MFMP Glowstick Test Provides Hope of Excess Heat Detection from LENR — What Next? [Update: Raw Data Files Now Available]

The 47-hour live test by the Martin Fleschmann Memorial Project on their Glowstick reactor has got a lot of attention, and after 700+ comments on the live thread here, I thought we could have a new thread for wrap-up and reflection.

We are left with some intriguing results, which I don’t think can yet be considered conclusive, but the interesting divergence between the fueled and unfueled reactors — which increased over time — certainly provides a hope that there was excess heat produced in this test. My understanding is that the testing is not actually over, because a post-test calibration run is planned where there will be a run with the hydrogen removed from the fueled reactor.

The data from that post-test will be as important as the data from the fueled test. If the now unfueled reactor acts very differently from when it had fuel in it, then that will be a bigger indication that there was an LENR event taking place yesterday. Also, Bob Greenyer has said that fuel from the reactor will be sent of for isotopic analysis which should provide very useful information.

I think that Live Open Science has worked very well so far in this test. There has been a lot of engagement between observers and experimenters which has made this an exciting collaborative experience, and I think this bodes well for the future testing. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm out there — no doubt sparked by the hope of positive results, and I think this will spark more interest and participation in the future.

If this test turns out to show positive results then it will give experimenters and base to build from. What would come next? Since the test maxed out at around 830C (external reactor temperature), I think there will be attempts to move the temperatures even higher. Andrea Rossi has said that with the E-Cat, COP increases as temperatures increase. I also think there will be interest in trying the same kind of test with lower pressures. We were at over 22 bar when this test ended, and I think it would be interesting to see what would have happened if the pressure was much lower, as in Parkhomov’s testing, and also in the recently published test by Songsheng Jiang. People could try different fuel amounts, different sizes of nickel and LAH grains, different amounts of empty space inside the reactor, etc. The variations that could be tried are probably infinite.

But I think getting a positive test is the important thing here. When Orville Wright flew for just 12 seconds at Kitty Hawk in 1903, it didn’t change transportation right away, but it served as evidence that manned flight was possible, and that was what mattered. I think that’s all the community needs to get open LENR experimentation really off the ground. I think it is wise to be cautious about making conclusions about this test — which is not really over yet — but I think there is cause for hope. Thanks to Alan, Skip and the MFMP team for setting this test up. And thanks for the contributions of so many who provided valuable feedback and data. It was very interesting to observe, and I look forward to more!

UPDATE: Alan Goldwater just posted the following regarding data files from the recent MFMP test:

The data files are now available in a public archive at:
http://tinyurl.com/o8kuxxc

The large “raw” files are in five segments of 12 hours (x4) and 4 hours. All are .csv format and can be copied and downloaded. The geiger counter data will be uploaded later today. The gamma spectrometer files need processing to remove background level, and will be added tomorrow.

AlanG

  • pg

    Next would be to provide certainty of excess heat that can only be explained with lenr

  • timycelyn

    One question that is bothering me is whether it is premature to dissect this reactor. Has it run long enough to convert enough of the contents for analysis to show clear changes? The Lugano reactors ran for months, not hours.

    Might it not be wiser to run it some more (possibly after the H2 removed calibration run) to:

    1. See if it will fire up with fresh H2 addedand if so
    2. Build up a lot more run time to increase the value of the analytical result when it is dissected.

    OK, pulling a number out of the air, run it for another 100 hrs?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am for a de-pressurisation and then a re-heat before a Vac down – but it would be a very complex procedure and involve removal and replacement of one of the Swagelok end caps.

      Bob Higgins reactor is set up for gas release and vacuum / re-pressurisation – these choices would be far easier with that.

      A much shorter re-heat could be conducted however before vacuuming it out.

      • Axil Axil

        This last test did not show how low the pressure of gas would eventually go. The pressure was still going down when the test was stopped. I regret that the test was stopped so soon. The last test should be restarted to find out what the minimum pressure that can be reached is before the hydrogen gas is vented.

