Live Experiment from Denis Vasilenko (AKA Firax Tech) — (UPDATE #3 May 24 Test Ends with Indication of a Possible LENR Event)

A new LENR Experiment has been started by Denis Vasilenko, aka Firax Tech. He writes that this experiment is designed to test his quartz reactor for hydrogen leaks.

In this thread on the LENR-Forum, Denis describes his reactor:

​Features a small tube: quartz, external diameter – 6.1mm, 3.8mm internal diameter, length – 13.5mm
It features a large tube: quartz, external diameter – 10mm inner diameter – 7.6mm, length – 20mm.
Spiral – Nichrome, 100 turns, the thickness of 0.5mm, 6 ohms.
Fuel – 500 mg nickel, 35mg – LiAlH4.

Here’s a picture of the reactor (more images can be seen here: https://mega.co.nz/#F!OYI1zDoK!3Z5ICjog31VQeYKcf8Cn9Q)

firax3

Live video showing the measurement instruments can be seen below:

The round dial is the manometer showing pressure; the red display is the temperature; the display on the lower left is current, and the display on the lower right is the voltage.

UPDATE #2 (May 24, 2015)

A new test by Denis Vasilenko has just begun today. In this test he is using a ceramic reactor in the style of Alexander Parkhomov, instead of the quartz used in the previous one. There are actually two reactors being used in this experiment: one fueled, and one unfueled (the control). A live video stream is embedded below:

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/embed/warRTb1g7pA

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tr9MiQ27CFE

Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/embed/YwNWSbjIQVo

Part 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwpXbEGivjE

Part 5

https://www.youtube.com/embed/upObaPrd4H0

There is live chat with the video, and Denis is participating (his name there is Firax Tech)

Spreadsheet with live updated data is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/edit#gid=1389964837

UPDATE #3 (May 26, 2015) The test is over, ending with a meltdown of some kind of the fueled reactor.

At around 5:45:30 on the Part 5 video, you begin to hear a buzzing noise, and the the fueled reactor burns more brightly — at the same time the unfueled reactor goes dim.

The meters are hard to read during this episode, but I can make out the fueled temperature at one point reaches 1300 while the unfueled temperature drops into the 800 C range.

So to me, if you combine both the meter readings, and the visual evidence, there does seem to have been an unusual event take place — abeit very briefly. Of the live tests by replicators we have seen so far, to me, this one seems to be the one that has best evidence of showing an LENR event taking place.

Pictures of the reactor in the aftermath of the test can be seen in this folder (thanks artefact): https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ

Here’s a closeup of the fueled reactor:

firaxreactor

  • Daniel Maris

    PS – this story about the much ridiculed (but no longer) EmDrive must give hope to all LENR researchers…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3080846/Fly-moon-FOUR-hours-British-scientist-says-s-secret-Star-Trek-s-wrap-speed.html

    • Ged

      It’s sobering when even foundational scientific laws are revealed to be incomplete. That’s the fun part though, plenty to learn and rewrite–only human arrogance believes we’ve figured it all out.

  • Ged

    Good luck! Hopefully no fireworks this time, at least of the heater wire kind.

    • Steven Irizarry

      there is this project called focus fusion…can this technology be mixed with that one(focus fusion)

      • Gerrit

        focus fusion uses a plasma to enable a hot fusion reaction, ie blast through the coulomb barrier. They choose Boron 11 as fuel, which creates an aneutronic fusion.

        It has nothing to do with cold fusion or LENR, which does not blast through the coulomb barrier, but tries to circumvent the coulomb barrier by electron screening, inverse beta decay or other means. Thus “pumping up” the nucleus of an atom, which then decays into stable isotopes and/or transmutes into other elements.

        Key difference between hot fusion and cold fusion is that hot fusion takes place in a vacuum or plasma between two bodies, whereas cold fusion/LENR takes place in a host material, loaded with Hydrogen isotopes, ie multi body system.

  • Ged

    Good luck! Hopefully no fireworks this time, at least of the heater wire kind.

  • e-dog

    Good Luck Denis. I think the lengths of the quarts tubes might need an extra 0 (zero) on the ends.
    How is the inner tube sealed? Great idea! hope it all holds together and something interesting happens.
    Love the Live Open Science experiments!

  • Bob Matulis

    Sounds like you are attempting to establish a baseline. Good luck! If it holds the Hydrogen this will be good for comparisons to runs with fuel included.

  • Bob Matulis

    Sounds like you are attempting to establish a baseline. Good luck! If it holds the Hydrogen this will be good for comparisons to runs with fuel included.

  • pelgrim108

    Meanwhile in Russia: “Above the reactor there is a faint smell of LiAlH4 may seem, but the pressure is growing properly”…”

    ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • Ged

      I love that little emoti.

      Smells are a tricky beast. If not a leak, I would guess it’s just residual powder on the outside from loading that is baking off as temps go off.

  • pelgrim108

    Meanwhile in Russia: “Above the reactor there is a faint smell of LiAlH4 may seem, but the pressure is growing properly”…”

    ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • Ged

      I love that little emoti.

      Smells are a tricky beast. If not a leak, I would guess it’s just residual powder on the outside from loading that is baking off as temps go off.

  • Facepalm

    I am worried that any produced low energy gamma will escape the quartz tube and heat the user instead of the reactor…

  • Warthog

    I think the use of quartz is a poor choice. Very limited as to upper temperature capability.

    • pelgrim108

      Firax already has alumina tubes for the next iterations.

    • Agaricus

      1600°C softening point – that should be enough I would have thought. However the extra margin of 400°C given by alumina could help contain a limited thermal runaway.

  • Warthog

    I think the use of quartz is a poor choice. Very limited as to upper temperature capability.

    • pelgrim108

      Firax already has alumina tubes for the next iterations.

    • 1600°C softening point – that should be enough I would have thought. However the extra margin of 400°C given by alumina could help contain any thermal runaway (i.e., success!).

  • I don’t understand the Hot-Cat’s control mechanisms. The Warm-Cat (the original version) had a gas value that could be opened to release hydrogen gas pressure. Isn’t that correct? The Hot-Cat is sealed tight. I suspect Rossi has some electromagnetic mechanism for slowing down the reaction. Some electromagnetic stimulation may speed up the reactions and others may slow it down. This might be why Rossi says the Hot-Cat is more complex than people think. Is this idea way off base? Obviously, if all the electrical input can do is add more heat, then there is no control in the sense of stopping a runaway reaction. You cannot control a car with only a gas pedal and no break pedal. There must be a break pedal we don’t know about.

    • hempenearth

      I thought Rossi once said that the pellets absorbed hydrogen below a certain temperature and desorbed hydrogen above a certain temperature. I guess that knowledge would come from a lot of testing of LAH pellets.

      • Agaricus

        That’s a basic characteristic of light metal hydrides, and varying the hydride mixture could theoretically be used to achieve hydrogen pressure homeostasis at various target temperatures. I’ve speculated in the past that adding lithium hydride or similar to the fuel (with the intention of eliminating the hydrogen tank required by the first prototypes) may have been one of Rossi’s early serendipitous ‘breakthroughs’, when output was unexpectedly enhanced.

  • I don’t understand the Hot-Cat’s control mechanisms. The Warm-Cat (the original version) had a gas value that could be opened to release hydrogen gas pressure. Isn’t that correct? The Hot-Cat is sealed tight. I suspect Rossi has some electromagnetic mechanism for slowing down the reaction. Some electromagnetic stimulation may speed up the reactions and others may slow it down. This might be why Rossi says the Hot-Cat is more complex than people think. Is this idea way off base? Obviously, if all the electrical input can do is add more heat, then there is no control in the sense of stopping a runaway reaction. You cannot control a car with only a gas pedal and no break pedal. There must be a break pedal we don’t know about.

    • hempenearth

      I thought Rossi once said that the pellets absorbed hydrogen below a certain temperature and desorbed hydrogen above a certain temperature. I guess that knowledge would come from a lot of testing of LAH pellets.

      • That’s a basic characteristic of light metal hydrides, and varying the hydride mixture could theoretically be used to achieve hydrogen pressure homeostasis at various target temperatures. I’ve speculated in the past that adding lithium hydride or similar to the fuel (with the intention of eliminating the hydrogen tank required by the first prototypes) may have been one of Rossi’s early serendipitous ‘breakthroughs’, when output was unexpectedly enhanced.

  • pelgrim108

    Live casting resumes here: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=WYDAnwp_GEA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYDAnwp_GEA

  • pelgrim108

    Live casting resumes here: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=1FO8g9lLV3I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FO8g9lLV3I
    there are problems to establish the new stream
    edit : problems now solved

  • Chris the 2nd

    Others have recorded hundreds of micro newtons *shrug*

    for some reason Eagle works always start at the beginning again rather than picking up where others left off.

  • Ged

    I don’t think so. NASA makes microNewton ion thrusters http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/st7/TECHNOLOGY/thrusters.html , so a microNewton is well above the precision of there methods.

    Also remember this is continual accelleration, so over time that leads to large and thus easily measured velocities.

  • Sanjeev

    Temperature about to reach 1000C. Entering the zone.
    If this experiment is only to check the tube seals, then we already have the results. Pressure never rose.

    • avolutaire

      Meaning it leaked?

    • Sanjeev

      @avolutaire, yes most likely.

      • Gerard McEk

        The temperature suddenly started to drop around 1160 degrees, while the setpoint was 1200 (on the controller). I am not sure why that happend. As fa as I cold see nothing special took place.

        • pelgrim108

          Nichrome coil was suspected of having problems at around 1160C. It was decided by Firax to let the reactor cool down to prevent further damage.

          • Agaricus

            Although nichrome melts at 1400°C, it may begin to sinter at considerably lower temps. Looking at the coil, the windings appear to touch one another without intervening insulation other than perhaps a nickel oxide layer. Its possible that the resistance of the coil as a whole might fall rapidly when the oxide coating breaks down and also if/when adjacent windings begin to sinter together.

          • pelgrim108

            This is what Firax wrote:
            22:07:10 Nichrome inside the tube, which is not covered with a red-hot like a powder. I think the thread Nichrome begins to disintegrate
            22:08:18 After 5 minutes, I stop the experiment is not yet burned thread

          • Agaricus

            I don’t fully understand Firax’s comments (English is not his first language) but I took ‘thread’ to mean ‘wire’ on the first reading. However he may mean some kind of wound insulation I suppose (asbestos?)

        • Ged

          Yeah, doesn’t seem the quartz held the hydrogen (as expected from earlier calculations people were doing way back) as the pressure didn’t go up as it should have, so there was no fuel in there. Still a nice control run in that regard then.

    • Ged

      Pressure never rose, so the quartz failed to contain the hydrogen?

      • Sanjeev

        Most likely.

  • Sanjeev

    Temperature about to reach 1000C. Entering the zone.
    If this experiment is only to check the tube seals, then we already have the results. Pressure never rose.

    • Sanjeev

      @avolutaire, yes most likely.

    • Ged

      Pressure never rose, so the quartz failed to contain the hydrogen?

      • Sanjeev

        Most likely.

  • Obvious

    If Denis could confirm the coil specs in this article, I would appreciate it.

    I get only 50 wraps of Nichrome wire around 6.1 mm diameter tube to get 6 ohms, so maybe 12 ohms is the real resistance. Or is it some odd wire alloy?

  • Obvious

    If Denis could confirm the coil specs in this article, I would appreciate it.

    I get only 50 wraps of Nichrome wire around 6.1 mm diameter tube to get 6 ohms, so maybe 12 ohms is the real resistance (doesn’t seem to match the video values). Or is it some odd wire alloy? Or a larger diameter wire? (AWG 20 would do it, 0.812 mm, but the wire looks to be around 0.5 mm)

  • Gerard McEk

    The temperature suddenly started to drop around 1160 degrees, while the setpoint was 1200 (on the controller). I am not sure why that happend. As fa as I cold see nothing special (like LENR) took place. See second video stream LENR Forum

    • pelgrim108

      Nichrome coil was suspected of having problems at around 1160C. It was decided by Firax to let the reactor cool down to prevent further damage.

      • Although nichrome melts at 1400°C, it may begin to sinter at considerably lower temps. Looking at the coil, the windings appear to touch one another without intervening insulation other than perhaps a nickel oxide layer. Its possible that the resistance of the coil as a whole might fall rapidly when the oxide coating breaks down and also if/when adjacent windings begin to sinter together.

        • pelgrim108

          This is what Firax wrote:
          22:07:10 Nichrome inside the tube, which is not covered with a red-hot like a powder. I think the thread Nichrome begins to disintegrate
          22:08:18 After 5 minutes, I stop the experiment is not yet burned thread

          • I don’t fully understand Firax’s comments (English is not his first language) but I took ‘thread’ to mean ‘wire’ on the first reading. However he may mean some kind of wound insulation I suppose (asbestos?), although this is not visible in the image.

    • Ged

      Yeah, doesn’t seem the quartz held the hydrogen (as expected from earlier calculations people were doing way back) as the pressure didn’t go up as it should have, so there was no fuel in there. Still a nice control run in that regard then.

  • Steven Irizarry

    there is this project called focus fusion…can this technology be mixed with that one(focus fusion)

    • Gerrit

      focus fusion uses a plasma to enable a hot fusion reaction, ie blast through the coulomb barrier. They choose Boron 11 as fuel, which creates an aneutronic fusion.

      It has nothing to do with cold fusion or LENR, which does not blast through the coulomb barrier, but tries to circumvent the coulomb barrier by electron screening, inverse beta decay or other means. Thus “pumping up” the nucleus of an atom, which then decays into stable isotopes and/or transmutes into other elements.

      Key difference between hot fusion and cold fusion is that hot fusion takes place in a vacuum or plasma between two bodies, whereas cold fusion/LENR takes place in a host material, loaded with Hydrogen isotopes, ie multi body system.

      • Steven Irizarry

        But focus fusion needs heat to work something cold fusion can provide can it not?

  • pelgrim108

    Here is the part of the experiment chat. I will remove this comment on request.
    I have edited out some links and other stuff because of problems.

    11:14:59 David Great!
    11:16:18 I ask again because I think many people wonder.
    What time would you guess that we reach 1000 c ?
    11:16:25 timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone/utc
    11:16:36 UTC time zone
    11:17:42 Denis Vasilenko 21-22 UTC
    11:18:30 David Thx 🙂
    11:26:22 keV Hi Denis – Good luck – we are learning a lot from these live open tests
    – you rep guys are top geezers (that’s a compliment by the way)
    11:36:08 Mark Saker Hello, seems a new replication every day. great news 🙂
    12:07:39 Osmo Laaksonen :thumbsup:
    12:09:43 Tarun Hi Denis and all :thumbup:
    12:10:19 I guess its just started. Is it a calibration run ?
    12:12:08 Denis Vasilenko Started, all interesting will think after 200C
    12:15:17 Tarun Are you providing the data in your online spreadsheet ?
    12:15:27
    12:17:01 Denis Vasilenko While it is very difficult to capture data due to low resistance spiral
    12:19:05 As heat stabilized, I certainly will write the sensor readings
    12:19:19 Tarun thanks 🙂
    12:26:42 Peter Gluck Privet dear Denis! What is your experiment plan including heat up speed
    12:28:51 and maximum temperature you can attain?
    I consider experiment in quartz, inert as very relevant, Wish you succcess! Peter
    12:41:33 Denis Vasilenko Hi! Maximum plan to do 1000C, but if lucky, and the 1100C, in time of the 21-22 UTC
    13:06:51 pelgrim108 Privet Denis. Is radiation measured?
    13:13:08 Denis Vasilenko Yes, SI8B detector
    13:15:30 135C and 0,75 bar
    13:19:05 Neil Farbstein I have been looking for parters to test an LENR recation that is a little different than
    the experiments Parkomov and Rossi performed.
    It requires the same equipment and substantially the same
    starting reactants- Nickel and LiAlH4.
    It is based on a theory I have detailed in my pending patent.
    Please contact me at ##############
    13:20:16 Denis Vasilenko Above the reactor there is a faint smell of LiAlH4 may seem,
    but the pressure is growing properly
    13:25:10 You, too, have seen the racing pressure and temperature?
    13:27:04 7 bar and a temperature of about 300?
    13:29:20
    13:40:27 me356 Hi
    13:40:45 Good job, I am very glad for each replication effort!
    13:40:54 Denis Vasilenko It appears the first portion of the hydrogen react with the air
    13:43:48 me356 Is pressure 1bar right now?
    13:44:54 Denis Vasilenko It fell to atmospheric level
    13:45:53 me356 thanks.
    13:46:05 What sealing do you use on the ends of the tube?
    13:47:42 Denis Vasilenko Cement used Parkhomov and further epoxy resin
    13:52:04 I begin to raise the temperature to the decomposition of lithium hydride
    13:53:56 Tarun pressure is not rising again, can it be a leak ?
    13:55:41 Denis Vasilenko Perhaps will check exactly with the further expansion of LiAlH4
    13:56:48 I noticed a pressure drop of about -0.1bar
    13:59:21
    14:02:14 310?, -0.2 bar!!!
    14:03:38 Tarun if pressure spiked to 7 bar and back to 0, in 1 sec, it is unusual
    14:04:25 Denis Vasilenko And ~ 0.3 Sv
    14:06:16
    14:06:55 Updating photos in mega.co.nz
    14:09:16 Ecco the Dolphin hydrogen might have leaked away
    14:10:09 which might not be a completely bad thing
    14:10:39 some should still be in the cell, just at a low pressure
    14:11:37 0.3 Sv??
    14:12:16 Tarun why didn’t the air leak in to make it 0 again ?
    14:12:43 me356 If I am not wrong, pressure shouldn’t be 0 there.
    14:12:51 If so, then it is vacuum.
    14:12:51 Denis Vasilenko Yes, for about 10 minutes as the
    pressure has fallen rose reading dosimeter
    14:13:04 Ecco the Dolphin because hydrogen is a very small molecule.
    if hydrogen can leak out, air (oxygen, nitrogen)
    might not necessarily enter the cell
    14:13:14 this happened very often in early MFMP experiments
    14:13:31 sometimes pressure dropped as low as 0.3-0.4 bar (absolute)
    14:14:11 denis: 0.3 Sv is a dangerously high value, are you sure of this
    14:16:42 Denis Vasilenko Few probably wrong 30mkrh
    14:17:13 If natural background 18
    14:18:08 Now average 19-21 micro-roentgen per hour
    14:18:53 Tarun me356, if you rewind back to start, it started at 0 bar,
    so may be its a comparative pressure. 0 = 1 atm
    14:20:14 me356 Ah, nice.
    14:25:07 Tarun ecco, hopefully …. if i remember right,
    in mfmp test the pressure rose very slowly,
    in hours perhaps. not in secs, ?(
    14:26:17 Ecco the Dolphin Tarun: I mean in other experiments (Celani replications).
    Hydrogen can leak away without air entering back
    14:27:02 Denis Vasilenko I think that’s all because of nano nickel, catalyst above its capacity
    14:27:44 pelgrim108 Nice touch with the teaser alumina tube in the view ^^
    14:29:25 Ecco the Dolphin btw, mkR/h means “microroentgens per hour”.
    14:29:56 30 microroentgen/hour = 0.0003 millisievert/hour
    14:30:30 Denis Vasilenko Thank you, I made a mistake in counting
    14:30:42 Tarun ecco, i see, denis is also using glass, that may be the reason…
    14:42:34 Denis Vasilenko Pressure is almost back to normal
    15:11:41 me356 I wish that there will be excess heat today 🙂
    15:25:37 Ecco the Dolphin @denis: since pressure has dropped so much,
    have your plans on heating changed?
    15:25:37 pelgrim108 How do you know if hydrogen leaks? Pressure only?
    15:26:49 Ecco the Dolphin pressure or combustible gas detector
    15:34:24 pelgrim108 Can it already be concluded that the sealing at the ends leaked?
    15:42:33 Tarun cooling down… i guess plan changed
    15:46:09 pelgrim108 Power to the coil is still the same and setpoint is unchanged
    15:46:17 at 681
    15:46:54 Power a little higher now and temp raising
    15:47:41 No movement of pressure needle, what does that mean?
    15:47:57 Tarun sorry i accidently rewind the video 😛
    15:48:21 pelgrim108 lol 😀
    15:49:17 Tarun no pressure increase or decrease can mean a leak
    15:49:46 pelgrim108 Yes it looks like it stays at atmospheric
    15:52:33 So if it leaks at the ends,
    then the question if quartz im permeable for hydrogen
    can not be anwered in this test
    ( thats my uneducated guess :whistling: )
    15:52:49 im = is
    15:54:14 Tarun i guess, at this time, we dont know if its diffusing through the
    glass or there is a crack
    15:55:37 pelgrim108 ok, thanks Tarun
    15:56:35 StephenC Did the amp meter stop working.
    15:57:10 pelgrim108 yes
    15:57:20 and temp is falling
    15:57:54 amp meter back up
    15:58:14 total power is lower now
    16:00:22 Denis, can you write somthing so that we know you are still OK?
    16:03:21 Denis Vasilenko Gradually I begin to take 800?
    16:04:12 The pressure is normal, the radiation OK
    16:06:11 me356 We still don’t know what pressure is correct for the process,
    how much hydrogen we need, etc.
    So basically we can’t make any conclusions.
    16:10:12 Ecco the Dolphin there are indications that people who obtained
    excess heat, Parkhomov included, had
    pressure decreasing below atmospheric
    16:11:26 Denis Vasilenko Soon will begin the expansion of lithium hydride
    16:15:11 The pressure slowly went up
    17:12:25 Ecco the Dolphin with all that light radiating, I think this configuration
    is a bit inefficient. What about (in future tests) inserting
    the quartz tube inside a mirror polished steel tube? This would
    also allow you to measure reactor temperatures indirectly
    (on the steel tube surface). If you close both ends of this steel
    tube with insulating material, then you would force heat to come
    out of the outside surface and you would have a conduction calorimeter.
    17:13:16 See this too :

