing microscope pictures of Rossi’s fuel, or maybe it was Defkalion’s fuel. The pictures showed tiny pieces of steel mixed in with the nickel grains. If someone remembers this picture, please post a link if they have one.

  • Sanjeev

    So far, null result with LAD again.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1181-Brian-Ahern-Parkhomov-replication/?postID=3713#post3713

    We can’t force them to try the powder that’s reported to work. There is anyway no guarantee that LAH will work either, we already saw a null result with LAH. So its all hit and miss.

    I do suspect that those who are trying “something different” suffer from ego and perhaps want to show that they achieved something original, superior… not just a copy. This is causing harm and delay, but I can suggest no solution, except wait for an honest and reasonable person to replicate.

  • Intense science at work! https://goo.gl/mUrPRR