      • Axil Axil

        Looking at the chemical composition of the reactor fuel is premature because the pressure of the hydrogen gas had not reached it minimum value. The goal of the post test analysis should be to see why the pressure drops and what solids where formed from the gas. Unless the gas is totally stabilized chemically, the analysis will be faud.

    • Ged

      Restarting the reactor before H2 removal is an interesting idea.

      Now that the hydrogen has been liberated from the LiAlH4, and after whatever other changes have occurred during the heat up and heat down, the behavior of the reactor could be quite different during a second run (no having to wait for an LiAl decomp, and the nickel may already be bound with hydrogen, etc). That’s assuming an LENR reactor can be restarted when in this set up after a hard power down like that and isn’t dead (plenty of evidence it can).

      I don’t think we would expect the same 600 C event necessarily, but can’t not expect it either. Running the reactor again is a complete unknown and territory untrod.. exciting prospect.

      Though, ultimately we really need that post calibration run, so I don’t want the heater coils to be killed. But you’re also right in that the amount of transmutations, if there, will of course be proportional to the length of the reaction, so there may or may not be much there yet if any (again, a big unknown). But getting the fuel is irreversible, so that unknown can be saved to last.

      It’s exciting times, as we are surrounded by new territory, and gotta pick experimental priorities carefully. I think you are right to suggest a quick second run though, especially in case the fuel isn’t completely killed in a vacuum out and does something funky in post calibration–it’ll be easier to see that against a second, non-virgin run after all these internal changes, rather than the first.

      • timycelyn

        See my earlier post finally surfaced out of limbo, down near the bottom of the thread. I agree the reactor shouldn’t be tampered with yet, but just fired back up.

        However, to be nice to the coil there is no need to push it all the way to 810C, burt perhaps just leave it at 600-650C, when I guess the coil will have considerable longevity – if it lights up, of course.

        It may even be – if Axil Axil is correct – that a reactor that has been ‘conditioned’ by a run/cool down cycle may run rather better second time around.

        • Ged

          It’s very possible, especially since so much hydrogen is around now from the start as the LiAl is all broken down, the nickel has already loaded some, and other conditioning events have taken place. That point at which something starts happening may be completely different a second time than that first, due to not having to wait on LiAl decomposition, and all the other changes. It’s a huge unknown, and I am right there with you wondering what would happen and thinking it a good idea. Also a good point it doesn’t have to go so high a second time to take a look at it, 775 C at most.

  • timycelyn

    One question that is bothering me is whether it is premature to dissect this reactor. Has it run long enough to convert enough of the contents for analysis to show clear changes? The Lugano reactors ran for months, not hours.

    Might it not be wiser to run it some more (possibly after the H2 removed calibration run) to:

    1. See if it will fire up with fresh H2 addedand if so
    2. See how it beaves in a much more extended trial- do the temperatures continue to slowly diverge, does the H2 preesure continue to drop, and so on …….
    3. Build up a lot more run time to increase the value of the analytical result when it is dissected.

    OK, pulling a number out of the air, run it for another 100 hrs minimum.

    I realise it’s easy saying this, but continued supervision could be the killer – unless it was judged stable enough to leave, or with electronic supervson or something….

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am for a de-pressurisation and then a re-heat before a Vac down – but it would be a very complex procedure and involve removal and replacement of one of the Swagelok end caps.

      Bob Higgins reactor is set up for gas release and vacuum / re-pressurisation – these choices would be far easier with that.

      A much shorter re-heat could be conducted however before vacuuming it out.

      • timycelyn

        Bob, I recognise this is a hell of a call for you guys to make, and feel that as a group you are best placed to take these difficult decisions.

        Stating one point of view, the thing that is worrying me is that premature analysis of the contents, if they are (say) only 1% converted due to the shortness of the run, could generate a spurious negative that could bring into question something that in fact worked fine. I’d love to see it pushed for a while yet to optimise the chances of a positive result on analysis.

        To be honest, I’m even a little uneasy about depressurising it. I’d personally want to hook it straight back up and go again – with an extended programme which would provide a lot more answers in its own right.

      • Axil Axil

        This last test did not show how low the pressure of gas would eventually go. The pressure was still going down when the test was stopped. I regret that the test was stopped so soon. The last test should be restarted to find out what the minimum pressure that can be reached is before the hydrogen gas is vented.