    17:17:31 pelgrim108 You maybe can see the little LENR oompa loompas at work through the glass
    17:21:36 Ecco the Dolphin at high temperature the glass tube would become for all intents and purposes
    a filament lamp and seeing through it would be pretty much impossible
    17:24:31 pelgrim108 you can see the corona of the sun when the moon is in front of it,
    and what about welders mask?
    17:26:41 Ecco the Dolphin the glass on a welder’s mask isn’t incandescent
    17:27:14 incandescent glass isn’t transparent
    17:27:39 you can’t see through it
    17:31:56 yep in retrospect I guess the light bulb example wasn’t the best
    17:33:49 I was thinking at how glass looks in glass working
    17:34:26 pelgrim108 incandescent glass isnt transparent -> thanks, didnt know that, what a shame
    17:36:49 I was hoping to see some LENR flickering
    17:52:47 Denis, thanks for getting the reactor into the view
    17:59:40 Denis Vasilenko It is necessary to restart the recording
    18:00:26 me356 no problem
    18:11:39 pelgrim108
    18:12:09 sorry wrong one
    18:12:12
    18:15:11 Denis Vasilenko Please see, okay broadcast?
    18:15:34 There are problems with the provider
    18:16:38 AlainCo nb: I updated the youtube video… hope it is good
    18:17:27 pelgrim108 Only placeholder image of black cat
    18:21:15 Now we see empty avatar
    18:27:40 Denis Vasilenko
    18:27:55 restart
    18:28:14 pelgrim108 restart now has black cat
    18:28:16 td42100 it’s ok
    18:28:26 pelgrim108 yes ok now
    18:30:10 td42100 we’re going to hate this cat ! ^^
    18:30:36 pelgrim108 lol
    18:31:26 Denis Vasilenko The provider said the accident on the line
    18:31:53 The network is, but the record does not show
    18:33:16 AlainCo updated to the new cat 😉
    18:33:31 Denis Vasilenko The temperature of the reactor do not touch, you have to restart your computer
    18:34:14 me356 it takes approx 1 minute for youtube to show the camera stream.
    18:34:37 You have to configure correctly camera each time you are starting live stream.
    18:35:57 td42100 still not plug’n play in 2015
    18:40:20 Denis Vasilenko
    18:41:50 td42100 ok for now
    18:45:54 is it possible to move the cam? screens are not well displayed
    18:47:15 thank you, it’s much better
    19:02:27 me356 From last Parkhomov report we know that he observed excess heat from approx. 700°C
    19:08:21 pelgrim108 550 Watt 900C
    19:17:37 GlowFish What is the pressure now according to the meter?
    19:23:28 me356 It seems as 1bar for me.
    19:28:25 Denis Vasilenko: Do you know current for 900°C without fuel?
    19:39:05 Majorana Hey everyone, one idea to prevent hydrogen leakage could be to use a tantalum tube.
    19:40:17 melting point above 3000°C and chemically inert
    19:40:38 the material is commonly used in metallurgy
    19:42:07 GlowFish Tantalum is used in some electronics isn’t it?
    I thought that it was uncommon hence quite expensive.
    19:43:23 Majorana It is used in 95% of all capacitors
    19:43:32 me356 Yes, it is used in capacitors very often.
    19:43:54 Majorana Yes, it is very expensive.
    19:44:04 rare earth material
    19:44:24 But it’s properties would be perfect for our purpose
    19:45:34 Tarun looks like the max voltage 230V is reached
    19:46:20 Denis Vasilenko 22.3V and 2.9A
    19:46:54 Tarun oh i couldn’t see the point 😀
    19:47:06 plenty to go
    19:48:36 penswrite temp. spike to 1000?
    19:48:53 GlowFish Instead of tantlum, why not a thick graphite tube?
    19:49:03 *tantalum
    19:49:05 Tarun pens, he set the target temp
    19:49:16 to 1000
    19:49:25 penswrite ah. thanks.
    19:50:12 Denis Vasilenko 1000C has established as the limit for the thermostat
    in the event of a sharp rise in temperature
    19:50:33 Tarun so the question is – will we see a reduction in power now ?
    19:50:53 65W was last
    19:52:58 penswrite Thank you, Denis. Best wishes for that sharp rise in temperature!
    19:53:14 Denis Vasilenko I hope to see it, though, and did not pursue this goal by running an experiment
    19:53:41 GlowFish Ah nvm. While graphite doesn’t melt until very high temperatures,
    it strats burning in oxygen at 700C
    19:54:55 Majorana I also thought about a metal as tantalum because of it’s density and
    thus higher resistance against diffusion of hydrogen at high temperatures

    19:55:06 penswrite It is fun to experience your experiment, in real time,
    with a mutual audience. Kudos.
    19:56:13 GlowFish Pressure hasn’t changed for the looks of it
    19:56:48 me356 I think that to achieve Rossi efect we do not need any special
    EM signal after reviewing some videos of Rossi reactors
    19:57:44 Majorana That would be great. But this would mean that Rossi was
    either lying to us (trying to disinform us) or he was to some
    extent not aware of the properties of his own setup
    19:58:26 Because he definitely said that “specific electromagnetic pulses are needed”
    19:58:58 penswrite Here’s hoping that his “secret sauce” doesn’t include special hidden wires.
    19:59:26 Majorana hehehe
    19:59:44 me356 well, he is mostly using Triac based controllers.
    Just some off-the-shelf boxes, where you can set power to the heater.
    20:00:20 Majorana But then we also have to conclude:
    Probably we don’t even have to heat with electricity right?

    • pelgrim108

      Part 2 of the chat

      20:00:32 GlowFish In what way do the video’s suggest that no EM signal is created?
      20:00:45 me356 Maybe this specific pulse is AC + thyristor-like behavior.
      20:02:14 And actually AC power can play with Nickel somehow.
      20:02:20 Tarun Parkhomov, if you believe him, got it working without any EMs,
      he even got it working in a faraday cage last time. (Steel tube)
      20:03:05 me356 As it is magnetic material until curie temperature.
      20:03:30 so this can start the reaction or prepare nickel for it.
      20:03:34 Majorana right, and Nickel curie temperature is about 350°C.
      20:04:40 GlowFish Really expected a pressure rise by now.
      20:05:39 Tarun Those who think that special frequency or fields are needed are misguided,
      but I’d keep the option open, who knows. We know the Brilloiun Q-pulse works…
      20:05:40 me356 I think that reaction is not that special as it seems,
      but correct circumstances are required.
      20:06:24 as Rossi said, pressure is the key factor.
      20:06:46 And Rossi reactors are quite prepared for high pressures.
      20:07:07 And small leakage as it seems.
      20:08:15 Tarun If you check the Rossi’s patent, he uses simple gating of ordinary AC power.
      There is a good picture in his patent, that shows how he
      keeps it exactly at the operating point.
      20:08:16 me356 From one video it is visible that heater coil is probably
      even not in a distance of the reactor core in gas powered e-cat.
      20:08:27 penswrite me356: did you open your last reactor?
      20:09:06 me356 no, I am waiting few days so the pressure can decrease.
      20:10:32 penswrite ok. some worries about breathing dust/fumes, on the blogs…be safe
      20:10:39 Tarun me356, remember that the pressure is only an indication of loading ratio,
      which is the magic spell in my opinion
      20:11:19 Rossi somwhows achieves a 100% or more loading ratio
      20:11:27 somehow
      20:12:20 BEC Loading of what? the Fe, Ni, Li, Al???
      Will you get ICP-MS performed on the ash after the experment?
      20:12:39 me356 penswrite: I will, thanks.
      20:13:06 Tarun loading of H2
      20:14:40 me356 I think that there are two phases for starting the reaction with hotcat,
      while with gas e-cat there is just one.
      20:15:56 pelgrim108 @ Me356 do you have a link to info about gas E-Cat
      20:16:15 me356 First is to get H2 in max possible concentration
      and then to couple it with Nickel.
      20:16:43 But it must be done in a proper ratio I guess.
      20:16:52 pelgrim108 @ Me356 because what your saying is all new to me
      20:17:14 BEC Most interested in 63:65Cu ratio and any appearance
      of or increase of Si as Al+n->28Si.
      And 100% H2 into which elements? ratios of H2 to Fe, Ni, Li, Al…
      Don’t think it is possible to get 1:1 HNi
      20:17:30 me356 I have observed it from many videos from Youtube.
      20:17:37 GlowFish A gas e-cat? Then no electric heater and no EM?
      20:17:47 me356 There is electric heater
      20:18:18 GlowFish Oh, you mean H2 gas as fuel not for gas burning purposes.
      20:18:19 me356 That can heat for approx 150°C, but is running mostly around 120°C
      20:18:48 pelgrim108 gas = h2/H ?
      20:19:18 or propane
      20:20:55 What you call gas-E-Cat is probably what we cal
      Low Temperature E-Cat or LT-E-Cat
      20:21:49 me356 Yes, it is gas powered e-cat
      20:22:01 Naming convention is quite strange with e-cat.
      20:22:10 pelgrim108 There is also the Gas E-Cat but we have only 1 lousy photo from that
      20:22:31 Tarun no pelgrim, gas cat works with gas for heating
      20:22:42 me356 1 photo?
      20:22:53 pelgrim108 Thats what I know
      20:23:09 me356 Actually I know exactly how it looks like.
      20:23:12 GlowFish if thats the case then thats the point. if gas is used for heating
      then is there something else add to supply EM if it is
      required to start the reaction?
      20:24:08 Is the pressure gauge working? I haven’t seen it change all that much.
      20:24:09 Tarun i do not know….
      20:24:19 StephenC Are the voltage fluctuations expected?
      20:24:44 pelgrim108 Please give me some links to the gas powered E-Cat
      and I will beat AlainCo as the scoop meister
      20:25:04 🙂
      20:26:25 GlowFish http://www.e-catworld.com
      /2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/
      20:26:33 Quick google search.
      20:27:09 Denis Vasilenko Pressure unchanged
      20:27:47 I think, though quartz is not suitable for operation with hydrogen
      20:27:47 me356 I will try to find some links. Altough I though first e-cat that
      uses electric heater but is running with Hydrogen + Nickel directly.
      20:28:57 GlowFish Unless the pressure gauge tube got blocked by something.
      20:29:17 pelgrim108 @ Glowfish thanks but no pictures or video there,
      I know of only 1 picture
      20:29:27 @ Me356 thanks
      20:31:15 me356
      20:32:19 actually it look like car exhaust with gauges
      20:32:24 Denis Vasilenko I hear the small crackle of the reactor
      20:32:41 me356 thats sad
      20:33:57 Denis Vasilenko I will try to lower the temperature to 900 ° C
      20:34:42 Ecco the Dolphin at high temperature the glass should start to soften
      20:35:19 since pressure is 1 bar, it seems weird to me that
      it would be cracking
      20:36:10 so perhaps could it be something else?
      20:36:24 pelgrim108 @ me356 thats the LT -E-Cat, heat comes frome electric heating coil
      20:37:24 me356 yes
      20:38:21 pelgrim108 @ me356 well that cleared up then 🙂
      20:51:19 me356 MFMP got very high pressures each time altough no excess heat occured.
      Do you remember what circuit was used for the heater? SSR?
      21:00:21 pelgrim108 I assume that your asking me, and I dont know.
      21:01:00 Majorana Hm.. i have a technical question:
      If not more than, say, 1kW of electrical power ist required for
      all our experiments. Couldn’t one use an own generator running on gasoline?
      21:01:48 Maybe then the voltage stability would be better.
      21:10:06 StephenC Is it my imagination or do we have more and larger
      voltage fluctuations above about 980 degrees C?
      21:11:40 me356 I think that voltage stability is not big problem.
      Reaction should occur in wide temperature range
      21:12:09 I think that there is rather chemical issue than electric.
      21:12:31 With all our unsuccesfull experiments.
      21:13:33 StephenC Ok I was just curious about the behaviour but
      I might have been seeing fluctuations that were always there
      21:15:50 me356 in lugano report we can see fluctuations altough it is quite symmetric
      21:16:08 so the temperature is changing all the time
      21:23:13 StephenC Thanks me, just another quick question. If the hydrogen has leaked
      through the Quartz would we expect a pressure drop
      as the temperature is decreased? I suppose it would be harder for
      the surrounding gas to be absorbed than the Hydrogen?
      21:26:13 Ecco the Dolphin stephenC: yes, definitely
      21:26:47 if hydrogen has leaked away but air is not entering the cell,
      pressure should drop significantly below atmospheric pressure
      21:26:54 once the reactor has cooled down.
      21:27:41 if it remains at 0 bar relative (1 bar absolute) it means the
      leak was very large (so large that air is able to enter the cell)
      or that the pressure sensor is malfunctioning
      21:28:26 StephenC Thanks Ecco, that will be interesting to see… Later of course 😉
      21:28:37 Ecco the Dolphin with no pressure difference from ambient temperature,
      I believe it should be safe to increase temperatures further
      21:28:42 *from ambient pressure
      21:29:39 however there might be risks of shattering on cooldown
      21:29:51 if the heater suddenly stops working/burns out
      21:31:33 Denis Vasilenko Update link please
      https://mega.co.nz/#F!OYI1zDoK!3Z5ICjog31VQeYKcf8Cn9Q
      21:46:16 me356 I think that we should be able to determine
      excess heat from 700°C quite well.
      It should be there if Parkhomov measurement is right.
      21:48:19 Denis Vasilenko May 18 will be doing an experiment identical Parkhomov
      21:49:52 The ceramic tube and nickel Parkhomov
      21:50:53 me356 Perfect
      21:51:11 I will be doing next test very soon too.
      21:53:20 StephenC Great. I’m looking forward to both tests.
      I like the little sun too though.
      21:58:21 Denis Vasilenko I’m going to 1200C
      21:58:43 internal temperature
      22:01:02 Ecco the Dolphin @denis: are you taking note of voltage and current?
      22:01:24 me356 all is recorded on the video
      22:01:26 Ecco the Dolphin *logging
      22:01:58 me356: true but it will take a bit of work to
      go through the data that way
      22:02:23 penswrite @Denis: maybe you could give a tap to the face of the pressure gauge?
      (Seems to work in old WWII submarine movies.)
      22:06:32 Denis Vasilenko Nichrome inside the tube, which is not covered with a red-hot like a powder
      22:07:10 I think the thread Nichrome begins to disintegrate
      22:08:18 After 5 minutes, I stop the experiment is not yet burned thread

  • pelgrim108

    Here is the part of the experiment chat. I will remove this comment on request.
    I have edited out some links and other stuff because of problems.

    11:14:59 David Great!
    11:16:18 I ask again because I think many people wonder.
    What time would you guess that we reach 1000 c ?
    11:16:25 timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone/utc
    11:16:36 UTC time zone
    11:17:42 Denis Vasilenko 21-22 UTC
    11:18:30 David Thx 🙂
    11:26:22 keV Hi Denis – Good luck – we are learning a lot from these live open tests
    – you rep guys are top geezers (that’s a compliment by the way)
    11:36:08 Mark Saker Hello, seems a new replication every day. great news 🙂
    12:07:39 Osmo Laaksonen :thumbsup:
    12:09:43 Tarun Hi Denis and all :thumbup:
    12:10:19 I guess its just started. Is it a calibration run ?
    12:12:08 Denis Vasilenko Started, all interesting will think after 200C
    12:15:17 Tarun Are you providing the data in your online spreadsheet ?
    12:15:27
    12:17:01 Denis Vasilenko While it is very difficult to capture data due to low resistance spiral
    12:19:05 As heat stabilized, I certainly will write the sensor readings
    12:19:19 Tarun thanks 🙂
    12:26:42 Peter Gluck Privet dear Denis! What is your experiment plan including heat up speed
    12:28:51 and maximum temperature you can attain?
    I consider experiment in quartz, inert as very relevant, Wish you succcess! Peter
    12:41:33 Denis Vasilenko Hi! Maximum plan to do 1000C, but if lucky, and the 1100C, in time of the 21-22 UTC
    13:06:51 pelgrim108 Privet Denis. Is radiation measured?
    13:13:08 Denis Vasilenko Yes, SI8B detector
    13:15:30 135C and 0,75 bar
    13:19:05 Neil Farbstein I have been looking for parters to test an LENR recation that is a little different than
    the experiments Parkomov and Rossi performed.
    It requires the same equipment and substantially the same
    starting reactants- Nickel and LiAlH4.
    It is based on a theory I have detailed in my pending patent.
    Please contact me at ##############
    13:20:16 Denis Vasilenko Above the reactor there is a faint smell of LiAlH4 may seem,
    but the pressure is growing properly
    13:25:10 You, too, have seen the racing pressure and temperature?
    13:27:04 7 bar and a temperature of about 300?
    13:29:20
    13:40:27 me356 Hi
    13:40:45 Good job, I am very glad for each replication effort!
    13:40:54 Denis Vasilenko It appears the first portion of the hydrogen react with the air
    13:43:48 me356 Is pressure 1bar right now?
    13:44:54 Denis Vasilenko It fell to atmospheric level
    13:45:53 me356 thanks.
    13:46:05 What sealing do you use on the ends of the tube?
    13:47:42 Denis Vasilenko Cement used Parkhomov and further epoxy resin
    13:52:04 I begin to raise the temperature to the decomposition of lithium hydride
    13:53:56 Tarun pressure is not rising again, can it be a leak ?
    13:55:41 Denis Vasilenko Perhaps will check exactly with the further expansion of LiAlH4
    13:56:48 I noticed a pressure drop of about -0.1bar
    13:59:21
    14:02:14 310?, -0.2 bar!!!
    14:03:38 Tarun if pressure spiked to 7 bar and back to 0, in 1 sec, it is unusual
    14:04:25 Denis Vasilenko And ~ 0.3 Sv
    14:06:16
    14:06:55 Updating photos in mega.co.nz
    14:09:16 Ecco the Dolphin hydrogen might have leaked away
    14:10:09 which might not be a completely bad thing
    14:10:39 some should still be in the cell, just at a low pressure
    14:11:37 0.3 Sv??
    14:12:16 Tarun why didn’t the air leak in to make it 0 again ?
    14:12:43 me356 If I am not wrong, pressure shouldn’t be 0 there.
    14:12:51 If so, then it is vacuum.
    14:12:51 Denis Vasilenko Yes, for about 10 minutes as the
    pressure has fallen rose reading dosimeter
    14:13:04 Ecco the Dolphin because hydrogen is a very small molecule.
    if hydrogen can leak out, air (oxygen, nitrogen)
    might not necessarily enter the cell
    14:13:14 this happened very often in early MFMP experiments
    14:13:31 sometimes pressure dropped as low as 0.3-0.4 bar (absolute)
    14:14:11 denis: 0.3 Sv is a dangerously high value, are you sure of this
    14:16:42 Denis Vasilenko Few probably wrong 30mkrh
    14:17:13 If natural background 18
    14:18:08 Now average 19-21 micro-roentgen per hour
    14:18:53 Tarun me356, if you rewind back to start, it started at 0 bar,
    so may be its a comparative pressure. 0 = 1 atm
    14:20:14 me356 Ah, nice.
    14:25:07 Tarun ecco, hopefully …. if i remember right,
    in mfmp test the pressure rose very slowly,
    in hours perhaps. not in secs, ?(
    14:26:17 Ecco the Dolphin Tarun: I mean in other experiments (Celani replications).
    Hydrogen can leak away without air entering back
    14:27:02 Denis Vasilenko I think that’s all because of nano nickel, catalyst above its capacity
    14:27:44 pelgrim108 Nice touch with the teaser alumina tube in the view ^^
    14:29:25 Ecco the Dolphin btw, mkR/h means “microroentgens per hour”.
    14:29:56 30 microroentgen/hour = 0.0003 millisievert/hour
    14:30:30 Denis Vasilenko Thank you, I made a mistake in counting
    14:30:42 Tarun ecco, i see, denis is also using glass, that may be the reason…
    14:42:34 Denis Vasilenko Pressure is almost back to normal
    15:11:41 me356 I wish that there will be excess heat today 🙂
    15:25:37 Ecco the Dolphin @denis: since pressure has dropped so much,
    have your plans on heating changed?
    15:25:37 pelgrim108 How do you know if hydrogen leaks? Pressure only?
    15:26:49 Ecco the Dolphin pressure or combustible gas detector
    15:34:24 pelgrim108 Can it already be concluded that the sealing at the ends leaked?
    15:42:33 Tarun cooling down… i guess plan changed
    15:46:09 pelgrim108 Power to the coil is still the same and setpoint is unchanged
    15:46:17 at 681
    15:46:54 Power a little higher now and temp raising
    15:47:41 No movement of pressure needle, what does that mean?
    15:47:57 Tarun sorry i accidently rewind the video 😛
    15:48:21 pelgrim108 lol 😀
    15:49:17 Tarun no pressure increase or decrease can mean a leak
    15:49:46 pelgrim108 Yes it looks like it stays at atmospheric
    15:52:33 So if it leaks at the ends,
    then the question if quartz im permeable for hydrogen
    can not be anwered in this test
    ( thats my uneducated guess :whistling: )
    15:52:49 im = is
    15:54:14 Tarun i guess, at this time, we dont know if its diffusing through the
    glass or there is a crack
    15:55:37 pelgrim108 ok, thanks Tarun
    15:56:35 StephenC Did the amp meter stop working.
    15:57:10 pelgrim108 yes
    15:57:20 and temp is falling
    15:57:54 amp meter back up
    15:58:14 total power is lower now
    16:00:22 Denis, can you write somthing so that we know you are still OK?
    16:03:21 Denis Vasilenko Gradually I begin to take 800?
    16:04:12 The pressure is normal, the radiation OK
    16:06:11 me356 We still don’t know what pressure is correct for the process,
    how much hydrogen we need, etc.
    So basically we can’t make any conclusions.
    16:10:12 Ecco the Dolphin there are indications that people who obtained
    excess heat, Parkhomov included, had
    pressure decreasing below atmospheric
    16:11:26 Denis Vasilenko Soon will begin the expansion of lithium hydride
    16:15:11 The pressure slowly went up
    17:12:25 Ecco the Dolphin with all that light radiating, I think this configuration
    is a bit inefficient. What about (in future tests) inserting
    the quartz tube inside a mirror polished steel tube? This would
    also allow you to measure reactor temperatures indirectly
    (on the steel tube surface). If you close both ends of this steel
    tube with insulating material, then you would force heat to come
    out of the outside surface and you would have a conduction calorimeter.
    17:13:16 See this too :