      • Axil Axil

        Looking at the chemical composition of the reactor fuel is premature because the pressure of the hydrogen gas had not reached it minimum value. The goal of the post test analysis should be to see why the pressure drops and what solids where formed from the gas. Unless the gas is totally stabilized chemically, the analysis will be faud.

    • Ged

      Restarting the reactor before H2 removal is an interesting idea.

      Now that the hydrogen has been liberated from the LiAlH4, and after whatever other changes have occurred during the heat up and heat down, the behavior of the reactor could be quite different during a second run (no having to wait for an LiAl decomp, and the nickel may already be bound with hydrogen, etc). That’s assuming an LENR reactor can be restarted when in this set up after a hard power down like that and isn’t dead (plenty of evidence it can).

      I don’t think we would expect the same 600 C event necessarily, but can’t not expect it either. Running the reactor again is a complete unknown and territory untrod.. exciting prospect.

      Though, ultimately we really need that post calibration run, so I don’t want the heater coils to be killed. But you’re also right in that the amount of transmutations, if there, will of course be proportional to the length of the reaction, so there may or may not be much there yet if any (again, a big unknown). But getting the fuel is irreversible, so that unknown can be saved to last.

      It’s exciting times, as we are surrounded by new territory, and gotta pick experimental priorities carefully. I think you are right to suggest a quick second run though, especially in case the fuel isn’t completely killed in a vacuum out and does something funky in post calibration–it’ll be easier to see that against a second, non-virgin run after all these internal changes, rather than the first.

      • nietsnie

        Is it known that the reactor wasn’t damaged by the gymnastics at the end
        there? According to the spreadsheet it reached 884C briefly before
        power down. Isn’t that beyond the expected parameters of some of the
        components? I wonder whether a change noted by a re-calibration run
        would only reflect damage inflicted right at the end.

        • Ged

          I think it should be ok, as all componants can survive that for a time, and it was brief. An important thought though; we’ll see.

      • timycelyn

        See my earlier post finally surfaced out of limbo, down near the bottom of the thread. I agree the reactor shouldn’t be tampered with yet, but just fired back up.

        However, to be nice to the coil there is no need to push it all the way to 810C, burt perhaps just leave it at 600-650C, when I guess the coil will have considerable longevity – if it lights up, of course.

        It may even be – if Axil Axil is correct – that a reactor that has been ‘conditioned’ by a run/cool down cycle may run rather better second time around.

        • Ged

          It’s very possible, especially since so much hydrogen is around now from the start as the LiAl is all broken down, the nickel has already loaded some, and other conditioning events have taken place. That point at which something starts happening may be completely different a second time than that first, due to not having to wait on LiAl decomposition, and all the other changes. It’s a huge unknown, and I am right there with you wondering what would happen and thinking it a good idea. Also a good point it doesn’t have to go so high a second time to take a look at it, 775 C at most.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The next Generation of *GlowStick* (GS3) will have a thicker bore – this will allow a much lower fuel area to volume ratio which may be critical to both seeing any potential effect at all, higher COP or SS.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Fantastic! Let’s hope it makes a difference as predicted. An inner bore of at least 5mm and fuel load of at least 0.6 gram (preferably 1 gram) will be a true Parkhomov replication. Thanks for always being willing to listen to suggestions.

    • Gerard McEk

      Is the next generation a dual Stick again? I would recommend to run two separate (themically not connected) GlowSticks.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        At higher temperatures there is much less heat transfer by conduction than by radiation. So I guess they could keep the dual stick. Even if the two reactors were separated, there would be some radiative transfer between them (except that they’d put them very far away from each other).

        What I would consider interesting is a test without LiAlH4, but pure nickel powder in the control tube. That could shed some light on the question if the thermal mass of the fuel plays a significant role in the distribution of temperature. IMO one could go without a calibration run, since the passive reactor will provide a real-time reference.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, agreed, but I do not really see the need. Also the fact that that Hydrogen can freeely flow into the empty reactor can be avoided then, as well as that the thermal mass can be made the same for both.