    17:17:31 pelgrim108 You maybe can see the little LENR oompa loompas at work through the glass
    17:21:36 Ecco the Dolphin at high temperature the glass tube would become for all intents and purposes
    a filament lamp and seeing through it would be pretty much impossible
    17:24:31 pelgrim108 you can see the corona of the sun when the moon is in front of it,
    and what about welders mask?
    17:26:41 Ecco the Dolphin the glass on a welder’s mask isn’t incandescent
    17:27:14 incandescent glass isn’t transparent
    17:27:39 you can’t see through it
    17:31:56 yep in retrospect I guess the light bulb example wasn’t the best
    17:33:49 I was thinking at how glass looks in glass working
    17:34:26 pelgrim108 incandescent glass isnt transparent -> thanks, didnt know that, what a shame
    17:36:49 I was hoping to see some LENR flickering
    17:52:47 Denis, thanks for getting the reactor into the view
    17:59:40 Denis Vasilenko It is necessary to restart the recording
    18:00:26 me356 no problem
    18:11:39 pelgrim108
    18:12:09 sorry wrong one
    18:12:12
    18:15:11 Denis Vasilenko Please see, okay broadcast?
    18:15:34 There are problems with the provider
    18:16:38 AlainCo nb: I updated the youtube video… hope it is good
    18:17:27 pelgrim108 Only placeholder image of black cat
    18:21:15 Now we see empty avatar
    18:27:40 Denis Vasilenko
    18:27:55 restart
    18:28:14 pelgrim108 restart now has black cat
    18:28:16 td42100 it’s ok
    18:28:26 pelgrim108 yes ok now
    18:30:10 td42100 we’re going to hate this cat ! ^^
    18:30:36 pelgrim108 lol
    18:31:26 Denis Vasilenko The provider said the accident on the line
    18:31:53 The network is, but the record does not show
    18:33:16 AlainCo updated to the new cat 😉
    18:33:31 Denis Vasilenko The temperature of the reactor do not touch, you have to restart your computer
    18:34:14 me356 it takes approx 1 minute for youtube to show the camera stream.
    18:34:37 You have to configure correctly camera each time you are starting live stream.
    18:35:57 td42100 still not plug’n play in 2015
    18:40:20 Denis Vasilenko
    18:41:50 td42100 ok for now
    18:45:54 is it possible to move the cam? screens are not well displayed
    18:47:15 thank you, it’s much better
    19:02:27 me356 From last Parkhomov report we know that he observed excess heat from approx. 700°C
    19:08:21 pelgrim108 550 Watt 900C
    19:17:37 GlowFish What is the pressure now according to the meter?
    19:23:28 me356 It seems as 1bar for me.
    19:28:25 Denis Vasilenko: Do you know current for 900°C without fuel?
    19:39:05 Majorana Hey everyone, one idea to prevent hydrogen leakage could be to use a tantalum tube.
    19:40:17 melting point above 3000°C and chemically inert
    19:40:38 the material is commonly used in metallurgy
    19:42:07 GlowFish Tantalum is used in some electronics isn’t it?
    I thought that it was uncommon hence quite expensive.
    19:43:23 Majorana It is used in 95% of all capacitors
    19:43:32 me356 Yes, it is used in capacitors very often.
    19:43:54 Majorana Yes, it is very expensive.
    19:44:04 rare earth material
    19:44:24 But it’s properties would be perfect for our purpose
    19:45:34 Tarun looks like the max voltage 230V is reached
    19:46:20 Denis Vasilenko 22.3V and 2.9A
    19:46:54 Tarun oh i couldn’t see the point 😀
    19:47:06 plenty to go
    19:48:36 penswrite temp. spike to 1000?
    19:48:53 GlowFish Instead of tantlum, why not a thick graphite tube?
    19:49:03 *tantalum
    19:49:05 Tarun pens, he set the target temp
    19:49:16 to 1000
    19:49:25 penswrite ah. thanks.
    19:50:12 Denis Vasilenko 1000C has established as the limit for the thermostat
    in the event of a sharp rise in temperature
    19:50:33 Tarun so the question is – will we see a reduction in power now ?
    19:50:53 65W was last
    19:52:58 penswrite Thank you, Denis. Best wishes for that sharp rise in temperature!
    19:53:14 Denis Vasilenko I hope to see it, though, and did not pursue this goal by running an experiment
    19:53:41 GlowFish Ah nvm. While graphite doesn’t melt until very high temperatures,
    it strats burning in oxygen at 700C
    19:54:55 Majorana I also thought about a metal as tantalum because of it’s density and
    thus higher resistance against diffusion of hydrogen at high temperatures

    19:55:06 penswrite It is fun to experience your experiment, in real time,
    with a mutual audience. Kudos.
    19:56:13 GlowFish Pressure hasn’t changed for the looks of it
    19:56:48 me356 I think that to achieve Rossi efect we do not need any special
    EM signal after reviewing some videos of Rossi reactors
    19:57:44 Majorana That would be great. But this would mean that Rossi was
    either lying to us (trying to disinform us) or he was to some
    extent not aware of the properties of his own setup
    19:58:26 Because he definitely said that “specific electromagnetic pulses are needed”
    19:58:58 penswrite Here’s hoping that his “secret sauce” doesn’t include special hidden wires.
    19:59:26 Majorana hehehe
    19:59:44 me356 well, he is mostly using Triac based controllers.
    Just some off-the-shelf boxes, where you can set power to the heater.
    20:00:20 Majorana But then we also have to conclude:
    Probably we don’t even have to heat with electricity right?

    • pelgrim108

      Part 2 of the chat

      20:00:32 GlowFish In what way do the video’s suggest that no EM signal is created?
      20:00:45 me356 Maybe this specific pulse is AC + thyristor-like behavior.
      20:02:14 And actually AC power can play with Nickel somehow.
      20:02:20 Tarun Parkhomov, if you believe him, got it working without any EMs,
      he even got it working in a faraday cage last time. (Steel tube)
      20:03:05 me356 As it is magnetic material until curie temperature.
      20:03:30 so this can start the reaction or prepare nickel for it.
      20:03:34 Majorana right, and Nickel curie temperature is about 350°C.
      20:04:40 GlowFish Really expected a pressure rise by now.
      20:05:39 Tarun Those who think that special frequency or fields are needed are misguided,
      but I’d keep the option open, who knows. We know the Brilloiun Q-pulse works…
      20:05:40 me356 I think that reaction is not that special as it seems,
      but correct circumstances are required.
      20:06:24 as Rossi said, pressure is the key factor.
      20:06:46 And Rossi reactors are quite prepared for high pressures.
      20:07:07 And small leakage as it seems.
      20:08:15 Tarun If you check the Rossi’s patent, he uses simple gating of ordinary AC power.
      There is a good picture in his patent, that shows how he
      keeps it exactly at the operating point.
      20:08:16 me356 From one video it is visible that heater coil is probably
      even not in a distance of the reactor core in gas powered e-cat.
      20:08:27 penswrite me356: did you open your last reactor?
      20:09:06 me356 no, I am waiting few days so the pressure can decrease.
      20:10:32 penswrite ok. some worries about breathing dust/fumes, on the blogs…be safe
      20:10:39 Tarun me356, remember that the pressure is only an indication of loading ratio,
      which is the magic spell in my opinion
      20:11:19 Rossi somwhows achieves a 100% or more loading ratio
      20:11:27 somehow
      20:12:20 BEC Loading of what? the Fe, Ni, Li, Al???
      Will you get ICP-MS performed on the ash after the experment?
      20:12:39 me356 penswrite: I will, thanks.
      20:13:06 Tarun loading of H2
      20:14:40 me356 I think that there are two phases for starting the reaction with hotcat,
      while with gas e-cat there is just one.
      20:15:56 pelgrim108 @ Me356 do you have a link to info about gas E-Cat
      20:16:15 me356 First is to get H2 in max possible concentration
      and then to couple it with Nickel.
      20:16:43 But it must be done in a proper ratio I guess.
      20:16:52 pelgrim108 @ Me356 because what your saying is all new to me
      20:17:14 BEC Most interested in 63:65Cu ratio and any appearance
      of or increase of Si as Al+n->28Si.
      And 100% H2 into which elements? ratios of H2 to Fe, Ni, Li, Al…
      Don’t think it is possible to get 1:1 HNi
      20:17:30 me356 I have observed it from many videos from Youtube.
      20:17:37 GlowFish A gas e-cat? Then no electric heater and no EM?
      20:17:47 me356 There is electric heater
      20:18:18 GlowFish Oh, you mean H2 gas as fuel not for gas burning purposes.
      20:18:19 me356 That can heat for approx 150°C, but is running mostly around 120°C
      20:18:48 pelgrim108 gas = h2/H ?
      20:19:18 or propane
      20:20:55 What you call gas-E-Cat is probably what we cal
      Low Temperature E-Cat or LT-E-Cat
      20:21:49 me356 Yes, it is gas powered e-cat
      20:22:01 Naming convention is quite strange with e-cat.
      20:22:10 pelgrim108 There is also the Gas E-Cat but we have only 1 lousy photo from that
      20:22:31 Tarun no pelgrim, gas cat works with gas for heating
      20:22:42 me356 1 photo?
      20:22:53 pelgrim108 Thats what I know
      20:23:09 me356 Actually I know exactly how it looks like.
      20:23:12 GlowFish if thats the case then thats the point. if gas is used for heating
      then is there something else add to supply EM if it is
      required to start the reaction?
      20:24:08 Is the pressure gauge working? I haven’t seen it change all that much.
      20:24:09 Tarun i do not know….
      20:24:19 StephenC Are the voltage fluctuations expected?
      20:24:44 pelgrim108 Please give me some links to the gas powered E-Cat
      and I will beat AlainCo as the scoop meister
      20:25:04 🙂
      20:26:25 GlowFish http://www.e-catworld.com
      /2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/
      20:26:33 Quick google search.
      20:27:09 Denis Vasilenko Pressure unchanged
      20:27:47 I think, though quartz is not suitable for operation with hydrogen
      20:27:47 me356 I will try to find some links. Altough I though first e-cat that
      uses electric heater but is running with Hydrogen + Nickel directly.
      20:28:57 GlowFish Unless the pressure gauge tube got blocked by something.
      20:29:17 pelgrim108 @ Glowfish thanks but no pictures or video there,
      I know of only 1 picture
      20:29:27 @ Me356 thanks
      20:31:15 me356
      20:32:19 actually it look like car exhaust with gauges
      20:32:24 Denis Vasilenko I hear the small crackle of the reactor
      20:32:41 me356 thats sad
      20:33:57 Denis Vasilenko I will try to lower the temperature to 900 ° C
      20:34:42 Ecco the Dolphin at high temperature the glass should start to soften
      20:35:19 since pressure is 1 bar, it seems weird to me that
      it would be cracking
      20:36:10 so perhaps could it be something else?
      20:36:24 pelgrim108 @ me356 thats the LT -E-Cat, heat comes frome electric heating coil
      20:37:24 me356 yes
      20:38:21 pelgrim108 @ me356 well that cleared up then 🙂
      20:51:19 me356 MFMP got very high pressures each time altough no excess heat occured.
      Do you remember what circuit was used for the heater? SSR?
      21:00:21 pelgrim108 I assume that your asking me, and I dont know.
      21:01:00 Majorana Hm.. i have a technical question:
      If not more than, say, 1kW of electrical power ist required for
      all our experiments. Couldn’t one use an own generator running on gasoline?
      21:01:48 Maybe then the voltage stability would be better.
      21:10:06 StephenC Is it my imagination or do we have more and larger
      voltage fluctuations above about 980 degrees C?
      21:11:40 me356 I think that voltage stability is not big problem.
      Reaction should occur in wide temperature range
      21:12:09 I think that there is rather chemical issue than electric.
      21:12:31 With all our unsuccesfull experiments.
      21:13:33 StephenC Ok I was just curious about the behaviour but
      I might have been seeing fluctuations that were always there
      21:15:50 me356 in lugano report we can see fluctuations altough it is quite symmetric
      21:16:08 so the temperature is changing all the time
      21:23:13 StephenC Thanks me, just another quick question. If the hydrogen has leaked
      through the Quartz would we expect a pressure drop
      as the temperature is decreased? I suppose it would be harder for
      the surrounding gas to be absorbed than the Hydrogen?
      21:26:13 Ecco the Dolphin stephenC: yes, definitely
      21:26:47 if hydrogen has leaked away but air is not entering the cell,
      pressure should drop significantly below atmospheric pressure
      21:26:54 once the reactor has cooled down.
      21:27:41 if it remains at 0 bar relative (1 bar absolute) it means the
      leak was very large (so large that air is able to enter the cell)
      or that the pressure sensor is malfunctioning
      21:28:26 StephenC Thanks Ecco, that will be interesting to see… Later of course 😉
      21:28:37 Ecco the Dolphin with no pressure difference from ambient temperature,
      I believe it should be safe to increase temperatures further
      21:28:42 *from ambient pressure
      21:29:39 however there might be risks of shattering on cooldown
      21:29:51 if the heater suddenly stops working/burns out
      21:31:33 Denis Vasilenko Update link please
      https://mega.co.nz/#F!OYI1zDoK!3Z5ICjog31VQeYKcf8Cn9Q
      21:46:16 me356 I think that we should be able to determine
      excess heat from 700°C quite well.
      It should be there if Parkhomov measurement is right.
      21:48:19 Denis Vasilenko May 18 will be doing an experiment identical Parkhomov
      21:49:52 The ceramic tube and nickel Parkhomov
      21:50:53 me356 Perfect
      21:51:11 I will be doing next test very soon too.
      21:53:20 StephenC Great. I’m looking forward to both tests.
      I like the little sun too though.
      21:58:21 Denis Vasilenko I’m going to 1200C
      21:58:43 internal temperature
      22:01:02 Ecco the Dolphin @denis: are you taking note of voltage and current?
      22:01:24 me356 all is recorded on the video
      22:01:26 Ecco the Dolphin *logging
      22:01:58 me356: true but it will take a bit of work to
      go through the data that way
      22:02:23 penswrite @Denis: maybe you could give a tap to the face of the pressure gauge?
      (Seems to work in old WWII submarine movies.)
      22:06:32 Denis Vasilenko Nichrome inside the tube, which is not covered with a red-hot like a powder
      22:07:10 I think the thread Nichrome begins to disintegrate
      22:08:18 After 5 minutes, I stop the experiment is not yet burned thread

  • pelgrim108

    On LENR fourum Firax answered a question from Barty on the conclusions of this test.

    Conclusions after the experiments with quartz – quartz does not fit or
    use the tube with very thick walls. The entire reactor tube can be seen a
    large number of microcracks. Inside there is fragile white coating that
    is likely the result of reaction of the fuel with quartz. The spiral of
    nichrome covered with solid white microspots, pleasant to the touch, is
    likely the result of the reaction with hydrogen.

    It was the last experiment with quartz, now has 20 of ceramic tubes brands С799.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4692#post4692

  • pelgrim108

    On LENR fourum Firax answered a question from Barty on the conclusions of this test.

    Conclusions after the experiments with quartz – quartz does not fit or
    use the tube with very thick walls. The entire reactor tube can be seen a
    large number of microcracks. Inside there is fragile white coating that
    is likely the result of reaction of the fuel with quartz. The spiral of
    nichrome covered with solid white microspots, pleasant to the touch, is
    likely the result of the reaction with hydrogen.

    It was the last experiment with quartz, now has 20 of ceramic tubes brands С799.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4692#post4692
    .
    .
    .

  • Mike Henderson

    Denis Vasilenko has finished assembling the new reactor with ceramic tubing and will conduct a run on 23-May.

    http://vk.com/firaxtech

    Protip: VK is the primary social networking site in Russia. Use Google Chrome with the Translate extension.

  • Mike Henderson

    Denis Vasilenko has finished assembling the new reactor with ceramic tubing and will conduct a run on 23-May.

    http://vk.com/firaxtech

    Protip: VK is the primary social networking site in Russia. Use Google Chrome with the Translate extension.

  • Mike Henderson

    Vasilenko’s test is delayed per the following post to NK.com

    Denis Vasilenko

    Hoping to stop talking about politics (I myself am against any policy in this regard, I am of the opinion Jacque Fresco) I want to apologize for the delay in the launch. Because of problems with his power meter had to go after the other to the other end of the city, what to spend more than 5 hours on the road back and forth, but the trip I thought how to check the excess heat the most obvious way. I connect in series (thus increasing the resistance, good impact on the smooth heating) to the reactor empty cell with exactly the same spiral, and will monitor the temperature at the same time both reactors. But we need more time to build a second reactor (or rather in sealing a spiral, otherwise it will be enough for a few days) and the calibration of the thermocouple. With any luck, I will run at night, but probably it would be better to postpone the next morning, without undue haste.

    one hour ago

  • Mike Henderson

    Vasilenko’s test is delayed per the following post to NK.com

    Denis Vasilenko

    Hoping to stop talking about politics (I myself am against any policy in this regard, I am of the opinion Jacque Fresco) I want to apologize for the delay in the launch. Because of problems with his power meter had to go after the other to the other end of the city, what to spend more than 5 hours on the road back and forth, but the trip I thought how to check the excess heat the most obvious way. I connect in series (thus increasing the resistance, good impact on the smooth heating) to the reactor empty cell with exactly the same spiral, and will monitor the temperature at the same time both reactors. But we need more time to build a second reactor (or rather in sealing a spiral, otherwise it will be enough for a few days) and the calibration of the thermocouple. With any luck, I will run at night, but probably it would be better to postpone the next morning, without undue haste.

    one hour ago

  • pelgrim108

    New live experiment has started:
    xxx*youtube*com/watch?v=warRTb1g7pA

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Wouldn’t it be possible to make the chat readable without the need to register? Posting could remain restricted to members.

      • pelgrim108

        Youtube has a chat, have you been on there? its really enjoyable.
        As for the LENR forum chat: You probably wind up registering anyway and its a real luxury. Today I posted a text file over there with no effort as an attachment. It was the text from the me356 experiment chat yesterday.

  • pelgrim108

    New live experiment has started:
    xxx*youtube*com/watch?v=warRTb1g7pA
    Live chat here:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/CustomPage/?id=10

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Wouldn’t it be possible to make the chat readable without the need to register? Posting could remain restricted to members.

      • pelgrim108

        Youtube has a chat, have you been on there? its really enjoyable.
        As for the LENR forum chat: You probably wind up registering anyway and its a real luxury. Today I posted a text file over there with no effort as an attachment. It was the text from the me356 experiment chat yesterday.

  • Alex Ruiz

    Even unsuccessful, this experiment as many others teaches us a lot. Handling high energies is dangerous and warns us what not to do.

  • Alex Ruiz

    Even unsuccessful, this experiment as many others teaches us a lot. Handling high energies is dangerous and warns us what not to do.

  • Daniel Maris

    Good luck!

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Ought to try step power test down 10 to 20% from max temp then step back up in 20 minutes to observe difference in thermal response time for fueled & unfueled elements. Should tell us if the New Fire exists in the fueled reactor, just maybe?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Good idea James

  • Frank Acland
  • Ged

    Now this is a setup. I’m really glad to see, with fueled and unfueled side by side. Best would be if they are on the same circuit.

    • Sanjeev

      Both heaters are in series, Firax wrote in youtube chat.

      • Ged

        This is perfect then, bravo to him. I am excited to see how this setup works out as we get higher.

        • Sanjeev

          There is no pressure gauge though. So we will not know if there was any leak etc, or whether the pressure goes dangerously high.
          He says he will make next setup with pressure gauge. He has 19 or so more ceramic tubes for that. This guy persists and has a ton of patience.

          • Ged

            Ah dang, that is a serious potential weakness. The serial setup has an enormous amount of resolving power. But, now if there is a negative result, we won’t know if that’s from the lack of hydrogen or not. Well, glad he’s got a ton more tubes to run more replications with–give us an N to gain statistics from, and in case things go mechanically wrong such as loss of pressure.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, if no excess is seen it will remain inconclusive. We won’t be able to tell if it failed due to a leakage. So lets see…..

          • Ged

            Does anyone know why the screens are flickering so rapidly? There also looks to be electricity like flashing going along wire like shapes? This is kinda weird.

          • NT

            Yes, I have been noticed those thin wire like flashes in and around the reactor stand and they appear like spider webs flashing in the light?

            Also, the temperature monitors are acting VERY erratic…

          • Ged

            I was thinking that is what they could be, just blowing in the light. But it’s Really hard to read these flashing monitors, they are going bonkers. Could it be bad grounding? But it seems like we’ve got 450 on the fueled and 422 on the unfueled.

          • Mike Henderson

            I agree, spider webs on the right side. The current temperature in Volgograd is 61 degrees F / 16 deg C. There could be some dew forming. Moisture could be a problem.

          • Mike Henderson

            Never mind. Weather in Volgograd shows very low humidity. Dew point is only 34 degrees F / 1 deg C. Moisture is not an issue.

          • Obvious

            I am wondering about that too. Might be spider webs flickering, but the flashing display looks like a bad neutral or something.

          • Mike Henderson

            New theory. The sun set directly behind the camera. Now it is rising directly in front of it. The camera is struggling with the changing light. This is causing the dim LED displays to appear to flicker.

          • Ged

            That’s a good possible theory. Hopefully it is the case too, as then as soon as the sun gets out of the way in a few hours, the visual artifacts will be resolved.

          • Obvious

            I hope it’s just a light/camera thing.

          • Axil Axil

            I hope it is not a light/camera thing.

          • Obvious

            I know what you mean, but it sure would mess up the data then.

          • Axil Axil

            In the next test, move the meters etc. far from the reactor, if RF turns out to be a problem.

          • Ged

            I have seen cameras do weird stuff like that in bright light, especially with those style of displays and how they refresh, so it is possible, just haven’t seen it be so dramatic before… We’ll know in an hour or two.

          • NT

            Also explains the now seen glitter on spider webs around the stand area…

          • Axil Axil

            Defkalian experienced a difficult time with RF interference produced by the reaction. The electronics could be malfunctioning due to heavy RF interference. The experimenter should try his cell phone and am radio near the reactor if the problen is not resolved shortly in the fading light.

          • Ged

            Interesting, hadn’t heard that one (or at least didn’t recall). Be fun to tune a ham radio near it as you suggested to see if it is RF, if the light going down doesn’t resolve the issue.

          • Axil Axil

            Why did the liquid crystal meter (power?) fail a short time ago.

          • It went into standby mode.

          • Sanjeev

            Pretty pictures:
            https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ
            Its glowing orange.

          • Axil Axil

            Some history about RF follows from AlainCo on 25-10-2013, 14:05

            On vortex-n, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax report some more details about those claims
            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/628

            The 1.6 Tesla report, repeated by Kim in his ICCF-18 presentation, is mentioned. That should seriously be discounted, and here is why: first of all, yes, if it were a 1.6 T static field, at the reported distance from the presumed source, it would be *astonishing.* In fact, so astonishing that it would likely be impossible.
            However, I asked. It was not a static field.
            That’s a “peak” measurement. Okay, that’s still amazing, eh? Except for one problem. To get that measurement, the mu-metal shields were removed from the reactor. The reactor can be viewed as a high-power spark transmitter. This thing puts out RF noise that shut down the Defkalion phone system, that seriously interfered with their data-aquisition boards, according to reports. That result is essentially meaningless. Kim repeated it without really thinking deeply about it, it’s fairly obvious. He simply saw it as an anomaly. I expect that there will be more data released. It is not impossible that there are magnetic effects involved, complicated issue.

            Many informations:

            1.6 Tesla is a peak value, thus field is varying
            to get that the mu-metal shield was removed. so the shielding is mu-metal (not simple Faraday cage)
            it shut down DGT phone system, interfere with the acquisition board

            Abd conclude with prudence that this result is meaning less. There was huge electromagnetic effects, but the instruments may be troubled by those huge E-M effect, giving false reading.

            so 1.6Tesla is dubious, yet some very powerful EM effect is clear.
            It seems the huge interference are more sure than the magnetic field.
            It is also to note that the mu-metal shielding protect from that effect, meaning that the source of interference is strongly magnetic (otherwise simple faraday shielding would be enough).

            Abd continue

            However, what Kim said is simply standard scientific practice, as I’ve mentioned above.
            Reports are presumed true unless controverted.
            There was no deception. There was a peak measurement with a gaussmeter. It’s an observation, and we treat it as a fact. That is, we believe, by default, that a gaussmeter actually displayed that figure, as described.
            It’s obvious that Kim did not consider it in detail, or he’d have been more careful.
            Hadjichristos confirmed that, yes, this was a measurement in Teslas, not Gauss. (If it had been Gauss, the original reading at the initiation of spark would have been consistent with geomagnetic background, 0.6 Gauss.) Closely questioned, Hadjichristos did not recall the specific model of gaussmeter … he was sitting on a Greek beach, on vacation. He indicated that more data would be released.
            We have no indication of any deception here, only, possibly, of some shortcoming in analysis.
            We’ll know more when there is better data, and we’ll know even more if there is independent confirmation of the field value. That may be possible, by the way, without an “independent demonstration.”

            The peak reading was allegedly in the refractory period after spark stimulation was turned off. So if the measurement is made carefully, there would be an absence of the possible RF interference from spark stimulation. One would want to see how the field varies with position, something easily done with a handheld Gaussmeter.

            The measure was done when there was no spark, so whatever is the artifact, it is linked to the LENr reaction, nor the sparks.

            He continues

            Others mentioned tools being yanked from “across the room.” Yup. A 1.6 T field could certainly do stuff like that. What’s missing here? The 1.6 T field was a report from a different test, done privately by DGT, in which the shielding was removed. Further, it was, as I mention above, a peak measurement, and itself subject to RF noise, almost certainly. The reactor in the July Defkalion demo was shielded, heavily. The conversation becomes what Hadjichristos wore, a white lab coat.

            Those defending the 1.6 T field generally seem to neglect that this was a measurement at 20 cm from the presumed source. If it were a stable field, it would be *dangerous*. (Al Potenza redefines this as 20 inches.)

            Abd remind us that 1.6T at 20cm mean much more near the reactor, and is dangerous (it is nor far from what you have inside a MRI machine – any metal is forbidden inside the rool)
            Danger identified are metallic object flying over the room. I would add that changing field would mean industruction, interference…
            This reduces the credibility of the measure, which is probably troubled because of huge magnetic and electromagnetic anomalies. (maybe not 1.6T, but sure some huge electromagnetic field).

            Abd continue on another message
            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/629

            It was taken with the mu-metal shield removed, that normally encases the Hyperion. Someone somewhere referred to the shield as a “Faraday cage,” and pointed out that this would not inhibit magnetic fields.

            That’s correct, AFAIK. But what was missed was this:

            The Hyperion when it was not shielded, and certainly they started that way, shut down their phone system, and interfered with their National Instrument data collection system. The Hyperion is a nifty spark transmitter, putting out lots of very noisy RF. Basically, they are generating a big spark, a plasma discharge, inside the device, that is their “stimulation.”

            So, did the Gaussmeter measure a DC field? No. It was set, we were told, at Peak. We don’t have the data on the make and model of meter yet. But an ordinary Gaussmeter might not do well at all with a massive RF source 20 cm. away, and unshielded.

            The magnetic anomaly reported may mean *nothing*. It’s a bit of a shame that Kim didn’t question this, but my guess is that he really didn’t think about the absolute value of the field reported and simply was passing on a reported anomaly. His report was quite unclear as to the meaning. I.e,. what was the background, with no spark stimulation? How, then, did the reading behave during the stimulation? The 1.6 Tesla reading was supposedly during the refractory period after spark stimulation, or was it? A peak reading would depend on the *period* measured. What was that?

            and as conclusion

            In asking about the reported field, I pointed out what many skeptics have mentioned: if there were a DC field of 1.6 T at 20 cm, the field would be picking up metal objects and slamming them against the source. That field is more intense, at that distance, than the field from the superconducting magnets of a CAT scanner, which are dangerous in that way. There is a great picture on-line of a chair up against a scanner, at about head height. It’s been pointed out that a neodymium magnet, the strongest permanent magnets made, have that field *at the surface.* Magnetic field strength, at least DC fields, decline with the cube of the distance. So if we extrapolate the field at 20 cm, to very close to the source, that field is *enormous.*

            What a peak field, the actual measurement, means, is far from clear. The most likely explanation is a meter that is not reading correctly becasue of RF noise. But if that’s a real peak reading, I’ll avoid speculating, I’ll leave it to RF engineers and the like.

            Some people came running in all directions, like headless chickens, with various theoretical speculations. “Aha! I *knew* that magnetic fields are involved!”

            Simmer down!

            People, we can see, tend to interpret new evidence according to what we already believe.

            Finally the general impression about that is that 1.6Tesla claim is probably an artifact, caused by an anyway huge magnetic effect, unrelated to sparks, that is shielded by mu-metal, and which without shielding is troubling all electronics around.

            We need more work to confirm or correct, but sure something surprising is there! Probably smaller than the initial claim, but sure higher than what skeptics imagine.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It has Parkhomov’s Nickel – and built using his original reactor sealing method.

          • Daniel Maris

            The temperature gap between the fuel and non-fuel reactors is steadily rising. I am presuming that is to be expected and what we are looking for is a sudden spike in the non-fuel reactor.

            Or is there any significance in the temperature difference already?

          • mcloki

            A little play by play would be helpful for us Muggles.

          • Ged

            Some divergence should be expected simply since there is mass in the center of the fueled reactor, and not the unfueled, but it should not diverge by that much. We want to see how large the divergence is, but it’s interesting we have a consistantly growing divergence as temps rise. Since the set point is related to the temperature of the fueled reactor, and the two are on the same circuit in series, then the power in is not sufficient to allow the unfueled reactor to reach the level of the fueled.

            I would completely ballpark here and say that for there to be a significant divergence between the two demonstrating excess heat, we need around 20% difference between the two reactors, otherwise measurement error and slightly different heating parameters from the mass of the fuel could be at work. Anything over 50% (this is huge at high temps, the difference between 1000 C and 1500 C) would definitely show excess heat with no doubts.

          • Obvious

            It might be handy if the power was cut off momentarily, the resistance of each checked (just spin the dials on the DVMs), and flick the power back on. Just to see if the coils are close to the same in resistance, or if it is something else.

          • Ged

            A great idea.

          • Axil Axil

            Why was the temperatures viewable on the meters when the reactor was cold and got progressively worse as the reactors heated up?

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, that’s excellent.

  • Ged

    Now this is a setup I’m really glad to see, with fueled and unfueled side by side. Best would be if they are on the same circuit.

    • Sanjeev

      Both heaters are in series, Firax wrote in youtube chat.

      • Ged

        This is perfect then, bravo to him. I am excited to see how this setup works out as we get higher.

        • Sanjeev

          There is no pressure gauge though. So we will not know if there was any leak etc, or whether the pressure goes dangerously high.
          He says he will make next setup with pressure gauge. He has 19 or so more ceramic tubes for that. This guy persists and has a ton of patience.

          • Ged

            Ah dang, that is a serious potential weakness. The serial setup has an enormous amount of resolving power. But, now if there is a negative result, we won’t know if that’s from the lack of hydrogen or not. Well, glad he’s got a ton more tubes to run more replications with–give us an N to gain statistics from, and in case things go mechanically wrong such as loss of pressure.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, if no excess is seen it will remain inconclusive. We won’t be able to tell if it failed due to a leakage. So lets see…..

          • Bob Greenyer

            He says that he’ll do one with a pressure gauge if this is not a productive test.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It has Parkhomov’s Nickel – and built using his original reactor sealing method.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    That is some difficult chat to follow if you don’t know how to translate it to English. Chrome browser is a must…

    Can anyone tell me what’s the plan with this experiment?

    Also, did I just see a black cat walk through the video???

    • Sanjeev

      Plan is in the linked spreadsheet.
      Yes there was a cat and a kid playing around the reactor. The kid is gone fortunately. 🙂 The setup is just behind an open door next to a big pile of junk stuff…… truly a garage scientist here.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Thanks Sanjeev. The spreadsheet makes the plan quite clear.

        Really like this setup. Looks well thought out. Hopefully it’ll give us some positive results, though it will take quite some time before we hit a possible ignition temperature (780C?). Am I right in assuming in about 14 hours we will get there?

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, it will take many hours to reach that temperature, if all goes as scheduled. Total run time will be 34 hours….

          • Bob Greenyer

            and it’ll be in a different hangout

    • Bob Greenyer
      • Can you simply divide the bottom temp with the top to get a COP?

        • Ged

          Nope. Only power gives COP, gotta convert temperature to power first. After all, COP is coefficient of power, not coefficient of temperature, and power is non-linear to temperature. Thus, the power difference between 200 and 300 C is exponentially lower than 900 C and 1000 C.

          • Thanks Ged, my simple mind is always looking for a short-cut.

          • Ged

            If only it were that easy. But I wouldn’t say “simple”, many of the greatest advances come from looking for those handy short-cuts to problems ;).

          • Sanjeev

            Little correction, COP=coefficient of performance.
            For generators, its same as efficiency. Power/energy out to power/energy in ratio.

          • Ged

            Thank you for the correction, Sanjeev.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    That is some difficult chat to follow if you don’t know how to translate it to English. Chrome browser is a must…

    Can anyone tell me what’s the plan with this experiment?

    Also, did I just see a black cat walk through the video???

    • Sanjeev

      Plan is in the linked spreadsheet.
      Yes there was a cat and a kid playing around the reactor. The kid is gone fortunately. 🙂 The setup is just behind an open door next to a big pile of junk stuff…… truly a garage scientist here.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Thanks Sanjeev. The spreadsheet makes the plan quite clear.

        Really like this setup. Looks well thought out. Hopefully it’ll give us some positive results, though it will take quite some time before we hit a possible ignition temperature (780C?). Am I right in assuming in about 14 hours we will get there?

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, it will take many hours to reach that temperature, if all goes as scheduled. Total run time will be 34 hours….

          • Bob Greenyer

            and it’ll be in a different hangout

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Ged

    Does anyone know why the screens are flickering so rapidly? There also looks to be electricity like flashing going along wire like shapes? This is kinda weird.

    • NT

      Yes, I have been noticed those thin wire like flashes in and around the reactor stand and they appear like spider webs flashing in the light?

      Also, the temperature monitors are acting VERY erratic…

      • Ged

        I was thinking that is what they could be, just blowing in the light. But it’s Really hard to read these flashing monitors, they are going bonkers. Could it be bad grounding? But it seems like we’ve got 450 on the fueled and 422 on the unfueled.

      • Mike Henderson

        I agree, spider webs on the right side. The current temperature in Volgograd is 61 degrees F / 16 deg C. There could be some dew forming. Moisture could be a problem.

        • Mike Henderson

          Never mind. Weather in Volgograd shows very low humidity. Dew point is only 34 degrees F / 1 deg C. Moisture is not an issue.

    • Obvious

      I am wondering about that too. Might be spider webs flickering, but the flashing display looks like a bad neutral or something.

    • Mike Henderson

      New theory. The sun set directly behind the camera. Now it is rising directly in front of it. The camera is struggling with the changing light. This is causing the dim LED displays to appear to flicker.

      • Ged

        That’s a good possible theory. Hopefully it is the case too, as then as soon as the sun gets out of the way in a few hours, the visual artifacts will be resolved.

        • Obvious

          I hope it’s just a light/camera thing.

          • Axil Axil

            I hope it is not a light/camera thing.

          • Obvious

            I know what you mean, but it sure would mess up the data then.

          • Axil Axil

            In the next test, move the meters etc. far from the reactor, if RF turns out to be a problem.

          • Ged

            I have seen cameras do weird stuff like that in bright light, especially with those style of displays and how they refresh, so it is possible, just haven’t seen it be so dramatic before… We’ll know in an hour or two.

      • NT

        Also explains the now seen glitter on spider webs around the stand area…

    • Axil Axil

      Defkalian experienced a difficult time with RF interference produced by the reaction. The electronics could be malfunctioning due to heavy RF interference. The experimenter should try his cell phone and am radio near the reactor if the problen is not resolved shortly in the fading light.

      • Ged

        Interesting, hadn’t heard that one (or at least didn’t recall). Be fun to tune a ham radio near it as you suggested to see if it is RF, if the light going down doesn’t resolve the issue.

      • Axil Axil

        Some history about RF follows from AlainCo on 25-10-2013, 14:05

        On vortex-n, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax report some more details about those claims
        http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/628

        The 1.6 Tesla report, repeated by Kim in his ICCF-18 presentation, is mentioned. That should seriously be discounted, and here is why: first of all, yes, if it were a 1.6 T static field, at the reported distance from the presumed source, it would be *astonishing.* In fact, so astonishing that it would likely be impossible.
        However, I asked. It was not a static field.
        That’s a “peak” measurement. Okay, that’s still amazing, eh? Except for one problem. To get that measurement, the mu-metal shields were removed from the reactor. The reactor can be viewed as a high-power spark transmitter. This thing puts out RF noise that shut down the Defkalion phone system, that seriously interfered with their data-aquisition boards, according to reports. That result is essentially meaningless. Kim repeated it without really thinking deeply about it, it’s fairly obvious. He simply saw it as an anomaly. I expect that there will be more data released. It is not impossible that there are magnetic effects involved, complicated issue.

        Many informations:

        1.6 Tesla is a peak value, thus field is varying
        to get that the mu-metal shield was removed. so the shielding is mu-metal (not simple Faraday cage)
        it shut down DGT phone system, interfere with the acquisition board

        Abd conclude with prudence that this result is meaning less. There was huge electromagnetic effects, but the instruments may be troubled by those huge E-M effect, giving false reading.

        so 1.6Tesla is dubious, yet some very powerful EM effect is clear.
        It seems the huge interference are more sure than the magnetic field.
        It is also to note that the mu-metal shielding protect from that effect, meaning that the source of interference is strongly magnetic (otherwise simple faraday shielding would be enough).

        Abd continue

        However, what Kim said is simply standard scientific practice, as I’ve mentioned above.
        Reports are presumed true unless controverted.
        There was no deception. There was a peak measurement with a gaussmeter. It’s an observation, and we treat it as a fact. That is, we believe, by default, that a gaussmeter actually displayed that figure, as described.
        It’s obvious that Kim did not consider it in detail, or he’d have been more careful.
        Hadjichristos confirmed that, yes, this was a measurement in Teslas, not Gauss. (If it had been Gauss, the original reading at the initiation of spark would have been consistent with geomagnetic background, 0.6 Gauss.) Closely questioned, Hadjichristos did not recall the specific model of gaussmeter … he was sitting on a Greek beach, on vacation. He indicated that more data would be released.
        We have no indication of any deception here, only, possibly, of some shortcoming in analysis.
        We’ll know more when there is better data, and we’ll know even more if there is independent confirmation of the field value. That may be possible, by the way, without an “independent demonstration.”

        The peak reading was allegedly in the refractory period after spark stimulation was turned off. So if the measurement is made carefully, there would be an absence of the possible RF interference from spark stimulation. One would want to see how the field varies with position, something easily done with a handheld Gaussmeter.

        The measure was done when there was no spark, so whatever is the artifact, it is linked to the LENr reaction, nor the sparks.

        He continues

        Others mentioned tools being yanked from “across the room.” Yup. A 1.6 T field could certainly do stuff like that. What’s missing here? The 1.6 T field was a report from a different test, done privately by DGT, in which the shielding was removed. Further, it was, as I mention above, a peak measurement, and itself subject to RF noise, almost certainly. The reactor in the July Defkalion demo was shielded, heavily. The conversation becomes what Hadjichristos wore, a white lab coat.

        Those defending the 1.6 T field generally seem to neglect that this was a measurement at 20 cm from the presumed source. If it were a stable field, it would be *dangerous*. (Al Potenza redefines this as 20 inches.)

        Abd remind us that 1.6T at 20cm mean much more near the reactor, and is dangerous (it is nor far from what you have inside a MRI machine – any metal is forbidden inside the rool)
        Danger identified are metallic object flying over the room. I would add that changing field would mean industruction, interference…
        This reduces the credibility of the measure, which is probably troubled because of huge magnetic and electromagnetic anomalies. (maybe not 1.6T, but sure some huge electromagnetic field).

        Abd continue on another message
        http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/629

        It was taken with the mu-metal shield removed, that normally encases the Hyperion. Someone somewhere referred to the shield as a “Faraday cage,” and pointed out that this would not inhibit magnetic fields.

        That’s correct, AFAIK. But what was missed was this:

        The Hyperion when it was not shielded, and certainly they started that way, shut down their phone system, and interfered with their National Instrument data collection system. The Hyperion is a nifty spark transmitter, putting out lots of very noisy RF. Basically, they are generating a big spark, a plasma discharge, inside the device, that is their “stimulation.”

        So, did the Gaussmeter measure a DC field? No. It was set, we were told, at Peak. We don’t have the data on the make and model of meter yet. But an ordinary Gaussmeter might not do well at all with a massive RF source 20 cm. away, and unshielded.

        The magnetic anomaly reported may mean *nothing*. It’s a bit of a shame that Kim didn’t question this, but my guess is that he really didn’t think about the absolute value of the field reported and simply was passing on a reported anomaly. His report was quite unclear as to the meaning. I.e,. what was the background, with no spark stimulation? How, then, did the reading behave during the stimulation? The 1.6 Tesla reading was supposedly during the refractory period after spark stimulation, or was it? A peak reading would depend on the *period* measured. What was that?

        and as conclusion

        In asking about the reported field, I pointed out what many skeptics have mentioned: if there were a DC field of 1.6 T at 20 cm, the field would be picking up metal objects and slamming them against the source. That field is more intense, at that distance, than the field from the superconducting magnets of a CAT scanner, which are dangerous in that way. There is a great picture on-line of a chair up against a scanner, at about head height. It’s been pointed out that a neodymium magnet, the strongest permanent magnets made, have that field *at the surface.* Magnetic field strength, at least DC fields, decline with the cube of the distance. So if we extrapolate the field at 20 cm, to very close to the source, that field is *enormous.*

        What a peak field, the actual measurement, means, is far from clear. The most likely explanation is a meter that is not reading correctly becasue of RF noise. But if that’s a real peak reading, I’ll avoid speculating, I’ll leave it to RF engineers and the like.

        Some people came running in all directions, like headless chickens, with various theoretical speculations. “Aha! I *knew* that magnetic fields are involved!”

        Simmer down!

        People, we can see, tend to interpret new evidence according to what we already believe.

        Finally the general impression about that is that 1.6Tesla claim is probably an artifact, caused by an anyway huge magnetic effect, unrelated to sparks, that is shielded by mu-metal, and which without shielding is troubling all electronics around.

        We need more work to confirm or correct, but sure something surprising is there! Probably smaller than the initial claim, but sure higher than what skeptics imagine.

        • Roland

          I think one day, when we know most of the story, what will stand out is Rossi’s deep curiosity about the anomalies that occurred.

          There’s one that sticks with me; a few weeks ago there was an 18 minute documentary of the experimentation done at SPAWAR post P&F. They had the encouragement of early success and then had a series of bright ideas that allowed them to attain consistent replications.

          They turned the corner when they started electro-plating high purity palladium onto carbon rods, when the palladium reached 3 atoms or deeper they could make the cell run all the time. The anomaly occurred when they switched to distilled water from the traditional deuterium oxide.

          The first surprise was that the reaction was more energetic; the anomaly consisted of three (if memory serves) trials in which, while unattended in all three cases, the reactive mass melted down through the thick acrylic cell, the table underneath, and several inches into the concrete floor.

          Triggering event unknown; one of them was monitored with a screen shot at five minute intervals, the event completed between frames.

          I suspect Rossi would have dropped everything else to focus on what had just happened until he understood enough of it to make use of it.

          There are a lot of LENR anomalies piling up; lots of pathways to sporadic reactions through varying metallurgy, chemistry and stimulation methods. A handful of methods that are more consistent but low in output, couple of attempts that seem intermittantly promising; and then we have Rossi and Mills who got it right for vastly different reasons by radically different means.

          The anomalies speak to Rossi and Mills, and have to all the others whose intellectual shoulders we stand on. The key to the ‘fire’ is probably somewhere in the overlooked details, unloved facts and stubborn anomalies that are already in the record.

  • Ged

    No one seems to be updating the Google doc at the moment (and I am not able to), but looks like we are now at 500 C for fueled, and 471 C for unfueled. Divergence seems to be holding steady and not growing through the last two steps.

    • Ged

      550 fueled, 523 or so unfueled. Gap still stable, but long way to go before previously observed main activity temperatures. Time for me to sleep though. Good luck!

      Also, flickering not dying down yet, despite light decreasing.

    • artefact

      It is not working for me at the moment. It says: “It is not possible at the moment. please try again later”

      • Ged

        I think someone accidentally locked it.

  • Ged

    No one seems to be updating the Google doc at the moment (and I am not able to), but looks like we are now at 500 C for fueled, and 471 C for unfueled. Divergence seems to be holding steady and not growing through the last two steps.

    • Ged

      550 fueled, 523 or so unfueled. Gap still stable, but long way to go before previously observed main activity temperatures. Time for me to sleep though. Good luck!

      Also, flickering not dying down yet, despite light decreasing.

    • artefact

      It is not working for me at the moment. It says: “It is not possible at the moment. please try again later”

      • Ged

        I think someone accidentally locked it.

  • artefact
  • artefact
  • Bob Greenyer

    So we have glow.

    Bit of web-cam exposure related problems making it difficult to see the multiplexing on the LED displays.

    • Sanjeev

      I guess both LED and camera have same frame rate, so changing the frame rate on camera can perhaps fix this ?

      • pelgrim108

        I have asked Firax to move the camera a bit to the right, ( for less bright area) wich he did and now flickering is much less, and numbers are readable

        • Sanjeev

          Little better now. Should improve after sunset.

    • Ged

      Looks like we are 850 fueled 800 unfueled on average now. Screens are getting better as light dims.

  • Bob Greenyer

    So we have glow.

    Bit of web-cam exposure related problems making it difficult to see the multiplexing on the LED displays.

    • Sanjeev

      I guess both LED and camera have same frame rate, so changing the frame rate on camera can perhaps fix this ?

      • pelgrim108

        I have asked Firax to move the camera a bit to the right, ( for less bright area) wich he did and now flickering is much less, and numbers are readable

        • Sanjeev

          Little better now. Should improve after sunset.

    • Ged

      Looks like we are 850 fueled 800 unfueled on average now. Screens are getting better as light dims.

  • Axil Axil

    Why was the temperatures viewable on the meters when the reactor was cold and got progressively worse as the reactors heated up?

  • ecatworld

    I was just informed that I am the author of this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/edit#gid=1389964837

    I don’t remember starting it for this test, but I did one for an earlier test, so maybe this carried over somehow.

    Anyway, I have just changed the settings to ‘anyone can edit’ so please feel free to contribute!

    Sorry about the mixup here.

    Frank

    • Ged

      Awesome, thank you, Frank!

  • Frank Acland

    I was just informed that I am the author of this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/edit#gid=1389964837

    I don’t remember starting it for this test, but I did one for an earlier test, so maybe this carried over somehow.

    Anyway, I have just changed the settings to ‘anyone can edit’ so please feel free to contribute!

    Sorry about the mixup here.

    Frank

    • Ged

      Awesome, thank you, Frank!

  • Axil Axil

    Why did the liquid crystal meter (power?) fail a short time ago.

    • It went into standby mode.

  • Axil Axil

    What is the new smaller liquid crystal meter on the right that has just been added for?

  • Axil Axil

    What is the new smaller liquid crystal meter on the right that has just been added for?

    • tobalt

      one could be amps, and one could be volts.

  • tobalt

    the PID settings are terrible and sure to kill the heater windings prematurely in a temperature spike.