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,
      What do you mean by “a lower fuel area to volume ratio”? What weight of fuel and what volume of reactor are you proposing for the next Glowstick?
      Dr. Mike

      • Mike Henderson

        I think he means that a higher caliber barrel will naturally create a shorter, fatter fuel “pellet”.

        • Bob Greenyer

          yes. less external area.

          • Axil Axil

            How do you explain the triangular heat fins on the reactor used in the Lagano test?

          • Bob Greenyer

            of the fuel pellet – NOT the reactor body

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob, any idea when the results of the analysis of this test will become available? Further, I agree with Timycelyn, below that it may be difficult to establish a measurable isotope shift when a reactor ran so short.

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob, any idea when the results of the analysis of this test will become available? Further, I agree with Timycelyn, below that it may be difficult to establish a measurable isotope shift when a reactor ran so short.

  • Ged

    Also looking forward to the gamma spectrometer trace after background and control subtraction, just in case.

  • Ged

    Also looking forward to the gamma spectrometer trace after background and control subtraction, just in case.

  • Mats002

    Check if the heating coil degraded evenly on both sides to rule out that as cause to temp divergence from the null reactor. Also I am keen to know the overall power in vs power out for the whole system.

    • Mats002

      I ment energy in (electrical) vs energy out (calculated from temp) – you know that 🙂

  • Mats002

    Check if the heating coil degraded evenly on both sides to rule out that as cause to temp divergence from the null reactor. Also I am keen to know the overall power in vs power out for the whole system.

    • Mats002

      I ment energy in (electrical) vs energy out (calculated from temp) – you know that 🙂

  • AdrianAshfield

    Having a reliable temperature measurement inside the reactor would be highly desirable. I know type S thermocouples are expensive, but even having a short thermocouple at the edge of the fuel would do it. Possibly have a type K thermocouple in the middle for comparison, until it breaks.

    For really extended runs, like a year or more, it is important to have the thermocouple wire at least 15 thou diameter as the platinum forms crystals nearly than big that cause failure.

    • Obvious

      Switching to type N would save some trouble.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Having a reliable temperature measurement inside the reactor would be highly desirable. I know type S thermocouples are expensive, but even having a short thermocouple at the edge of the fuel would do it. Possibly have a type K thermocouple in the middle for comparison, until it breaks.

    For really extended runs, like a year or more, it is important to have the thermocouple wire at least 15 thou diameter as the platinum forms crystals nearly than big that cause failure.
    In CA it would be worth asking Gallo Glass if they have a used type S from a furnace/forehearth repair they would give you. You don’t need the more expensive platinum/rhodium sheath.

    • Obvious

      Switching to type N would save some trouble.

  • Mike Henderson

    The best part was having a run that did not end with sparks and a broken tube. 😉 The Kitty Hawk is safely back in the barn and can be flown again.

    As we get past “can it be replicated?” to “can it be optimized?”, we need hundreds of reactors. How can standard setups be produced as cheaply as possible? An army of open source tinkerers can quickly “explore the space” and find better configurations.

    Evacuate the reactor or purge with hydrogen prior to heating.
    Vary the recipe: alternate nickel sources, lithium borohydride, lithium aluminum deuteride, …
    Use tubular halogen bulbs as the heater.
    AC vs DC heating.
    Electromagnetic fields.
    Nanotextured nickel films.

  • Carl Wilson

    Is there anything special about Parkhomov’s nickel?

    • Andre Blum

      no and yes. No in the sense that it is (to my understanding) a pretty common nickel powder Parkhomov ordered somewhere, and could order again. Yes in the sense that it is believed to have shown excess heat.

      • Carl Wilson

        “ordered somewhere” — not a terribly tight specification. Are there even some very minor impurities that make a non-minor difference? What about the small scale structure of the powder particles? If it was considered important to use the Parkhomov powder, isn’t it important enough to know if there are special “accidental” properties of the powder?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have published all of the analysis to date. Ours and Parkhomovs

          In the Nickel, there appeared to be up to 6-7% carbon by EDX – but that can be an artefact of the technique.