  • tobalt

    the PID settings are terrible and sure to kill the heater windings prematurely in a temperature spike.

  • Sanjeev

    Pretty pictures:
    https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ
    Its glowing orange.

    • clovis ray

      Hi, sanjeev.

      I was wondering, about. comparing. the dog boone, to an electric lightbulb, with the element as the heater, and the nickle as the the power to light the,,,,, further
      what would you say about the comparison.

      • Sanjeev

        Its a good metaphor surely.

  • Jonas Matuzas

    now we have 50C difference fueled -unfueled. Is it make sense ?

    • It is more or less “normal” due to thermocouple variance.

      • Obvious

        It looks like the empty (cold) tube is open on at least one end. That would do it.

    • Ged

      It’s about a 5.8% difference, so around the rule of thumb margin of error of 5%. This is more dramatic at higher temps, and one expects the percent difference to decrease as temperature increases. The opposite happening would indicate excess.

      • Sanjeev

        Its dancing around 5% since the start, so nothing special yet.
        If the excess occurs, it will be unmistakable.

    • LuFong

      Good question. My unprofessional guess is that because the reactors are in series, fueled reactor first, there is a voltage drop across the fueled reactor leading to less current through the unfueled reactor. Should be predictable how much less current. I’m assuming the fueled current comes first in the series.

      The best way to get an answer on the Internet is to suggest an incorrect one 🙂

      • Ged

        Unfueled being first is definitely the best idea. Hope we get an answer!

        • LuFong

          It’s hard to tell from the wiring what it is. I’m sure Denis has it right.

          • Sanjeev

            There is a circuit diagram in photo folder. Link posted below.

          • LuFong

            Diagram: https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ

            Looks like fueled cell first.

          • US_Citizen71

            It is also last. With alternating current the current flow flips 180 degrees each half cycle.

        • Ged

          I see talk about the linear fit in the youtube chat. Always gotta be careful with constantly updated linear curve fits, as the fit parameters are changing every time new data is added. We aren’t making predictions or evaluating its explanatory power yet–or what it even physically means. So, if there is excess, the curve fit will just adjust to incorporate it (notice several temp time points fall off the curve already).

          Additionally, power is not linear with temp, thus the gap in power between the two reactors grows at higher temps if the percentage difference doesn’t decrease (as it would if the power difference was linear). Don’t know exactly how to evaluate this without making assumptions and calculating ‘power out’ at each point, or how to properly interpret the meaning of that in regards to error propigation.

      • US_Citizen71

        A voltage drop across a resistor in series is nothing but Ohm’s law and should be expected. Which coil comes first matters not, the important fact is whether the coils have the same resistance or not.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Note that one reactor is resting on a metal rack, while the other one (with fuel?) is held by two relatively light wires. Also, the thermal mass of the fuel might lead to a different distribution of temperatures across the reactor, and so on.

      I think that as long as the temperature differences follow a regular pattern there is no reason to assume something unusual. The good message is that in this type of experiment irregularities might be more easily detectable than in a single-reactor setup.

      • US_Citizen71

        The delta between the temperatures appears to be quite linear. A nonlinear change to the delta is what will indicate an anomaly.

  • Jonas Matuzas

    now we have 50C difference fueled -unfueled. Is it make sense ?

    • It is more or less “normal” due to thermocouple variance.

      • Obvious

        It looks like the empty (cold) tube is open on at least one end. That would do it.

    • Ged

      It’s about a 5.8% difference, so around the rule of thumb margin of error of 5%. This is more dramatic at higher temps, and one expects the percent difference to decrease as temperature increases. The opposite happening would indicate excess.

      • Sanjeev

        Its dancing around 5% since the start, so nothing special yet.
        If the excess occurs, it will be unmistakable.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Note that one reactor is resting on a metal rack, while the other one (with fuel?) is held by two relatively light wires. Also, the thermal mass of the fuel might lead to a different distribution of temperatures across the reactor, and so on.

      I think that as long as the temperature differences follow a regular pattern there is no reason to assume something unusual. The good message is that in this type of experiment irregularities might be more easily detectable than in a single-reactor setup.

      • US_Citizen71

        The delta between the temperatures appears to be quite linear. A nonlinear change to the delta is what will indicate an anomaly.

      • Ernest Dallafior

        Andreas,
        You know that energy flows from a high point to a lower point. How much of the energy generated in the fueled chamber is getting into the unfueled chamber? They are in very close proximity and must have some flow, perhaps more than we think. IMHO, a better test would involve comparing the two chambers separated, and run at separate times with the same test setup.

  • LuFong

    Someone posted this schedule from the spreadsheet on the Youtube chat:

    “1 hr at 900. 3 hrs at 950. 3 hrs at 1000. 3 hrs at 1100. 4 hrs at 1200.”

    Looks like we are in for a long slow test. Good!

    • Ged

      Guess the power supply can’t handle the load of both elements?

      Edit: looks like he’s working on it and has gotten it to go a little higher.

      • LuFong

        It’s hard to tell what’s going on. It looked like it was creeping up to 950C. I left and now it’s at 900C and Denis is saying it’s going to 1000C in one hour (?).

        • Ged

          I saw it get to 950 for a bit, then looked away and it was dancing around 912 when I got back. Such a mystery! I think this PID is pranking us now that we’re in the interesting zone.

          • LuFong

            It looks like he’s going to try 1000C at 20:10GMT (40 minutes from now) although I wonder how if not enough power or the PID isn’t working. Too bad it’s in a series otherwise he could just easily cut the unfueled reactor out if it’s a power issue.

          • Ged

            True indeed. Do you know what other advantages and disadvantages there would be to using parallel?

          • LuFong

            Not really. If in series both reactors are being powered identically with regard to current (and if the heater coils are identical then power) so there is no question about playing around with the current/power. On the other hand they are different and mounted differently here so there are differences in temperature which could amount to something.

            I actually don’t care too much about the calibration. The effect is significant – COP ~2. Get something that looks like it’s working then go back and instrument and verify the effect. Much faster IMO.

          • Ged

            Good points too. This arrangement will let us see that easily, then we can improve it for more accuracy.

          • US_Citizen71

            On the next reactor he should use thicker kanthal and lower the total resistance. This will give him more current and higher power capabilities.

    • Ged

      Interesting to note the unfueled reactor looks to be about 10 or 20 C cooler than last time the fueled was at 900 C.

      • LuFong

        Yes it’s bouncing around so much it is hard to tell. Looking for the big move….

  • Jonas Matuzas

    this power supply pulsing more compared with me365 , isn’t it ?

  • Ged

    I would like to note with the fueled reactor back to 900 C, the unfueled is around 20 to 30 C cooler than last time the fueled was at 900 C.

    • Ged

      Put another way, when the unfueled hits 686 C now, the fueled is at 930 C, despite the PID being set to 900.

      Hope the PID isn’t malfunctioning since it’s having trouble keeping the temp down where it should on the fueled.

    • Ged

      Looks like the Google doc got revised, so last time it was 900 C fueled, unfueled was 850. That decreases the significance of the reduction in unfueled temps seen this time

  • Ged

    I would like to note, with the fueled reactor back to 900 C, the unfueled is around 20 to 30 C cooler than last time the fueled was at 900 C: 840ish now versus 868 then.

    • Ged

      Put another way, when the unfueled hits 686 C now, the fueled is at 930 C, despite the PID being set to 900.

      Hope the PID isn’t malfunctioning since it’s having trouble keeping the temp down where it should on the fueled.

    • Ged

      Looks like the Google doc got revised, so last time it was 900 C fueled, unfueled was 850. That decreases the significance of the reduction in unfueled temps seen this time to 10-20 C.

  • Ged

    I see talk about the linear fit in the youtube chat. Always gotta be careful with constantly updated linear curve fits, as the fit parameters are changing every time new data is added. We aren’t making predictions or evaluating its explanatory power yet–or what it even physically means. So, if there is excess, the curve fit will just adjust to incorporate it (notice several temp time points fall off the curve already).

    Additionally, power is not linear with temp, thus the gap in power between the two reactors grows at higher temps if the percentage temperature difference doesn’t decrease (as it would if the power difference was linear). Don’t know exactly how to evaluate this without making assumptions and calculating ‘power out’ at each point, or how to properly interpret the meaning of that in regards to error propigation.

  • Dave

    Looks like the PID is not tuned properly since the system appears to be oscillating.

  • Dave

    Looks like the PID is not tuned properly since the system appears to be oscillating.

  • Ged

    Interestingly, since two hours ago, the temperature of the unfueled reactor has gone way down for the same temperature of the fueled reactor. It used to be around 932 C for unfueled when 990 C for fueled. Now I get back and it’s 910 C for unfueled when 1000 C for fueled.

    • Ged

      Question for those in the know: which of the two reactors in the image is the fueled one? The one in the back, or the one closest to the camera?

    • Ged

      Don Witcher has calculated a preliminary COP based on T^4 ratios of 1.35 for the current 1100/1000 fueled/unfueled current temp ratio, in the Youtube chat.

      • Sanjeev

        Thats correct.
        If you take the conservative value of empty reactor temperature, which is 5% more, then its 1.15 roughly.
        Do we have something here ? Lets see…

        • Ged

          The unfueled keeps slowly cooling (on tens of minutes time scale) relative to the fueled. More than 100 C difference now at a slightly lower fueled temp. So either putting temp higher or just letting it currently sit, -if- this trend continues, will answer that question.

          Edit: Or the reactor could melt down, and leave us all hanging ;). Let’s hope not!

          • Ged

            Starting to breach 120 C difference at constant set point and continual power (rather than pulsed by PID).

          • Ged

            Starting to hit near 130 C difference between fueled and unfueled, while fueled has remained at same temperature range that started with a 100 C difference.

  • Ged

    Interestingly, since two hours ago, the temperature of the unfueled reactor has gone way down for the same temperature of the fueled reactor. It used to be around 932 C for unfueled when 990 C for fueled. Now I get back and it peaks around 910 C for unfueled when 1000 C for fueled.

    • tomandersen

      Is that a 38% energy output difference? I get T^4 power difference in kelvin for 1000C vs 900c as 38% more power. That only holds if the area is the same and the temperatures are surface temps. Even then its approximate, due to convection, etc.

      • Sanjeev

        My rough calculations show something similar, a COP of 1.3 🙂
        In worst case it will be 1.1, which is within noise range, but it is over 1.
        Area, emissivity etc are same but the surface might be a bit lower in temperature, but not too low. You can verify this by calculating for another point (say for 500C), which will give a COP of 1.

    • Ged

      Question for those in the know: which of the two reactors in the image is the fueled one? The one in the back, or the one closest to the camera?

    • Ged

      Don Witcher has calculated a preliminary COP based on T^4 ratios of 1.35 for the current 1100/1000 fueled/unfueled current temp ratio, in the Youtube chat.

      • Sanjeev

        Thats correct.
        If you take the conservative value of empty reactor temperature, which is 5% more, then its 1.15 roughly.
        Do we have something here ? Lets see…

        • Ged

          The unfueled keeps slowly cooling (on tens of minutes time scale) relative to the fueled. More than 100 C difference now at a slightly lower fueled temp. So either putting temp higher or just letting it currently sit, -if- this trend continues, will answer that question.

          Edit: Or the reactor could melt down, and leave us all hanging ;). Let’s hope not!

          • Ged

            Starting to breach 120 C difference at constant set point and continual power (rather than pulsed by PID).

          • Ged

            Starting to hit near 130 C difference between fueled and unfueled, occasionally, while fueled has remained at same temperature range that started with a 100 C difference.

  • Sanjeev

    Its a good metaphor surely.

  • Sanjeev

    My rough calculations show something similar, a COP of 1.3 🙂
    In worst case it will be 1.1, which is within noise range, but it is over 1.
    Area, emissivity etc are same but the surface might be a bit lower in temperature, but not too low. You can verify this by calculating for another point (say for 500C), which will give a COP of 1.

  • artefact

    Don’t get confused tomorrow. There are two existing versions of the google doc. One linked in the post above which was inaccessible earlier today and a different one from Firax Tech which was edited by ecco and some others with averaged temperatures:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ccScatRt3iPGJ50BgZMW36zSm5Fa_nLBcrMrULmm4pI/edit?pli=1#gid=1389964837

    • Ged

      Thank you, artefact. The averaged temps should give a more accurate picture. Also like the additional calculations and graphs. Very nice work by that group.

  • artefact

    Don’t get confused tomorrow. There are two existing versions of the google doc. One linked in the post above which was inaccessible earlier today and a different one from Firax Tech which was edited by ecco and some others with averaged temperatures:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ccScatRt3iPGJ50BgZMW36zSm5Fa_nLBcrMrULmm4pI/edit?pli=1#gid=1389964837

    • Ged

      Thank you, artefact. The averaged temps should give a more accurate picture. Also like the additional calculations and graphs. Very nice work by that group.

  • Curbina

    I just joined now, the experiment is still ongoing or not? Anyway, I am looking at the stream and it says “live” and the values are cycling around the 960 (unfueled) and 1070 (fueled).

    • Ged

      Still going! And it’s more like 962 and 1082 it seems to be at most often, most stably. Keeps widening though as it sits here. Not sure when next power step is.

      • Curbina

        Thanks Ged. Good to see what would be a first live experiment with a shy and yet solid indication of excess heat.

        • Ged

          A couple independent sources have calculated the COP around 1.42 right now, and Sanjeev did a very conservative 1.15 back when it was a 1.35, but it keeps widening very, very slowly. We’ll see though–still don’t want to call it yet, and more calculation necessary. Another power step may be informative.

          • Curbina

            Indeed. It reminds me, so far, the quiet but interesting demo on the National Instruments event a couple of years ago, the one with the two brass spheres in the solid metal pellets balls. One kept consistently warmer than the other even with the bath at the same temp. Can’t remember who was the researcher, but surely you remember who I am talking about.

          • It was Dennis Cravens.

            It was replicated recenty by Rod Gimpel

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1325-Infinite-Energy-Rod-F-Gimpel-replicated-Dennis-Cravens/

            Interesting story published in Infinite Energy

          • Curbina

            Thanks for that information Alain, I had no idea the spheres had been replicated. It’s one of the compelling experiments already performed.

          • Obvious

            I don’t see excess heat, just unbalanced heat output. So far. We really need the real resistance of that empty tube, and the tube with fuel. That would sort this out. At several temperature steps, same temp for each.

          • Ged

            At these levels of heat, that’s an enormous power difference though. Since it’s in series and all. Important to test though, but should be easily done if he unhooks the fueled and just runs the unfueled back through the same steps and observes what power it takes. I think, there shouldn’t take any less power just for the unfueled by itself in this setting, but correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Obvious

            I would guess there may be a bit of a lag heating up the fueled compared to empty, but not much. I strongly suspect the resistance is different, even if unintended. The temperature difference started right away, and is proportionate. That goes against a LENR result, in my opinion.
            Maybe it’s thermocouple related, but TCs are quite a bit more reliable than a hand wound resistor, with all due respect to Denis’s skill.

          • Ged

            Well, it isn’t that proportional anymore, as the difference keeps growing at the same fueled temps. That and if the power difference was linear, the temperature -percent- difference would decrease with higher temps. The fact percent difference has grown means the non-linear power difference has really increase, and is not proportionate. That’s hard to say could be due to resistance differences, as power should change linearly between the two if that was the case, I think, and it isn’t.

          • Obvious

            The difference will continue to increase with temperature, but nice and smoothly when plotted with proper power values, not UA guesses from flickering meters. One tube is hogging the Watts, the other is a relatively better conductor to the hot one. That’s my best stab at it.
            I would like to see it totally diverge, slopes strongly angling from each other. That would satisfy me as a reaction. Something that clearly breaks from the temperature curve status quo.

          • Ged

            It seems we got that with the last two points, particularly the last one really zoomed off. I guess the next power step will much better elucidate what’s going on. Some good averaging and number crunching too. Very important to check all the bases like you are doing.

  • Curbina

    I just joined now, the experiment is still ongoing or not? Anyway, I am looking at the stream and it says “live” and the values are cycling around the 960 (unfueled) and 1070 (fueled).

    • Ged

      Still going! And it’s more like 962 and 1082 it seems to be at most often, most stably. Keeps widening though as it sits here. Not sure when next power step is.

      • Curbina

        Thanks Ged. Good to see what would be a first live experiment with a shy and yet solid indication of excess heat.

        • Ged

          A couple independent sources have calculated the COP around 1.42 right now, and Sanjeev did a very conservative 1.15 back when it was a 1.35, but it keeps widening very, very slowly. We’ll see though–still don’t want to call it yet, and more calculation necessary. Another power step may be informative.

          • Curbina

            Indeed. It reminds me, so far, the quiet but interesting demo on the National Instruments event a couple of years ago, the one with the two brass spheres in the solid metal pellets balls. One kept consistently warmer than the other even with the bath at the same temp. Can’t remember who was the researcher, but surely you remember who I am talking about.

          • It was Dennis Cravens.

            It was replicated recenty by Rod Gimpel

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1325-Infinite-Energy-Rod-F-Gimpel-replicated-Dennis-Cravens/

            Interesting story published in Infinite Energy

          • Curbina

            Thanks for that information Alain, I had no idea the spheres had been replicated. It’s one of the compelling experiments already performed.

          • Obvious

            I don’t see excess heat, just unbalanced heat output. So far. We really need the real resistance of that empty tube, and the tube with fuel. That would sort this out. At several temperature steps, same temp for each.

          • Ged

            At these levels of heat, that’s an enormous power difference though. Since it’s in series and all. Important to test though, but should be easily done if he unhooks the fueled and just runs the unfueled back through the same steps and observes what power it takes. I think, there shouldn’t take any less power just for the unfueled by itself in this setting, but correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Obvious

            I would guess there may be a bit of a lag heating up the fueled compared to empty, but not much. I strongly suspect the resistance is different, even if unintended. The temperature difference started right away, and is proportionate. That goes against a LENR result, in my opinion.
            Maybe it’s thermocouple related, but TCs are quite a bit more reliable than a hand wound resistor, with all due respect to Denis’s skill.

            Edit: Maybe I should say commensurate.

          • Ged

            Well, it isn’t that proportional anymore, as the difference keeps growing at the same fueled temps. That and if the power difference was linear, the temperature -percent- difference would decrease with higher temps. The fact percent difference has grown means the non-linear power difference has really increase, and is not proportionate. That’s hard to say could be due to resistance differences, as power should change linearly between the two if that was the case, I think, and it isn’t.

          • Obvious

            The difference will continue to increase with temperature, but nice and smoothly when plotted with proper power values, not UA guesses from flickering meters. One tube is hogging the Watts, the other is a relatively better conductor to the hot one. That’s my best stab at it.
            I would like to see it totally diverge, slopes strongly angling from each other. That would satisfy me as a reaction. Something that clearly breaks from the temperature curve status quo.

          • Ged

            It seems we got that with the last two points, particularly the last one really zoomed off. I guess the next power step will much better elucidate what’s going on. Some good averaging and number crunching too. Very important to check all the bases like you are doing.

          • keV

            Perhaps a better setup for future tests would be an outer tube with the heater wrapped around and an inner “fuel” tube that slides inside it. Have the same setup for both fuel and empty. You could then swap the fuel/empty for a second run and see if the divergence in output temp also swaps around. I guess you have to have the TCs on the heater tubes also to ensure consistent readings on both runs.

  • LuFong

    Things look very good. It’s too early for me to claim a COP > 1 but in the next bump up we should see the empty reactor’s temperature drop or stay the same if the COP goes up. Next hour or so will tell the tale. IMO

    • Ged

      Agreed. It’s been highly suggestive now, particularly since the unfueled keeps slowly getting colder while the fueled stays level–the exact signal we’ve been looking for.

      • LuFong

        According to the spreadsheet, going to 1200C at 2:10GMT which is now past. Somebody wake up Denis!

        • Ged

          Yeah, dunno when it’ll be now. Just kinda having fun, letting things wiggle.

        • Mike Henderson

          He dialed down the voltage and went to bed. He should crank it up again when he wakes.

  • Can you simply divide the bottom temp with the top to get a COP?

    • Ged

      Nope. Only power gives COP, gotta convert temperature to power first. After all, COP is “coefficient of power”, not coefficient of temperature, and power is non-linear to temperature. Thus, the power difference between 200 C and 300 C is exponentially lower than between 900 C and 1000 C.

      • Thanks Ged, my simple mind is always looking for a short-cut.

        • Ged

          If only it were that easy. But I wouldn’t say “simple”, many of the greatest advances come from looking for those handy short-cuts to problems ;).

      • Sanjeev

        Little correction, COP=coefficient of performance.
        For generators, its same as efficiency. Power/energy out to power/energy in ratio.

        • Ged

          Thank you for the correction, Sanjeev.

  • Ged

    Reactor meltdown! The fueled reactor blew suddenly after a huge temperature spike. Very dramatic, lots of sparks. Totally dead. Blew out the thermal couple attached to it and the circuit.

    • LuFong

      I replayed and didn’t see a temperature spike. If anything I saw a drop to 1050’s… After it blew it went up but that could be anything?

      • Ged

        It jumps to 1280 at times, bouncing between 1200’s and 1100’s for a few seconds before frying out completely. The unfueled drops rapidly to 800 C and lower while the fueled is at 1200 C+. Watch carefully. The fueled does this 1200 C+ jumping several times actually.

        Edit: I was just rewatching it. It looks like it may even have hit 1300 or 1400 C for a split second, but mostly it was jumping around 1200 C and 1100 C while the unfueled plummets in temp. And then everything shorts out completely after a surprising number of seconds.

        • LuFong

          But that was after the sparks and noise….

          • Ged

            Yes. So the sparking is the cause of the temps as it jumps, but you see something melting down on the underside a little bit before that starts.

          • LuFong

            It seems to me the TC is no good once the fireworks start.

            The closests we’ve been, I think. Onward to the next one.

          • Ged

            Yeah, you see it go to 1330 C as the meltdown on the bottom starts, before sparking at the top that blows it all out and finishes it off. Dunno what did that. But it’s definitely completely dead. Hopefully the PID wasn’t killed with it.

          • Stephen Taylor

            On the youtube video p5 the fireworks begins at 5:45 and ends at 5;46.

        • Mats002

          More fireworks, just like me356. It is not likely this spike of energy came from the toaster wire, can it be a chemical effect? I will keep tuning in to this channel – a real cliff hanger!

          • Ged

            Yeah, the heater wire was completely encased in cement, so it wouldn’t touch itself or anything else. It looks like it melts from inside and then shorts out the heater wire. There seems to be three melting events that occur as another Youtube commenter noted, one at the bottom, followed by the middle area, and then the top which actually kills the heater and TC and shuts everything down.

    • Obvious

      Can someone get a hold of him by Skype? He’s asleep.

      • LuFong

        Someone was walking around there numerous times in a robe and slippers right before the meltdown.

        • Obvious

          OK… But power still on.

  • Ged

    Reactor meltdown! The fueled reactor blew suddenly after a huge temperature spike. Very dramatic, lots of sparks. Totally dead. Blew out the thermal couple attached to it and the circuit.

    Edit: Note, the power was not increased before it meltdowned (can see the large scorch mark where it was roman candling), and was still holding at the same level as for the past few hours.

    • huge temperature spike like from a LENR type reaction?

      • Ged

        Depends on if that caused the meltdown ;).

    • Obvious

      Can someone get a hold of him by Skype? He’s asleep.

      • Ged

        I think some people from the Youtube chat are trying to contact him. He was there outside for a bit and left right before it melted down, so hopefully he’ll be back soon to see it.

  • Mats002

    We know that Parkhomov also experienced a number of meltdowns before his success. I recall a picture of 5 – 7 or so trashed reactors. I wonder, what did he change in setup or procedure going from fireworks to control of the effect?

  • Mats002

    We know that Parkhomov also experienced a number of meltdowns before his success. I recall a picture of 5 – 7 or so trashed reactors. I wonder, what did he change in setup or procedure going from fireworks to control of the effect?

  • LuFong

    There were three different sparking/buzzing events that took about 25 seconds for the entire reactor fail. First sparks/buzz then about 8 seconds goes by with a second set followed by the final one which glowed and took it out.

    • Ged

      Amazing it lasted so long while melting down. Really wanna see an autopsy, see if we can figure out what started this, as it wasn’t that hot relative to where other reactors have failed, and had been sitting there stably (other than unfueled cooling very slowly) for many hours.

      • LuFong

        Yes another good set of data points. I noticed what looked like cracking/fissures in the alumina cement on some of the earlier pictures. There could be many things that caused this. I suspect that we saw some over-unity but it will be difficult to prove.

        • Mats002

          Well, how many causes can it be? Electric arc in wire, chemical or chemonuclear. That’s three options. How many chemical reactions can it be? I simply do not believe that an electric arc in the wire is the cause but first investigation then conclusions…

          • LuFong

            I’m not saying it couldn’t be a reaction meltdown like many others. But you are right– let’s see what the investigation discovers.

          • Obvious

            Molten sodium-rich glass conducts fairly well above 1000°C. Maybe this is a contributing factor.

  • Obvious

    I guess I won’t get to test my resistance theory…
    Better luck next time Denis. Thanks for trying.

    • Ged

      He could still run the unfueled reactor and take it through the paces to test power, at least; to compare with the power in at where it was with the fueled’s set points. That could still address some questions, I think.

      Don’t know how much the loss of the fueled’s part of the circuit would changthatat by itself.

      • Obvious

        Worth a try, if he is willing.

      • Stephen Taylor

        It can be a very interesting investigation and much can be learned from study of the broken bits. A very dramatic and interesting result!

        • artefact

          As the Parkhomov powder is very rare at the moment I would get the powder out if possible, grind it a bit and put it in a new reactor. It is prebaked and could be heated up much faster. I guess it will work again.

      • Obvious

        It is possible to calculate the combined resistance from the peak amp and volt values. Then we could subtract the dummy resistance to calculate the fuelled resistance. Multiple temperatures should be used. I have found that the starting resistance of new wire often becomes the hot resistance of used wire after a run. ( with 18 ohms anyway) The cold resistance drops after a full heat cycle.

        • Ged

          Brilliant idea. I hope he reads here and sees this.

          • Obvious

            I tried the combined resistance calculations for a bit last night. It is hard to catch the V and A peaks, but it can be mostly done, with some scatter of values. It could be fitted well, once obvious outliers are removed from the regression line and enough values put in.
            With the loaded temperature range of 842 to 966 °C, I got from 19.6 to 22.9 ohms, with a reasonably steady increase.
            842 – 19.66
            920 – 20.11
            944 – 18.75 – found to have low volts compared to next few minutes
            948 – 20.06
            975 – 20.64
            966 – 20.92
            The temperatures are following volts/amps so they are not exactly representative.

  • Obvious

    I guess I won’t get to test my resistance theory…
    Better luck next time Denis. Thanks for trying.

    • Ged

      He could still run the unfueled reactor and take it through the paces to test power, at least; to compare with the power in at where it was with the fueled’s set points. That could still address some questions, I think.

      Don’t know how much the loss of the fueled’s part of the circuit would changthatat by itself.

      • Obvious

        Worth a try, if he is willing.

      • Stephen Taylor

        It can be a very interesting investigation and much can be learned from study of the broken bits. A very dramatic and interesting result!

        • artefact

          As the Parkhomov powder is very rare at the moment I would get the powder out if possible, grind it a bit and put it in a new reactor. It is prebaked and could be heated up much faster. I guess it will work again.

      • Obvious

        It is possible to calculate the combined resistance from the peak amp and volt values. Then we could subtract the dummy resistance to calculate the fuelled resistance. Multiple temperatures should be used. I have found that the starting resistance of new wire often becomes the hot resistance of used wire after a run. ( with 18 ohms anyway) The cold resistance drops after a full heat cycle.

        • Ged

          Brilliant idea. I hope he reads here and sees this.

          • Obvious

            I tried the combined resistance calculations for a bit last night. It is hard to catch the V and A peaks, but it can be mostly done, with some scatter of values. It could be fitted well, once obvious outliers are removed from the regression line and enough values put in.
            With the loaded tube temperature range of 842 to 966 °C, I got from 19.6 to 22.9 ohms, with a reasonably steady increase.
            -°C—Ohms
            842 – 19.66
            920 – 20.11
            944 – 18.75 – found to have low volts compared to next few minutes
            948 – 20.06
            975 – 20.64
            966 – 20.92
            The temperatures are following volts/amps so they are not exactly representative.

  • tobalt

    As obvious mentioned the temperatures parting cannot be an indicator. If the winding quakity drifted the power cannot be simply assumed to be equal. There is a very easy fix to this for the next test. Monitor the voltage across both the fuelwd an unfueled reactors. Please inform denis about this important addition.

    still its peculiar that many replications end in a destruction rather abruptly..

  • Sanjeev

    Ecco has calculated the approx COP as 1.28 in the new sheet (linked below by artefact) and it also shows a divergence of about 11%, double of error margin. The plot shows a deviation from the linear trend.
    So can we call it a positive result ?
    It seems the divergence could have been bigger in the last step at 1200°C.

    • Stephen Taylor

      I think positive result and very interesting onset at 1070 actually on the low point of the control cycle possibly just as power kicked in at 1050+ at 5:45:30 while controlling around 1070. I recall 1070 degrees as somewhat significant in other hot replications??

      • Bob Greenyer

        A few points

        1. It is possible that direct nitriding of Aluminium can start at this temperature and is very exothermic and self sustaining. But the volume of Nitrogen is very small.

        2. The internal temperature would be higher than the TC measured, from calibration 1125ºC is the internal temp where the “Bang!” reactor failed.

        3. TCs can read higher temps as they fail.

        • Omega Z

          I assume the dummy & charged reactor are wired in series as when the charged reactor 1st sparks, the dummy simultaneously quits glowing.
          This is followed moments latter by an additional reaction/spark of the charged reactor.

          I’d Speculate that the wire burnt in two then came back into contact briefly or other elements within the reactor shorted across the 2 wire ends momentarily.

    • Ecco

      Keep in mind that it was a rather rough and approximate calculation. I don’t think we can call this a positive result yet.

      Disregarding other differences (siting, etc), artifacts might have originated from the electrical setup. As the fueled and empty reactors were wired in series, the one with the higher resistance would have ended up dissipating a higher amount of power. This experiment could be seen, for all intents and purposes, as a simple circuit with two resistors wired in series.

      https://www.swtc.edu/ag_power/electrical/lecture/series_circuits.htm

      Even assuming that the starting resistance of the heating wire in both reactors was the same, degradation (especially at the temperatures reached) might occur occur faster on either side for a plethora of reasons.

      Degradation can cause an increase in local resistance, and any imbalance will cause the affected resistor to dissipate an increasing amount of power over time compared to the other as temperatures are increased and degradation progresses, leading to apparent excess heat / a temperature difference growing larger over time until failure.

      In retrospect (after brushing a bit long-forgotten high school electronics), I now believe that this kind of wiring was not suitable for the intended experiment as it doesn’t allow to carefully monitor and verify that the same amount of power is going through either reactor tube.

      It’s likely I could be wrong and I’d be relieved if anybody could correct any error.

      • Ged

        Would parallel work better? Or just measuring resistance across both?

        • tomandersen

          Series with voltmeter measuring middle voltage will get both powers. Or parallel with two ammeters. You need three meters.

        • Ecco

          I think parallel wiring would have similar issues. If voltage was to be measured on both resistors, any difference would imply that for real comparisons the integrated input power applied over time would have to be calculated (for example to make a power vs temperature graph for both reactor tubes) and in this case I don’t think would not be trivial task without a power analyzer for each reactor, due to the way temperature is controlled.

          The initial but unfortunately incorrect assumption that the exact same amount of power would have been applied at all times on both reactor tubes would have implied that measuring input power wouldn’t have really been necessary, as comparing thermocouple temperatures for any given temperature target on the controller would have been sufficient.

          (although to be fair, even so there would have been criticisms on whether a single thermocouple would be really suitable for comparing the heat output of both reactors, unless the temperature difference is very large)

          Water evaporation calorimetry on a single reactor tube + input power analyzer would probably be a more reliable and accurate solution, unless a *very* large excess can be demonstrated on the fueled reactor.

          • Ged

            The consenses has always been that thermometry like this is useful for a ball park and screening apparati, but ultimately we need calorimetry. This is a good candidate design to move on to that calorimetric method you specify, based on these results.

          • Sanjeev

            Exactly, that’s the whole point of such “quick and dirty” experiments, to assess the worthiness of doing painstaking experiment with calorimetry.
            I think this experiment passes with just enough marks to be promoted to the calorimetry level.

      • Obvious

        I think what you describe is correct. The two resistors become a voltage divider, and any imbalance in resistance becomes a heat imbalance, which exacerbates the resistance difference.

        • Robert Ellefson

          If the non-fueled reactor does not have any nickel in the core, then the resulting inductance of the two coils will differ substantially, since nickel has a relative permeability of 200-600 (according to the few references I could find), and consequently the inductance of an empty tube vs. one with nickel inside will vary in direct proportion. When you consider the expected magnetic core hysteresis loss in the fueled vs. non-fueled reactors, combined with the issue of unequal power sharing between the coils in series because of the positive coefficient of resistance vs. temperature, then I think we can conclude that this particular differential-measurement setup is not adequate to regard the data as indicative of excess heat.

          However, I do congratulate Denis on his continuing progress, and am very encouraged by his efforts. Keep up the great work, Denis!

          • Ged

            Interesting speculation, but we need direct evidence not just of the effect but magnitude (particularly relative magnitude as power and heat are non linear). We’d have to test inductance specifically as I don’t recall any evidence of that in these nickel setups, though there’s been a lot of wishful thinking about using inductive heating it has always been resoundly shot down.

            No matter what, you can’t get more heating than your power in, no matter how one proportions that between resistance or inductance methods.

  • Sanjeev

    Ecco has calculated the approx COP as 1.28 in the new sheet (linked below by artefact) and it also shows a divergence of about 11%, double of error margin. The plot shows a deviation from the linear trend.
    So can we call it a positive result ?
    It seems the divergence could have been bigger in the last step at 1200°C.

    • Stephen Taylor

      I think positive result and very interesting onset at 1070 actually on the low point of the control cycle possibly just as power kicked in at 1050+ at 5:45:30 while controlling around 1070. I recall 1070 degrees as somewhat significant in other hot replications??

      • Bob Greenyer

        A few points

        1. It is possible that direct nitriding of Aluminium can start at this temperature and is very exothermic and self sustaining. But the volume of Nitrogen is very small.

        2. The internal temperature would be higher than the TC measured, from calibration 1125ºC is the internal temp where the “Bang!” reactor failed.

        3. TCs can read higher temps as they fail.

        • Omega Z

          I assume the dummy & charged reactor are wired in series as when the charged reactor 1st sparks, the dummy simultaneously quits glowing.
          This is followed moments latter by an additional reaction/spark of the charged reactor.

          I’d Speculate that the wire burnt in two then came back into contact briefly or other elements within the reactor shorted across the 2 wire ends momentarily.

  • Stephen Taylor

    On the youtube video p5 the fireworks begins at 5:45 and ends at 5;46.
    Temperature spiked over 1300.

  • ecatworld

    At around 5:45:30 on the Part 5 video, you begin to hear a buzzing noise, and the the fueled reactor burns more brightly — at the same time the unfueled reactor goes dim.

    The meters are hard to read during this episode, but I can make out the fueled temperature at one point reaches 1300 while the unfueled temperature drops into the 800 C range.

    So to me, if you combine both the meter readings, and the visual evidence, there does seem to have been some unusual event take place — abeit very briefly.

    • Allan Kiik

      Yes, briefly, just like the me356 test, high temperature at the end of both experiments suggests the reaction has started. Problem with both of them is slow measurement of temperature with delayed shutdown of heater power and insufficient heat removal when reaction starts. For successful long-time experiment highly available, finely adjustable and strong cooling power is needed for high COP.

  • Frank Acland

    At around 5:45:30 on the Part 5 video, you begin to hear a buzzing noise, and the the fueled reactor burns more brightly — at the same time the unfueled reactor goes dim.

    The meters are hard to read during this episode, but I can make out the fueled temperature at one point reaches 1300 while the unfueled temperature drops into the 800 C range.

    So to me, if you combine both the meter readings, and the visual evidence, there does seem to have been some unusual event take place — abeit very briefly.

    • Allan Kiik

      Yes, briefly, just like the me356 test, high temperature at the end of both experiments suggests the reaction has started. Problem with both of them is slow measurement of temperature with delayed shutdown of heater power and insufficient heat removal when reaction starts. For successful long-time experiment highly available, finely adjustable and strong cooling power is needed for high COP.

  • artefact

    Some pictures online from after the test (folder: end)

    https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ

  • artefact

    Some pictures online from after the test (folder: end)

    https://mega.co.nz/#F!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ

  • R101

    If the control always stays intact in these tests, yet the fuel loaded unit is the always the one that fails, then I think this shows something is definitely going on.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well, the control was always running cooler, well before any possible reaction that might produce excess heat – it was very different thermodynamically. At point of failure – it was 100+ degrees hotter.

      For this to stand unquestioned, we would need to have at least both reactors working very similarly on the way up.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        I understand your viewpoint, Bob. My view is that the two reactors cannot work similarly. This does not mean we cannot learn from heating them in series.

        Even if both were exactly the same resistance at a number of temperatures, there would still be differences. Even if both had identical volumes of sealant coating – still differences would exist.

        It may be possible to further explore the differences by running reactors with just Ni or just LAH. One full reactor versus one with only Nickel seems a good choice for a test. This brings the two reactors closer to “similarity”.

        I believe it makes sense to continue to strive for better comparisons.

        The upcoming MFMP inline control approach should prove interesting.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          I read about a proposal to load two reactors as follows for comparison:

          1. Ni and LiAlH4
          2. Al and LiAlH4 (or Mg and LiAlH4)

          I believe substituting Al or Mg for Ni could prove interesting. The idea comes from Jones Beene. I cannot say if he is the first to propose this.

      • R101

        Hey Bob, the control is running hotter in this test (28/05/2015), what gives ? Good luck BTW, I’m tuned in 🙂 Thanks for streaming these!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well, the control was always running cooler, well before any possible reaction that might produce excess heat – it was very different thermodynamically. At point of failure – it was 100+ degrees hotter.

    For this to stand unquestioned, we would need to have at least both reactors working very similarly on the way up.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      I understand your viewpoint, Bob. My view is that the two reactors cannot work similarly. This does not mean we cannot learn from heating them in series.

      Even if both were exactly the same resistance at a number of temperatures, there would still be differences. Even if both had identical volumes of sealant coating – still differences would exist.

      It may be possible to further explore the differences by running reactors with just Ni or just LAH. One full reactor versus one with only Nickel seems a good choice for a test. This brings the two reactors closer to “similarity”.

      I believe it makes sense to continue to strive for better comparisons.

      The upcoming MFMP inline control approach should prove interesting.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        I read about a proposal to load two reactors as follows for comparison:

        1. Ni and LiAlH4
        2. Al and LiAlH4 (or Mg and LiAlH4)

        I believe substituting Al or Mg for Ni could prove interesting. The idea comes from Jones Beene. I cannot say if he is the first to propose this.

    • R101

      Hey Bob, the control is running hotter in this test (28/05/2015), what gives ? Good luck BTW, I’m tuned in 🙂 Thanks for streaming these!

  • Gerard McEk

    If you look to the temperature fueled vs empty graph (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ccScatRt3iPGJ50BgZMW36zSm5Fa_nLBcrMrULmm4pI/edit#gid=1389964837) then you see that the line divides from the linear correlation at about 1000C of the fuelled reactor. This is an important fact. Until the 1000C the temp. difference with the not fuelled reactor has increased linearly to about 100 C. At that time both reactors glow over the total length. At the glow you can see that the empty reactor is a bit cooler. The reason for that is not clear. If LENR is involved than the that happened in a linear relationship with the temperature. Above about 1000C things change.
    Clearly this does not prove that LENR has taken place. For that more tests need to be done and I hope that Denis will try it again in a similar way. It was a good show Denis!
    What has caused the burn-out of the heating coil needs to be investigated. It would be interesting to study the Ni powder at that location in comparison with other locations and to look for melting of the Nickel. If that cannot be found than it is hard to prove that LENR caused the burn-out. Maybe Denis can also say if the thermocouple was located at the burn-out position.

    • Obvious

      The thermocouple is right at the maximum burn area. This is starting to be a common failure mode but the cause is not clear. The expansion of the coil is also surprising. Much of that was before the failure. But the Kanthal should not stretch like that, even if the cement failed.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, that has happened more often. I assume the TC is earthed, so the voltage between the heating element and the TC is considerable. The high temperatures may make the cement or Al2O3 tube electrically conductive and cause the burn-out.

        • Obvious

          Yes, I think this is the case with several controller types. This can be solved with a correctly sized resistor from the TC ground to power supply ground if common ground is desired or needed. My TC meter is isolated and battery powered, so there is no ground path. I just had scrambled readings in one event, due to glass conductivity. Luckily no damage to the meter

    • theBuckWheat

      First, at least two cheers for the test as it was run, and for the effort to live-feed the test to others on the net.

      Consider how many test runs have been less than useful because of heater failure. Since the temperature is getting towards the level where conventional electric resistance heat elements have an operating life that is too prone to burnout, maybe other ways to heat the reactor should be explored as well. Also, if the existing configuration had even a small amount of insulation, the amount of heat would be reduced and this might increase the heater element operating life.

      • Gerard McEk

        You are right, the reactor should have a copper reflector, so it does not lose too much heat. Then the wire does not need to be so hot to compensate for the loss energy and that may lead to a better and more equal spread of the energy and that reduces the probability on hot spots.

        • Obvious

          The copper will probably melt.

  • Gerard McEk

    If you look to the temperature fueled vs empty graph (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ccScatRt3iPGJ50BgZMW36zSm5Fa_nLBcrMrULmm4pI/edit#gid=1389964837) then you see that the line divides from the linear correlation at about 1000C of the fuelled reactor. This is an important fact. Until the 1000C the temp. difference with the not fuelled reactor has increased linearly to about 100 C. At that time both reactors glow over the total length. At the glow you can see that the empty reactor is a bit cooler. The reason for that is not clear. If LENR is involved than the that happened in a linear relationship with the temperature. Above about 1000C things change.
    Clearly this does not prove that LENR has taken place. For that more tests need to be done and I hope that Denis will try it again in a similar way. It was a good show Denis!
    What has caused the burn-out of the heating coil needs to be investigated. It would be interesting to study the Ni powder at that location in comparison with other locations and to look for melting of the Nickel. If that cannot be found than it is hard to prove that LENR caused the burn-out. Maybe Denis can also say if the thermocouple was located at the burn-out position.

    • Obvious

      The thermocouple is right at the maximum burn area. This is starting to be a common failure mode but the cause is not clear. The expansion of the coil is also surprising. Much of that was before the failure. But the Kanthal should not stretch like that, even if the cement failed.

      • James Rice

        It looks to me like the Kanthal wire burned through at the hot spot, and then the tightly wound coil simply unwound, shattering the paint-on insulation.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, that has happened more often. I assume the TC is earthed, so the voltage between the heating element and the TC is considerable. The high temperatures may make the cement or Al2O3 tube electrically conductive and cause the burn-out.

        • Obvious

          Yes, I think this is the case with several controller types. This can be solved with a correctly sized resistor from the TC ground to power supply ground if common ground is desired or needed. My TC meter is isolated and battery powered, so there is no ground path. I just had scrambled readings in one event, due to glass conductivity. Luckily no damage to the meter

    • theBuckWheat

      First, at least two cheers for the test as it was run, and for the effort to live-feed the test to others on the net.

      Consider how many test runs have been less than useful because of heater failure. Since the temperature is getting towards the level where conventional electric resistance heat elements have an operating life that is too prone to burnout, maybe other ways to heat the reactor should be explored as well. Also, if the existing configuration had even a small amount of insulation, the amount of heat would be reduced and this might increase the heater element operating life.

      • Gerard McEk

        You are right, the reactor should have a copper reflector, so it does not lose too much heat. Then the wire does not need to be so hot to compensate for the loss energy and that may lead to a better and more equal spread of the energy and that reduces the probability on hot spots.

        • Obvious

          The copper will probably melt.

  • Ged

    Depends on if that caused the meltdown ;).

  • Sergiu

    Was the coil in shortcut for some turns? This could decrease its resistance and allow it to draw more power compared to dummy one.

    • Bob Greenyer

      A decrease in resistance in a series circuit will cause it to draw less power

  • Sergiu

    Was the coil in shortcut for some turns? This could decrease its resistance and allow it to draw more power compared to dummy one.

    • Bob Greenyer

      A decrease in resistance in a series circuit will cause it to draw less power

  • Herb Gillis

    If you could use a non-electrical heating method (ie. natural gas), it would eliminate any questions about localized shorts. If you get a burn-out, like the one observed here, it would have to be LENR.

  • Herb Gillis

    If you could use a non-electrical heating method (ie. natural gas), it would eliminate any questions about localized shorts. If you get a burn-out, like the one observed here, it would have to be LENR.

  • Robert Ellefson

    If the non-fueled reactor does not have any nickel in the core, then the resulting inductance of the two coils will differ substantially, since nickel has a relative permeability of 200-600 (according to the few references I could find), and consequently the inductance of an empty tube vs. one with nickel inside will vary in direct proportion. When you consider the expected magnetic core hysteresis loss in the fueled vs. non-fueled reactors, combined with the issue of unequal power sharing between the coils in series because of the positive coefficient of resistance vs. temperature, then I think we can conclude that this particular differential-measurement setup is not adequate to regard the data as indicative of excess heat.

    However, I do congratulate Denis on his continuing progress, and am very encouraged by his efforts. Keep up the great work, Denis!

    • Ged

      Interesting speculation, but we need direct evidence not just of the effect but magnitude (particularly relative magnitude as power and heat are non linear). We’d have to test inductance specifically as I don’t recall any evidence of that in these nickel setups, though there’s been a lot of wishful thinking about using inductive heating it has always been resoundly shot down.