          Peter from NeoFire is going to do TOF-SIMS and SKINR are going to do ICP-MS – so we will know with clarity.

          As for his LiAlH4 – it has around 10% Chlorine – this was confirmed by our own analysis via Mastromatteo.

          We would like to do TOF-SIMS, ICP-MS and Neutron activation on the LiAlH4 also and are working towards that and then all of the above and EDX on the ashes that are most promising.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guys,very impressive experiment, to me it shows that alan, and the MF/MP, are a can do team, so, i’m very hesitant to point to any changes, well maybe just a few on the fringes , i would like to see alan stay with the experiment, for as long as needed, plan to have a bed on site, with plenty physical help, and someone tech savy, to better set up data, actuation surveillance for those that are helping with what is happening real time, and that’s about all, good run guys, there should be a gold mine of data to pour through,

  • Dr. Mike

    The active side of the reactor had a higher temperature than the control side for a period of more than 32 hours. I think this is enough time to produce some isotropic changes in the fuel. Based on the Lugano results, I would recommend that the post fuel analysis look carefully for an increase in the ratio of Li6 to Li7 and look for an increase in Ni62 relative to the other naturally occurring Ni isotopes. It will be interesting to see if there are other atomic changes to the fuel from running the reactor under these particular conditions.

    • Mats002

      Time is not the only factor for that conclusion, also COP is a factor for amount of transmutations in the ash. This run suggested a quite lower COP than Lugano.

      • Mike Henderson

        I recall that Lugano released about a megawatt-hour of energy. This test released a handful of kilowatt-hours. (Based on a prior power / temp calibration run I estimated 2 to 3 Watts / degree of delta T at 700 deg C). If isotope conversion is proportional to energy release, 2% of the number of isotopes converted. However, Lugano used a 1 gm fuel charge and Alan & Skip used 0.3 gm. Those transmuted isotopes are concentrated in a 70% smaller sample. Net-net, we would see about 6% of the conversion observed at Lugano.

        Personally, I would let it run longer to assure a more definitive result.

        • Dr. Mike

          Mike,
          I agree that it would be better to run the reactor longer. However, if we expect to see something like 6% of the conversion observed at Lugano, and then actually see it, I think it would be safe to say that this experiment has been a complete success.
          Dr. Mike

        • Axil Axil

          A test protocol should be put into place that would allow for an open ended test with no definite time limit. The reaction should terminate on its own when the reaction is judged to be stable in all critical parameters. A computerized test controller might be used to eliminate humans and their needs for sleep, rest, and entertainment from the test protocol.

      • Dr. Mike

        Mats002,
        I agree that COP would also be a good factor to consider for the relative amount of transmutations. Errors in calorimetry in Luguano as pointed out by Thomas Clarke and others indicate that the Lugano reactor may have only had a COP of 1.1-1.3.
        Dr. Mike

    • Axil Axil

      The test was not run long enough or at the proper power level for transmutations to be detected, IMHO

  • Dr. Mike

    The active side of the reactor had a higher temperature than the control side for a period of more than 32 hours. I think this is enough time to produce some isotropic changes in the fuel. Based on the Lugano results, I would recommend that the post fuel analysis look carefully for an increase in the ratio of Li6 to Li7 and look for an increase in Ni62 relative to the other naturally occurring Ni isotopes. It will be interesting to see if there are other atomic changes to the fuel from running the reactor under these particular conditions.

    • Mats002

      Time is not the only factor for that conclusion, also COP is a factor for amount of transmutations in the ash. This run suggested a quite lower COP than Lugano.

      • Mike Henderson

        I recall that Lugano released about a megawatt-hour of energy. This test released a handful of kilowatt-hours. (Based on a prior power / temp calibration run I estimated 2 to 3 Watts / degree of delta T at 700 deg C). If isotope conversion is proportional to energy release, 2% of the number of isotopes converted. However, Lugano used a 1 gm fuel charge and Alan & Skip used 0.3 gm. Those transmuted isotopes are concentrated in a 70% smaller sample. Net-net, we would see about 6% of the conversion observed at Lugano.

        Personally, I would let it run longer to assure a more definitive result.