      No matter what, you can’t get more heating than your power in, no matter how one proportions that between resistance or inductance methods.

      Edit: we can also just test the unfueled by itself to look at its stand alone resistance, then take that out of the combined Obvious calculated to get the resistance of the fueled and the power partitioning between them. That would answer the magnitude question for the resistence side. So far, empty reactors and nickel loaded ones that failed from hydrogen loss have shown no real temperature versus power differences between them, suggesting there is no substantial inductive heating if any at all via nickel microparticle powder.

      • Robert Ellefson

        The notion of using inductive heating instead of resistance heating has been reasonably dismissed as a viable apparatus design, but the fact remains that there will be some amount of thermal contribution from magnetic hysteresis losses in these solenoids undergoing large current switching events. I believe the coil resistance differences are likely a greater contributor to the unequal heating that was observed in this experiment, but the matter of unequal core hysteresis losses should be considered in further experimental designs, in my opinion. An estimation of the amount of heat produced will require a more detailed characterization of the power switching waveform than is currently available, from what little reporting I’ve seen about the apparatus itself.

        • uDevil

          Differences in inductance between fueled and unfueled reactors seem unlikely to be significant. I’m thinking that 1) the permeability of nickel would be much lower than the room temperature value at the reactor operating temperature (Ni Curie temperature is 354 C) 2) the portion of the solenoid volume occupied by nickel powder is small 3) despite switching effects, most of the waveform energy is at relatively low frequencies (~50 Hz).

  • builditnow

    The interesting event may have been about 30 to 40 seconds before the heater wiring failed.

    The empty reactor gives an idea of what the control system is doing. With less electrical heating, the empty reactor cools.

    Watch the temperature of the empty reactor (bottom red temperature) at 5:44:50 the temperature starts dropping and drops to 938 by 5:45:03 indicating that the control system reducing power due to detecting the target temperature is being achieved with less electrical power. Either the control system was failing or there was extra heat from something. Looking at the glow, it does not appear the loaded reactor cools during this event, but, the empty reactor seems to cool a little.

    Around 5:45:05, electrical heating resumes and the empty reactor heats back up to peaks of about 960. This swing from 938 to 960 seems larger than the swings seen previously (to be checked). When the first electrical buzzing is heard 5:45:31, the temperature of the empty reactor is about 957 and immediately following the buzz the empty reactor temperature drops rapidly indicating that most of the electrical heating power has stopped. Visually both reactors cool noticeably by 5:45:36

    For about a second after the first buzz, the area of the electrical failure glows brighter, then everything rapidly cools down. The later buzzing and sparks appear to be arcing from the broken heating element only, as the reactor has already cooled significantly based on the glow.

    Most of the renaming electrical energy then goes into the electrical arc at the point of failure on the loaded reactor. Electrical arc’s achieve very high temperatures.

    One possibility is that the thermocouple on the loaded reactor deteriorated and started becoming unstable but this is not supported by the visual glow.

    Also notice that at 5:43:20, a person momentarily shades the bicycle seat that is providing bright light immediately behind the loaded reactor (reflected sun perhaps), making the reactor seem higher at the top than it is. There could also be reflected sunlight from the top of the reactor, more easily seen after the reactor cools down.

    Just looking at the glow of both reactors, the loaded reactor appears hotter than the empty reactor indicating that the measured temperature difference has some validity. This temperature difference could be explained by physical and electrical difference between the two reactors. Robert Ellefson suggests inductive heating of the nickel could do this.

    There may have been some brief extra heat, could be chemical.
    Denis, I very much enjoyed watching your experiment, excellent work.

    • Ged

      We have yet to see inductive heating in nickel fueled reactors that failed compared to empty reactors, and never anything remotely of this magnitude if so. Look at MFMP’s tests where empty and nickel powder reactors are right on top of each other.

      Very nifty visual analysis, thank you!

  • builditnow

    The interesting event may have been about 30 to 40 seconds before the heater wiring failed.

    The empty reactor gives an idea of what the control system is doing. With less electrical heating, the empty reactor cools.

    Watch the temperature of the empty reactor (bottom red temperature) at 5:44:50 the temperature starts dropping and drops to 938 by 5:45:03 indicating that the control system reducing power due to detecting the target temperature is being achieved with less electrical power. Either the control system was failing or there was extra heat from something. Looking at the glow, it does not appear the loaded reactor cools during this event, but, the empty reactor seems to cool a little.

    Around 5:45:05, electrical heating resumes and the empty reactor heats back up to peaks of about 960. This swing from 938 to 960 seems larger than the swings seen previously (to be checked). When the first electrical buzzing is heard 5:45:31, the temperature of the empty reactor is about 957 and immediately following the buzz the empty reactor temperature drops rapidly indicating that most of the electrical heating power has stopped. Visually both reactors cool noticeably by 5:45:36

    For about a second after the first buzz, the area of the electrical failure glows brighter, then everything rapidly cools down. The later buzzing and sparks appear to be arcing from the broken heating element only, as the reactor has already cooled significantly based on the glow.

    Most of the renaming electrical energy then goes into the electrical arc at the point of failure on the loaded reactor. Electrical arc’s achieve very high temperatures.

    One possibility is that the thermocouple on the loaded reactor deteriorated and started becoming unstable but this is not supported by the visual glow.

    Also notice that at 5:43:20, a person momentarily shades the bicycle seat that is providing bright light immediately behind the loaded reactor (reflected sun perhaps), making the reactor seem higher at the top than it is. There could also be reflected sunlight from the top of the reactor, more easily seen after the reactor cools down.

    Just looking at the glow of both reactors, the loaded reactor appears hotter than the empty reactor indicating that the measured temperature difference has some validity. This temperature difference could be explained by physical and electrical difference between the two reactors. Robert Ellefson suggests inductive heating of the nickel could do this.

    There may have been some brief extra heat, could be chemical.
    Denis, I very much enjoyed watching your experiment, excellent work.

    • Ged

      We have yet to see inductive heating in nickel fueled reactors that failed compared to empty reactors, and never anything remotely of this magnitude if so. Look at MFMP’s tests where empty and nickel powder reactors are right on top of each other.

      Very nifty visual analysis, thank you!

  • Axil Axil

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Albert Einstein

    Its time to change how the Hot cat experiment is done. The idea is to provide maximum containment of the reaction. Alumina/quartz is not robust enough to show what the LENR reaction can do.

    A tungsten tube is cheap and will be effective as a containment structure for the LENR reaction. A tungsten tube can be heated directly by resistive electrical heating without the requirement for a separate high temperature heating wire. The removal of this heating wire in the reactor design will save a lot of money.

    The tungsten tube can tolerate a high temperature that is double that of alumina. We know now from many experiments that pressure goes down as the reaction precede so a pressure explosion should not be a concern.

    Tungsten has about the same magnetic characteristics as alumina, so no problems there.

    If the Hot cat reaction burns through a tungsten tube, we will know that the LENR reaction can produce heat up to 6000C. This burn through of the tungsten tube will prove that LENR is not a chemical based reaction.

    • timycelyn

      A step away from this whole melting issue would be good. However, what are the associated robustness properties like at these temperatures, such as rate of oxidation or embrittlement and stress cracking?

      Cheers

      Tim

      • Axil Axil

        Tungsten has a unsurpassed embrittlement and stress craching high temperature property. The oxidation problem could be overcome by embedding the tungsten tube in carbon powder of rapping it in carbon cloth.

        • Bob Greenyer

          As said many times, carbon oxidises readily above 600ºC

    • Obvious

      This looks weird. It doesn’t seem that the tube failed. The pink stuff looks like rhodocrosite.

      • Ged

        It looks kinda like burn through and melting. Could be recrystalization as the melt spots cool, making minerals from all the oxides in the alumina?

        • Obvious

          I think this is a result of sodium peroxide fusion of the Fe-Cr-Al alloy wires.
          Which sucks since I just cured a sodium-rich alumina paste onto a coil. Hopefully it is not fully cured, and just dried so I can get it off again. I think it may be water soluable to some degree.

        • Obvious

          I think the manganese from the Alumel wire from the TC is causing the problem. It is a known improver of Na ion mobility. It also explains the pink looking substance, which is typical of manganese carbonates, but probably sodium is substituting, possibly along with iron (especially the iron stain near the top).

    • Ged

      Yeah, I agree, tungsten would be nice to try. Not as easy to just throw together as alumina is though. Also, how well would it contain hydrogen at these pressures and temps?

      • Axil Axil

        Prussure goes down as the Hot cat reaction preceeds. Tungsten holds hydrogen to a higher level than does alumina. It holds hydrogen about a 1000 times better than nickel.

        • Ged

          Excellent. Sounds properly useable.

      • Sanjeev

        Good news, the inner core is intact and Denis will add a new heater and continue the experiment, attempting up to 1300 C !
        http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4912#post4912

        • Ged

          Oh wow! That thing is a trooper. Not so sure it wasn’t damaged from that apparent melting, but guess we’ll see!

          • Sanjeev

            It seems only the wire fused and no melting or damage happened to the core. (No lenr meltdown here).
            This is a pic from MFMP FB post. More pics at the link posted above by Frank.

            https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-e.ak/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11252354_978095068887859_6074228074492295442_n.jpg?oh=3b9b694022c04739359d115ad5c59d09&oe=55FDD0F5&__gda__=1443167113_0c18212b4a3c2270261b5ffff1a049b4

          • Ged

            That’s the image I was referring to, particularly the close ups. The scorching of the alumina seems to destroy or distort some of those grooves. There could be material damage from that which could weaken the core, but won’t know till we try ;). Just glad it wasn’t a sag’n’crack failure.

          • Sanjeev

            Those are not grooves, just leftover of alumina cement coating after removing the broken wire.
            It seems like a normal short to me, perhaps the TC participated in the short because its in the same location exactly.

          • Obvious

            I think there is a strong electro-chemical reaction of sodium, manganese (and maybe iron?) from the Alumel TC wire and the alumina, accelerated by heat and electrical current. First would be to eliminate Mn from the TC wiring to test, or just put some alumel wire in/on the ceramic, (hooked to nothing) to test. No need for a full tube to try. Just a tiny coil on an alumina rod with cement and lots of heat. Eliminating sodium-based cements may also work. Some basic materials tests are warranted.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have added the latest “Parkhomov on steroids” heat of vaporisation calorimeter set up description and photo to MFMP FB.

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Sanjeev

            Great setup ! I was wondering what he was doing. Good progress.

          • Ged

            Wires wires wires. That seems to be the biggest hurdle going on right now. Glad for the provided info that water glass is a major problem and could be behind a lot of this. Seems very careful attention to the makeup of the cement is required.

          • Ged

            Looking at this http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/firaxreactor.png it really seems like there is material damage burned into the alumina tube itself, not simply the cement. It depends on how deep this went, but the alumina itself on the surface is very much damaged to unknown depth. It’s possible there are microfractures or other heat stress weak points from the event that could cause the core to fissure when it gets back up to higher temps, to dramatic effect. That’s all I’m concerned with, but only way to find out is to use it. Just don’t put any combustibles nearby.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have added images and comment from me356 to FB – he is inviting public comments and discussion, Peter Mobberly’s discovery, originally posted on our main site, as to why reactors are sparking out with Kanthal and Parkhomov style cement – and Brian Albiston / Bob Higgins points on what might be a critical ratio, surface to volume in Ni + LiAlH4 fuel charges.

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Obvious

            I have suggested something about the same. I think the Mn from the Alumel TC wire is enriching the ion conductivity of the Na-rich cement, and it reacts much more violently there. Not only do the wires have potential to burn, but once the Mn enhanced Na conductivity starts, it dissolves the wires by electrolysing them away. That is why the TC area is most prone to failure.

          • penswrite

            Accepting that Mr. Rossi doesn’t want to reveal his secret sauce, it would still greatly behoove his, and LENR’s, commercial future to post a live-updated demonstration of one of his e-cats. At this point in LENR’s progress, a cat fight would be wonderful to behold.

            Whoever wins.

          • US_Citizen71
          • Obvious

            I think the easy way is to slide a ceramic tube over the coil wiring. For the TC wire, a small gap in the outer shell, a hole, or two outer shell parts (like the GS2) and another piece of tube to cover it that fits over the outer shell gap, probably with a groove on the inner side to accommodate the wire exit, or maybe just a small hole. With a small gap in the windings where the TC wire goes in. A dab of regular ceramic cement here and there can hold the pieces from moving without getting near any wire, but allow disassembly by grinding off. Possibly a tiny shard of ceramic tube can hold the wire tight to the tube.

          • pelgrim108

            What if the coil would be under tension so that, when part of it melts due to a hotspot or microcrack, it just unwinds back together and restores contact.
            Also if the crosssection of the wire is a rectangle instead of a circkel then the distance between the windings would be greater, or more windings would fit on the same lenght of tube.

          • US_Citizen71

            I’m not an expert on Kanthal but for most metals heating them will cause annealing, so any tension would go away as the coil heats.

          • pelgrim108

            Thanks Citizen. To bad it wont work.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            These considerations are laudable, but in case that the produced energy is radiated away from the reaction site before it gets thermalized (as is typical for nuclear reactions) calculations on the basis of the fuel surface might turn out to be inadequate.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Yes we should have faster thermal time response indicators inside the fuel elements for better control & protection.

          • Sanjeev

            If contact of heater with alumina is a problem, can it be separated using something like Mica?
            See this link for some ideas:
            http://aximmica.com/products/mica-tubes/

          • Obvious

            Interesting. I’ve never seen real tubes of mica before. I have some mica paper sheets here. I scavenged them from inside a 90W hair curler. It melts around 900C.

          • Sanjeev

            Low melting point is a disadvantage and it also has more or less similar chemicals in it. So I guess not guaranteed to protect your Kanthal very much.

          • Ged

            The autopsy from me356 is really interesting. Thank you, Bob.

          • Axil Axil

            There might be something to this. Rossi placed ridges on the surface of the Hot cat. This might have been an attempt to keep the Hot cat from overheating through increased convective cooling. Rossi replication attemps do not do this. Rossi would not have put these ridges on the surface of his reactor for no good reason, The same increased cooling effect might be had by cooling the reactor with a stream of air…fan cooling???

            Using a variable speed fan could allow the experimenter to adjust the degree of reactor cooling at will.

          • Sanjeev

            Nick Oseyko, a new replicator from Ukraine, shows a neat experiment as a “proof of concept”.
            Perhaps Bob knows more and will post details. Posting here for more visibility and FYI.
            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/978495802181119

            https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11038483_978495522181147_3755852741274615294_n.jpg?oh=f4d6db895df5efe4f6a891c74a942abb&oe=56008FEA

          • pelgrim108
          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Yes process can be inherently self limiting as Rossi has experienced as of late. This mean radioactive heat loss is a controlling mechanism for generation process of ultra low momentum neutrons which are responsible for heat generation within the metals. We need to see that quick process as it happens for better control/protection. Need a new faster response detector of some nature Axil what are your ideas on that. Large nuclear plants us neutron flux to move their power generation process up or down.They could not control well with only themal couple response.

        • timycelyn

          i do hope the meter flicker can be avoided this time, though……

    • Mats002

      What is the electrical resistance of a tungsten tube of the same length and diameter and thickness needed? Is it in the 10 ohm range or more or less?

      • Axil Axil

        Tungsten rod is used as a hearter element in sapphire crystal furnaces

        http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/99-95-high-purity-tungsten-rod_1936331984.html

      • timycelyn

        According to a back of the envelope calc, based on the resistivity of tungsten at 227C = 10 microohm.cm, a 20 cm 6mm OD x 3mm ID tube would have a resistance of 1 x 10-3 ohms!

        Not quite in the 10 ohm range.

        Please check me though, I am VERY (25 years elapsed time) rusty on this stuff!!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I get 0.52 milliohms at 20C – that seems to fit. It might be difficult to find an appropriate power supply.

        • Mats002

          I just spent some time for the same calculation based on Firax dimensions 14 cm long 10mm OD x 5mm ID tube and resistivity at 27 C, that was 0,000133107 ohms. With your data I get 0,000943396 ohms.
          I am rusty too but I agree that the resistance will be far too low for this kind of setup. Would need low voltage very high amps I guess.

          • timycelyn

            Yep. It’s a pity because otherwise it is an elegant idea. Could it be induction heated? – the low resistance wouldn’t matter then, I guess… (getting rustier by the moment 😉 )

        • Axil Axil

          I looked up the power supply requirements for tungsten rod. High amps and low volts. For erample 50 amps at 6 volts is tipical.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That would mean we have 0.12 ohms, which would match for a tungsten wire of 20 cm length and 0.34 mm diameter (at room temperature). Maybe those rods are not made of pure tungsten?

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is being done. Will happen. PSU already built.

          • timycelyn

            Bob, we now have three calculations all indicating that a tungsten tube of typical dimensions will have a resistance in the order of 1 milliohm. If u do try this route, I’d be good and sure to pop a resistance meter on the tube first to check, to avoid frying the power supply!

            For the moment I’m inclined to agree with the suggestion of Andrew below, that the tungsten rods described by Axil are in reality “tungsten” rods….

    • Bob Matulis

      Like the Tungsten reactor idea. How about heating in a tube furnace? Runs with loaded and unloaded would likely indicate if excess heat is happening.

    • Nigel Appleton

      I think that there might be a problem with tungsten oxidation at these temperatures

      • Axil Axil

        The tungsten tube could coated to exclude oxygen. A carbon coat is ideal. For example, the tube could be coated with a carbon based high temperature graphite based paint. When heated, the carbon coating would interact with the tungsten to produce a tungsten carbide coating that would protect the tungsten for oxidation.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Though I do not have the technical know-how, I agree with Axil Axil that a more robust reactor is needed. Up to now all experiments end up in a structural reactor failure. We need to either look really hard at Parkhomov’s reactor and circumstances surrounding his experiment, or we need a reactor that is build out of components that aren’t so temperature critical like the one Axil Axil is proposing.

      • Mats002

        While we’re at it, throw out the thermocouples, the signal from them are too fuzzy too late. Instead use a high sensitive focused microphone giving fast and accurate signals of ‘pops’ from nucluear transmutations. The rhytm of ‘pops’ then controlled to avoid a runaway 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      No one has done the same experiment twice – they have all been a collective progression – even Parkhomov’s

      That being said, one of the replicators I send Parkhomov Nickel to (and is therefore committed to sharing results and hopefully broadcasting the experiment) in Scandinavia is doing what you ask.

    • William D. Fleming

      It makes sense to use a container which will withstand the expected pressure and temperature. It need not be a tube. It could be heated with a propane torch. I don’t know how the electromagnetic stimulation would be applied but maybe it’s not needed.

    • Obvious

      Insanity develops from doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results.

  • Axil Axil

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Albert Einstein

    Its time to change how the Hot cat experiment is done. The idea is to provide maximum containment of the reaction. Alumina/quartz is not robust enough to show what the LENR reaction can do.

    A tungsten tube is cheap and will be effective as a containment structure for the LENR reaction. A tungsten tube can be heated directly by resistive electrical heating without the requirement for a separate high temperature heating wire. The removal of this heating wire in the reactor design will save a lot of money.

    The tungsten tube can tolerate a high temperature that is double that of alumina. We know now from many experiments that pressure goes down as the reaction precede so a pressure explosion should not be a concern.

    Tungsten has about the same magnetic characteristics as alumina, so no problems there.

    If the Hot cat reaction burns through a tungsten tube, we will know that the LENR reaction can produce heat up to 6000C. This burn through of the tungsten tube will prove that LENR is not a chemical based reaction.

    • timycelyn

      A step away from this whole melting issue would be good. However, what are the associated robustness properties like at these temperatures, such as rate of oxidation or embrittlement and stress cracking?

      Cheers

      Tim

      • Axil Axil

        Tungsten has a unsurpassed embrittlement and stress craching high temperature property. The oxidation problem could be overcome by embedding the tungsten tube in carbon powder of rapping it in carbon cloth.

        • Bob Greenyer

          As said many times, carbon oxidises readily above 600ºC

    • Obvious

      This looks weird. It doesn’t seem that the tube failed, but instead the wiring and cement outside. The pink stuff looks like rhodocrosite.
      Is there actually a hole there?

      • Ged

        It looks kinda like burn through and melting. Could be recrystalization as the melt spots cool, making minerals from all the oxides in the alumina?

        Edit: looked at some minerals with that color, but unless there are silicates or manganese in there, I don’t think it can make those colors in a mineral fashion. So interesting.

        • Obvious

          I think this is a result of sodium peroxide-like fusion of the Fe-Cr-Al alloy wires.
          Which sucks since I just cured a sodium-rich alumina paste onto a coil. Hopefully it is not fully cured, and just dried so I can get it off again. I think it may be water soluable to some degree.

          Edit: the sodium silicate power Denis added becomes a powerful ion conductor when hot/molten and mixed in alumina. It is probably tearing the coil wire apart. The TC wire is probably adding a conduction improver element that diffuses into the mix, and the reaction is intensified there locally. An alumina outer insulating tube, and no cement whatsoever on any of the wires looks like the correct course of action.
          If you look at Jack Cole’s failed tubes, they have a similar dark coating between the coil and tube.

        • Obvious

          I think the manganese from the Alumel wire from the TC is causing the problem. It is a known improver of Na ion mobility. It also explains the pink looking substance, which is typical of manganese carbonates, but probably sodium is substituting for Ca, possibly along with iron (especially the iron stain near the top).

    • Ged

      Yeah, I agree, tungsten would be nice to try. Not as easy to just throw together as alumina is though. Also, how well would it contain hydrogen at these pressures and temps?

      • Axil Axil

        Prussure goes down as the Hot cat reaction preceeds. Tungsten holds hydrogen to a higher level than does alumina. It holds hydrogen about a 1000 times better than nickel.

        • Ged

          Excellent. Sounds properly useable.

    • Mats002

      What is the electrical resistance of a tungsten tube of the same length and diameter and thickness needed? Is it in the 10 ohm range or more or less?

      • Axil Axil

        Tungsten rod is used as a hearter element in sapphire crystal furnaces

        http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/99-95-high-purity-tungsten-rod_1936331984.html

      • timycelyn

        According to a back of the envelope calc, based on the resistivity of tungsten at 227C = 10 microohm.cm, a 20 cm 6mm OD x 3mm ID tube would have a resistance of 1 x 10-3 ohms!

        Not quite in the 10 ohm range.

        Please check me though, I am VERY (25 years elapsed time) rusty on this stuff!!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I get 0.52 milliohms at 20C – that seems to fit. It might be difficult to find an appropriate power supply.

        • Mats002

          I just spent some time for the same calculation based on Firax dimensions 14 cm long 10mm OD x 5mm ID tube and resistivity at 27 C, that was 0,000133107 ohms. With your data I get 0,000943396 ohms.
          I am rusty too but I agree that the resistance will be far too low for this kind of setup. Would need low voltage very high amps I guess.