        • Dr. Mike

          Mike,
          I agree that it would be better to run the reactor longer. However, if we expect to see something like 6% of the conversion observed at Lugano, and then actually see it, I think it would be safe to say that this experiment has been a complete success.
          Dr. Mike

          • Ralph S Edward

            There is no way that you can do a direct comparison with the Lugano test. Inasmuch as it ran for 32 days, with no samples done during the period, there is no way to know when the NI62 conversion had completed. It could have been in the first day, or on day 32. No way to know…

          • Mike Henderson

            Perhaps there is a way to know: E=mc^2.

            Compare the mass deficits for the Lugano Ni and Li isotope shifts, my math suggests 1.2 megawatt-hours per gram. (Yes, this ignores any H >> He transmutations.) Some say that Rossi knew exactly when to halt the test.

          • Alain Samoun

            If the conversion had happened in one day,it should have increased the temperature accordingly during that day, don’t you think?

        • Axil Axil

          A test protocol should be put into place that would allow for an open ended test with no definite time limit. The reaction should terminate on its own when the reaction is judged to be stable in all critical parameters. A computerized test controller might be used to eliminate humans and their needs for sleep, rest, and entertainment from the test protocol.

      • Dr. Mike

        Mats002,
        I agree that COP would also be a good factor to consider for the relative amount of transmutations. Errors in calorimetry in Luguano as pointed out by Thomas Clarke and others indicate that the Lugano reactor may have only had a COP of 1.1-1.3.
        Dr. Mike

    • Axil Axil

      The test was not run long enough or at the proper power level for transmutations to be detected, IMHO

  • Malcolm Leissring

    Long-time reader, first-time poster, here. I am as hopeful and as optimistic as anyone, but what I’d like to see discussed (and I searched in vain to find “live” discussion of) is the following:

    When we finally got “divergence” or “crossover”, it manifested not as a result of an increase in the temperature of the fueled reactor, but instead as a DECREASE in the control reactor (the fueled reactor was in fact remarkably flat during this epoch). For whatever reason (failing temperature sensor?), the control reactor failed to exhibit a “monotonic increase” as was seen in the calibration runs.

    Unfortunately, this “drop” is of a magnitude that appears to more or less completely explain the (relative) “rise” in the fueled reactor that we are all very hopeful about.

    Has this issue been discussed yet?

    (Edited to fix some typos)

    • Ed Pell

      The controler for the heater is attached to the fueled side. As the fueled side provides more of its own heat the heater is throttled back. This cause the tmeorature on the fueled side to stay constant at the set point and the temperature on the null side to fall.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting observation. That should be clarified by comparison with the calibration run. Unfortunately, there are no data for the input power – I guess they will be uploaded later.

      • Ged

        As Mike and Ed pointed out, that behavior is -exactly- what should be seen if there is excess heat. The PID was watching the active cell, so if it started producing heat, the PID would have throttled back input power which would be seen as a reduction in temperature on the null cell. The power analysis between the run and the control run will be useful in showing that more, but even to my eye I could tell it looked like the power trended down as the divergence increased while at a stable temp.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Agreed. The missing data might be useful, though, for a deeper analysis.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I expect it to be published today when Alan and Skip are back in the Lab (Garage).

          • Ged

            Completely and strongly agreed.

    • Mike Henderson

      The decrease in the temperature of the unfueled side was exactly what would be expected.

      The “two reactors” are actually two ends of the same reactor and share a common heating element. They each get (almost exactly) half of the total power input. The thermostat was used to maintain the temperature at the fueled side’s thermocouple. When less power was required to hold a setpoint, the unfueled side was deprived of power too. This caused the unfueled side to be cooler than the fueled side.

      Alan has not provide power consumption data to us yet. If the reactor was indeed generating its own heat, we would expect that the system would have consumed about 20-30% less power to hold a given temperature than it did during a no-fuel calibration run.

    • Sanjeev

      Looks like many people do not know what the objective of the experiment was and what was expected. Next time, it will be helpful to write it down clearly somewhere or in the spreadsheet (if any). The objective and description of the setup should be the first thing people should see. Either MFMP or online contributors could do that.