          • timycelyn

            Yep. It’s a pity because otherwise it is an elegant idea. Could it be induction heated? – the low resistance wouldn’t matter then, I guess… (getting rustier by the moment 😉 )

        • Axil Axil

          I looked up the power supply requirements for tungsten rod. High amps and low volts. For erample 50 amps at 6 volts is tipical.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That would mean we have 0.12 ohms, which would match for a tungsten wire of 20 cm length and 0.34 mm diameter (at room temperature). Maybe those rods are not made of pure tungsten?

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is being done. Will happen. PSU already built.

          • timycelyn

            Bob, we now have three calculations all indicating that a tungsten tube of typical dimensions will have a resistance in the order of 1 milliohm. If u do try this route, I’d be good and sure to pop a resistance meter on the tube first to check, to avoid frying the power supply!

            For the moment I’m inclined to agree with the suggestion of Andrew below, that the tungsten rods described by Axil are in reality “tungsten” rods….

    • Bob Matulis

      Like the Tungsten reactor idea. How about heating in a tube furnace? Runs with loaded and unloaded would likely indicate if excess heat is happening.

    • Nigel Appleton

      I think that there might be a problem with tungsten oxidation at these temperatures

      • Axil Axil

        The tungsten tube could coated to exclude oxygen. A carbon coat is ideal. For example, the tube could be coated with a carbon based high temperature graphite based paint. When heated, the carbon coating would interact with the tungsten to produce a tungsten carbide coating that would protect the tungsten for oxidation.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Though I do not have the technical know-how, I agree with Axil Axil that a more robust reactor is needed. Up to now all experiments end up in a structural reactor failure. We need to either look really hard at Parkhomov’s reactor and circumstances surrounding his experiment, or we need a reactor that is build out of components that aren’t so temperature critical like the one Axil Axil is proposing.

      • Mats002

        While we’re at it, throw out the thermocouples, the signal from them are too fuzzy too late. Instead use a high sensitive focused microphone giving fast and accurate signals of ‘pops’ from nucluear transmutations. The rhytm of ‘pops’ then controlled to avoid a runaway 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      No one has done the same experiment twice – they have all been a collective progression – even Parkhomov’s

      That being said, one of the replicators I send Parkhomov Nickel to (and is therefore committed to sharing results and hopefully broadcasting the experiment) in Scandinavia is doing what you ask.

    • William D. Fleming

      It makes sense to use a container which will withstand the expected pressure and temperature. It need not be a tube. It could be heated with a propane torch. I don’t know how the electromagnetic stimulation would be applied but maybe it’s not needed.

    • Obvious

      Insanity develops from doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results.

  • Sanjeev

    Good news, the inner core is intact and Denis will add a new heater and continue the experiment, attempting up to 1300 C !
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1637-Firax-Tech-replic-series/?postID=4912#post4912

    • Ged

      Oh wow! That thing is a trooper. Not so sure it wasn’t damaged from that apparent melting, but guess we’ll see!

      • Sanjeev

        It seems only the wire fused and no melting or damage happened to the core. (No lenr meltdown here).
        This is a pic from MFMP FB post. More pics at the link posted above by Frank.

        https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-e.ak/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11252354_978095068887859_6074228074492295442_n.jpg?oh=3b9b694022c04739359d115ad5c59d09&oe=55FDD0F5&__gda__=1443167113_0c18212b4a3c2270261b5ffff1a049b4

        • Ged

          That’s the image I was referring to, particularly the close ups. The scorching of the alumina seems to destroy or distort some of those grooves. There could be material damage from that which could weaken the core, but won’t know till we try ;). Just glad it wasn’t a sag’n’crack failure.

          • Sanjeev

            Those are not grooves, just leftover of alumina cement coating after removing the broken wire.
            It seems like a normal short to me, perhaps the TC participated in the short because its in the same location exactly.

          • Obvious

            I think there is a strong electro-chemical reaction of sodium, (maybe iron?), and manganese from the Alumel TC wire and the alumina, accelerated by heat and electrical current. First would be to eliminate Mn from the TC wiring to test, or just put some alumel wire (hooked to nothing) in/on the ceramic to test. No need for a full tube to try. Just a tiny coil on an alumina rod with cement and lots of heat. Eliminating sodium-based cements may also work. Some basic materials tests are warranted.

          • Ged

            Looking at this http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/firaxreactor.png it really seems like there is material damage burned into the alumina tube itself, not simply the cement. It depends on how deep this went, but the alumina itself on the surface is very much damaged to unknown depth. It’s possible there are microfractures or other heat stress weak points from the event that could cause the core to fissure when it gets back up to higher temps, to dramatic effect. That’s all I’m concerned with, but only way to find out is to use it. Just don’t put any combustibles nearby.

    • timycelyn

      i do hope the meter flicker can be avoided this time, though……

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda
  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added images and comment from me356 to FB – he is inviting public comments and discussion, Peter Mobberly’s discovery, originally posted on our main site, as to why reactors are sparking out with Kanthal and Parkhomov style cement – and Brian Albiston / Bob Higgins points on what might be a critical ratio, surface to volume in Ni + LiAlH4 fuel charges.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Obvious

      I have suggested something about the same. I think the Mn from the Alumel TC wire is enriching the ion conductivity of the Na-rich cement, and it reacts much more violently there. Not only do the wires have potential to burn, but once the Mn enhanced Na conductivity starts, it dissolves the wires by electrolysing them away. That is why the TC area is most prone to failure.

      • US_Citizen71
        • Obvious

          I think the easy way is to slide a ceramic tube over the coil wiring. For the TC wire, a small gap in the outer shell, a hole, or two outer shell parts (like the GS2) and another piece of tube to cover it that fits over the outer shell gap, probably with a groove on the inner side to accommodate the wire exit, or maybe just a small hole. With a small gap in the windings where the TC wire goes in. A dab of regular ceramic cement here and there can hold the pieces from moving without getting near any wire, but allow disassembly by grinding off. Possibly a tiny shard of ceramic tube can hold the wire tight to the tube.

          • pelgrim108

            What if the coil would be under tension so that, when part of it melts due to a hotspot or microcrack, it just unwinds back together and restores contact.
            Also if the crosssection of the wire is a rectangle instead of a circkel then the distance between the windings would be greater, or more windings would fit on the same lenght of tube.

          • US_Citizen71

            I’m not an expert on Kanthal but for most metals heating them will cause annealing, so any tension would go away as the coil heats.

          • pelgrim108

            Thanks Citizen. To bad it wont work.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      These considerations are laudable, but in case that the produced energy is radiated away from the reaction site before it gets thermalized (as is typical for nuclear reactions) calculations on the basis of the fuel surface might turn out to be inadequate.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Yes we should have faster thermal time response indicators inside the fuel elements for better control & protection.

    • Sanjeev

      If contact of heater with alumina is a problem, can it be separated using something like Mica?
      See this link for some ideas:
      http://aximmica.com/products/mica-tubes/

      • Obvious

        Interesting. I’ve never seen real tubes of mica before. I have some mica paper sheets here. I scavenged them from inside a 90W hair curler. It melts around 900C.

        • Sanjeev

          Low melting point is a disadvantage and it also has more or less similar chemicals in it. So I guess not guaranteed to protect your Kanthal very much.

    • Ged

      The autopsy from me356 is really interesting. Thank you, Bob.

    • Axil Axil

      There might be something to this. Rossi placed ridges on the surface of the Hot cat. This might have been an attempt to keep the Hot cat from overheating through increased convective cooling. Rossi replication attemps do not do this. Rossi would not have put these ridges on the surface of his reactor for no good reason, The same increased cooling effect might be had by cooling the reactor with a stream of air…fan cooling???

      Using a variable speed fan could allow the experimenter to adjust the degree of reactor cooling at will.

      If this concept is valid, start a Hot cat test with a large amount of fan cooling. Then the reaction might not start at 1200C. reduce the cooling in stages until the reaction starts or the reactor melts down.

      There is a great deal of consideration directed toward the ridges in the Lagano report. From the Lagano test report…

      “The reactor investigated on this occasion is outwardly quite different from the ones used in the tests held in
      the past years. Its external appearance is that of an alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length,
      ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length), non-detachable
      from the body of the reactor, which henceforth will be referred to as “caps”. An image of the reactor is given
      in Figure1. Whereas the surface of the caps is smooth, the outer surface of the body of the E-Cat is molded in
      triangular ridges, 2.3 mm high and 3.2 mm wide at the base, covering the entire surface and designed to
      improve convective thermal exchange (cylinder diameter is calculated from the bases of the ridges). In this
      way, the current model of E-Cat is capable of attaining higher temperatures than the earlier models, avoiding
      internal melting, a previously fairly frequent occurrence [1].”

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Yes process can be inherently self limiting as Rossi has experienced as of late. This mean radioactive heat loss is a controlling mechanism for generation process of ultra low momentum neutrons which are responsible for heat generation within the metals. We need to see that quick process as it happens for better control/protection. Need a new faster response detector of some nature Axil what are your ideas on that. Large nuclear plants us neutron flux to move their power generation process up or down.They could not control well with only themal couple response.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added the latest “Parkhomov on steroids” heat of vaporisation calorimeter set up description and photo to MFMP FB.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Sanjeev

      Great setup ! I was wondering what he was doing. Good progress.

    • Ged

      Wires wires wires. That seems to be the biggest hurdle going on right now. Glad for the provided info that water glass is a major problem and could be behind a lot of this. Seems very careful attention to the makeup of the cement is required.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Andrea Rossi publishes new photo “listening to the voice” on his site.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    TITLE

    “Andrea Rossi 1MW Plant

    Photo of Andrea Rossi listening to the “voice” of the 1 MW E-Cat in the factory of the Customer”

    http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/

    I actually quite like this photo – it is comical and serious and a little staged – but I actually think, if he has something, it will be come a classic.

    • Sanjeev

      Bob, how did the calibration go ? Is the active run all set up to start tomorrow as planned ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pre-heat / passivation done first yesterday, calibration started 17:30 California local time yesterday.

        Hopefully run today.

        • Sanjeev

          Great! Looking forward to it.

          One thing I liked about the Live Open Science experiments, such as Denis’s, is that the crowd sourced data collection, plotting, calculations, review and criticism all happened in one day. About 75 people saw it live (may be not continuously, because it was so long), and it cost almost nothing to publish. Everything is still available for all for free.

          Compare that to the months and months taken by a “traditional experiment” to get the same job done and money spent. We are taking Science into IT age and of course MFMP is leading.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, it does cost a lot of volunteer time and resources, and also donations. BUT – the point is SO MUCH time and effort is wasted by having many critical, interested minds suggesting, analysing etc. This massively reduces repetition of research, both paper and physical such that the iterative process is orders of magnitude faster and more efficient.

          • Sanjeev

            I guess you mean “effort is saved”.
            Yes, avoiding repetition is another advantage. But replication is not simple repetition, its also confirmation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            for sure… but we need to have a working approach first!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Truly fun to watch & comment. Think the LENR process may be like lighting a match & needs faster look at ultra low momentum neutron generation & thermal self regulating control to interact with external PID controller. Would save a lot of burned out tubes. Denis had beautiful limit cycle glowing in the night air for a while on 15 sec period at the end of tubes life.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Andrea Rossi publishes new photo “listening to the voice” on his site.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    TITLE

    “Andrea Rossi 1MW Plant

    Photo of Andrea Rossi listening to the “voice” of the 1 MW E-Cat in the factory of the Customer”

    http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/

    I actually quite like this photo – it is comical and serious and a little staged – but I actually think, if he has something, it will be come a classic.

    • Sanjeev

      Bob, how did the calibration go ? Is the active run all set up to start tomorrow as planned ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pre-heat / passivation done first yesterday, calibration started 17:30 California local time yesterday.

        Hopefully run today.

        • Sanjeev

          Great! Looking forward to it.

          One thing I liked about the Live Open Science experiments, such as Denis’s, is that the crowd sourced data collection, plotting, calculations, review and criticism all happened in one day. About 75 people saw it live (may be not continuously, because it was so long), and it cost almost nothing to publish. Everything is still available for all for free.

          Compare that to the months and months taken by a “traditional experiment” to get the same job done and money spent. We are taking Science into IT age and of course MFMP is leading.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, it does cost a lot of volunteer time and resources, and also donations. BUT – the point is SO MUCH time and effort is wasted by having many critical, interested minds suggesting, analysing etc. This massively reduces repetition of research, both paper and physical such that the iterative process is orders of magnitude faster and more efficient.

          • Sanjeev

            I guess you mean “effort is saved”.
            Yes, avoiding repetition is another advantage. But replication is not simple repetition, its also confirmation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            for sure… but we need to have a working approach first!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Truly fun to watch & comment. Think the LENR process may be like lighting a match & needs faster look at ultra low momentum neutron generation & thermal self regulating control to interact with external PID controller. Would save a lot of burned out tubes. Denis had beautiful limit cycle glowing in the night air for a while on 15 sec period at the end of tubes life.

  • penswrite

    Accepting that Mr. Rossi doesn’t want to reveal his secret sauce, it would still greatly behoove his, and LENR’s, commercial future to post a live-updated demonstration of one of his e-cats. At this point in LENR’s progress, a cat fight would be wonderful to behold.

    Whoever wins.

  • keV

    Here is a PDF on scientific tests using induction to sinter nickel powder – the temperatures are in the ranges being used for these Parkhomov/Lugano tests and it has a diagram of their quartz container which may be of use for people designing future replication test rigs if the existing rigs keep failing…. http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/1743290113Y.0000000069

  • Sanjeev

    Nick Oseyko, a new replicator from Ukraine, shows a neat experiment as a “proof of concept”.
    Perhaps Bob knows more and will post details. Posting here for more visibility and FYI.
    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/978495802181119

    https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11038483_978495522181147_3755852741274615294_n.jpg?oh=f4d6db895df5efe4f6a891c74a942abb&oe=56008FEA

  • Obvious

    A quick summary of a test last night (no fuel):
    I added ceramic paste to the outside of my tube that has been run many times, that has a thin enamel coat “wetting” the coil to the tube. This was before deciding that the paste is a bad idea, and it was already baked on, so no going back. I will do a proper data analysis later (bit busy right now), but these are the notable parts.
    -The temperature delta between outside and inside is greatly increased. I could formerly get the exposed surface to vey close to the interior temperature. Now it is very much lower in temperature.
    -The delay period of both thermocouples to reaching a steady state takes much longer. I would guess the time period has doubled, maybe more. This is due to increased thermal mass, no doubt. At higher temperatures it seems less noticeable than at lower temperatures, but it is significant.
    -The interior temperature was greatly increased at the same power level. This might seem like a good thing, but I think it is very bad. My previous maximum temperature was about 780°C, now 1075°C, at around 523 W.
    I think if there was a LENR event at my current maximum temperature, the tube would fail, the contents would boil, the coil windings would melt, the TC maximum rating would be exceeded (in no particular order). The interior heat cannot be removed fast enough with exterior insulation, and there is now a long delay before it would be noticeable. If I were to bring the exterior to 1200°C, then the inside would be well over 1500°C now, maybe much hotter.
    I think that NO EXTERIOR INSULATION would be best for testing, and the coils should be designed to make the correct heat externally. The inside heat will be hotter anyways. This way coil problems can be seen, the coils will remain oxidized properly, and internal heat will not cause instant failures. If any insulation is used, it must be very thin, very high heat conductive, etc.,until other problems are sorted out.
    The tradeoff for higher inside heat with exterior insulation is poor heat release to the outside. If excess heat occurs at a rate that the heat cannot be conducted away, there will be certain failure of the device. Maximum heat radiation is required for successful experiments. Any quality PID control of heat needs the most fast-acting, lowest Delta T, and most representative temperature reading it can get.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for testing and for your continued sophisticated analyses. Regarding the problem of heat transfer, it might be an alternative to mount the heater inside, and the vessel that contains the fuel around it, or – perhaps better – to use a flat heater and place the (also flat) reactor on top of it. I recall that some reader proposed a similar setup a while ago, with the idea to use it like a hotplate. A simple pot filled with water would then suffice for basic calorimetry.

      • Obvious

        I think the tube is probably the best design generally. A hot plate might work also, but may have heat dissipation issues I suspect. Convection will be problematic, and heat radiation ability greatly limited for a fuel container. Hot plate issues can be worked out, but since almost no one is doing them (currently) there is less help and info from other experiments to guide its use.

        My tube is 3/4″ outside and 1/2″ inside diameter, and was planned for inserting a replaceable fuelled tube at some point, after working out whatever problems and tests I wanted to try. The large size makes it easier to see what is going on. I was able to get the outside temperature almost to the same as the internal temperature before putting the cement on it. I very much regret the cement addition, but I can build another tube. I need more power anyways, so a complete rewind is due, so not a big deal.

        I think thermometry should be an easy and fairly simple way to get the system worked out. If excess heat (temperature) happens then proper calorimetry is the obvious next step. But this adds a lot more complexity while getting a suitable device to even work electrically in a reliable way, let alone with some sort of reaction, if done from the start.

    • Obvious

      Graph of last night.
      The IR (dots only) used to follow the inside heat within 20-40 degrees, and match the outside (0.93 emissivity). Now both emissivity and the tight match with the inside temperature is shot.

  • Obvious

    A quick summary of a test last night (no fuel):
    I added ceramic paste to the outside of my tube that has been run many times, that has a thin enamel coat “wetting” the coil to the tube. This was before deciding that the paste is a bad idea, and it was already baked on, so no going back. I will do a proper data analysis later (bit busy right now), but these are the notable parts.
    -The temperature delta between outside and inside is greatly increased. I could formerly get the exposed surface to very close to the interior temperature. Now it is very much lower in temperature.
    -The delay period of both thermocouples to reaching a steady state takes much longer. I would guess the time period has doubled, maybe more. This is due to increased thermal mass, no doubt. At higher temperatures it seems less noticeable than at lower temperatures, but it is significant.
    -The interior temperature was greatly increased at the same power level. This might seem like a good thing, but I think it is very bad. My previous maximum temperature was about 780°C, now 1075°C, at around 523 W.
    I think if there was a LENR event at my current maximum temperature, the tube would fail, the contents would boil, the coil windings would melt, the TC maximum rating would be exceeded (in no particular order). The interior heat cannot be removed fast enough with exterior insulation, and there is now a long delay before it would be noticeable. If I were to bring the exterior to 1200°C, then the inside would be well over 1500°C now, maybe much hotter.
    I think that NO EXTERIOR INSULATION would be best for testing, and the coils should be designed to make the correct heat externally. The inside heat will be hotter anyways. This way coil problems can be seen, the coils will remain oxidized properly, and internal heat will not cause instant failures. If any insulation is used, it must be very thin, very highly heat conductive, have high emissivity, etc.,until other problems are sorted out.
    The tradeoff for higher inside heat with exterior insulation is poor heat release to the outside and a longer period before temperature stabilization. If excess heat occurs at a rate that the heat cannot be conducted away, there will be certain failure of the device. Maximum heat radiation is required for successful experiments. Any quality PID control of heat needs the most fast-acting, lowest Delta T, and most representative temperature reading it can get.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for testing and for your continued sophisticated analyses. Regarding the problem of heat transfer, it might be an alternative to mount the heater inside, and the vessel that contains the fuel around it, or – perhaps better – to use a flat heater and place the (also flat) reactor on top of it. I recall that some reader proposed a similar setup a while ago, with the idea to use it like a hotplate. A simple pot filled with water would then suffice for basic calorimetry.

      • Obvious

        I think the tube is probably the best design generally. A hot plate might work also, but may have heat dissipation issues I suspect. Convection will be problematic, and heat radiation ability greatly limited for a fuel container. Hot plate issues can be worked out, but since almost no one is doing them (currently) there is less help and info from other experiments to guide its use.

        My tube is 3/4″ outside and 1/2″ inside diameter, and was planned for inserting a replaceable fuelled tube at some point, after working out whatever problems and tests I wanted to try. The large size makes it easier to see what is going on. I was able to get the outside temperature almost to the same as the internal temperature before putting the cement on it. I very much regret the cement addition, but I can build another tube. I need more power anyways, so a complete rewind is due, so not a big deal.

        I think thermometry should be an easy and fairly simple way to get the system worked out. If excess heat (temperature) happens then proper calorimetry is the obvious next step. But this adds a lot more complexity while getting a suitable device to even work electrically in a reliable way, let alone with some sort of reaction, if done from the start.

    • Obvious

      Graph of last night.
      The IR (dots only) used to follow the inside heat within 20-40 degrees, and match the outside (0.93 emissivity). Now both emissivity and the tight match with the inside temperature is shot.
      Edit: Note that there is a chunk of missing time where the TC meter battery “quit”. This is why that step has a vertical line (where the arrow is pointing). I have inserted two data points I collected manually there, but they are lost in the horizontal part, since they were collected during steady state operation. The meter stopped recording, but was still displaying temperature, so it took me a while to spot that it was not recording (Low Bat flashed once). The missing time period is 20 minutes 22 seconds, during the temperature climb.
      I am surprised that the Excel axis skipped that missing time period, instead of maintaining a constant time spacing. Something to have a look at in these plots. (The meter records every two seconds)

  • Sanjeev
    • Stephen Taylor

      Looking forward to these upcoming replication attempts. Many well prepared hard working people working on this so more learned on every attempt. Thanks to all of you.

  • Sanjeev
    • Stephen Taylor

      Looking forward to these upcoming replication attempts. Many well prepared hard working people working on this so more learned on every attempt. Thanks to all of you.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    How about the inside-out design of reactor (see the scheme of the reactor on the link below) for better heat exchange (heater inside and reactor active zone is outside) and temperature control (one TC on the reactor shell outside and and another one on the heater inside) ?

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1275-Reactor-parameters/?postID=4966#post4966

  • Axil Axil

    I wonder if the LENR reaction in the Hot cat might benefit from a wider swing in the temperature in the PID cycle, say 200C. For example, let say a delta T temperature swing of 200C…the minimum temperature is 800C and the maximum temperature is 1000C

    Why do I say this?

    I believe that there is a nanoparticle formation process going on caused by the temperatures swings. Without temperature swings, the reaction does not seem to work. The nanoparticles are formed when the temperature goes through the supercritical gas saturation boundary between the supercritical gas state and the non supercritical gas state. The wider that the temperature swing is, the better is the chance for nanoparticle formation.

    I believe that the pressure drop seen in the hot cat over time is due to the formation of nanoparticles as gas turns into a solid nano-dust.

  • Axil Axil

    I wonder if the LENR reaction in the Hot cat might benefit from a wider swing in the temperature in the PID cycle, say 200C. For example, let say a delta T temperature swing of 200C…the minimum temperature is 800C and the maximum temperature is 1000C

    Why do I say this?

    I believe that there is a nanoparticle formation process going on caused by the temperatures swings. Without temperature swings, the reaction does not seem to work. The nanoparticles are formed when the temperature goes through the supercritical gas saturation boundary between the supercritical gas state and the non supercritical gas state. The wider that the temperature swing is, the better is the chance for nanoparticle formation.

    I believe that the pressure drop seen in the hot cat over time is due to the formation of nanoparticles as gas turns into a solid nano-dust.

  • rats123

    Can you put up a graph comparison for this? I can’t make out if the delta t was linear through the process or otherwise. Linear would suggest measurement errors.