      • Bob Greenyer

        better yet – a simple explanatory video

    • Obvious

      The variance of the active compared to null is exactly what an excess of heat output watts in the active side should look like. The apparent and indirectly measured increase in output watts relative to the null is compounded by an increase in temperature. The reason for that is a matter of conjecture.

    • Axil Axil

      The input heat was controled by the temperature of the fueled reactor. As the reaction increased the heat production of the fueled reactor, the amount of input heat that feed the dummy reactor decreased and the dummy reactor cooled in responce to that decrease in the power feed since the power feed was the same for both reactors.

    • Obvious

      Once the compiled data is ready, we can see if the active dropped relative to the previous control, or the null dropped relative to the control, or if the combined power is identical to the control. If the latter is true, then it is simply a power imbalance between sides that caused the temperature difference. If the combined power consumption is the same, and the null side the same as the control, but the fuelled side is hotter, then more complicated explanations are required, including the elusive LENR phenomenon if all other mundane explanations can be dismissed by due diligence. It might be a couple of days until the data is available.

    • clovis ray

      Hi, Malcolm,
      And welcome, don’t be a stranger,this is a good place to kick your ideas around and see what others think, it’s better than google, smile 🙂

  • builditnow

    Now, that was interesting, watching “the tea pot come to a boil”.
    I’ll have another cup…. thanks.

    How many watts of potential excess energy? At 2 watts / degree C, then about 160watts?
    3 watts / Degree C about 240watts? Take the average, 200 watts for 0.33 grams of fuel.
    1 gram of fuel could then give 600 watts.
    2 grams 1200 watts.
    If the electrical power input was around 1000 watts (was it?) then a similar design in terms of insulation could go self sustaining and require active air cooling to avoid overheating.
    (all pending more evidence that there was 200 watts of excess energy)

    Would an experiment that provided 1000 watts of heat output, with “no input of heat / energy” and, had to be cooled, and ran for weeks, be convincing?
    Hot tub heater anyone?

    Experimenters: Time for insulation and active cooling!

  • Sanjeev

    A setup that did not fail for 2 days is an achievement in itself. So well done !
    Everything before this either leaked, burnt or exploded.

    As Ged and timycelyn have said below, it will be good to rerun it without disturbing it in any way. Let it climb up in 100C steps and then climb down again, may be quickly in 8-10 hours ?

    There will be a lot to learn from the reheat. Whether the dT goes up or down, whether the steep rise happens again at 600C ext or not, and whether there is any asymmetry while climbing down. All these important questions can be answered. You can also reverse the TCs on the board while running to see if there is a problem there.

    I’m expecting that since its sitting there while eating the H2, it will behave a little differently, may be there can be more dT. After this the ash can be extracted for analysis, more run time = better signal in analysis. So do not hurry to analysis, the powder is not going to run away 😉

    • Ged

      At this rate, Alan and Skip might start suspecting we like to watch them work ;). Can’t forgot that bookend calibration before fuel removal surgery, too, hah.

      • Axil Axil

        MFMP or one of its volunteer contributors should design an implement a computer driven test protocol that automates the test of a reactor to remove the need of humans as a limiting factor in the conduct of the test. This automated tester should be made available to all replications. It is difficult to have one of two people properly conduct a long running test of a LENR reactor because of the limitations of the human body and spirit. A large team like those who conduced the Lagano test is required to conduct a long term test where transmutation results become apparent.

    • Axil Axil

      The reactor should be reheated and the test continued until the pressure reaches and stablizes at is its lowest level. This info is important to know.

      • Bob Matulis

        Per your previous point, a significantly extended run will improve chances of detecting transmutation of the ash.

  • Sanjeev

    A setup that did not fail for 2 days is an achievement in itself. So well done !
    Everything before this either leaked, burnt or exploded.

    As Ged and timycelyn have said below, it will be good to rerun it without disturbing it in any way. Let it climb up in 100C steps and then climb down again, may be quickly in 8-10 hours ?

    There will be a lot to learn from the reheat. Whether the dT goes up or down, whether the steep rise happens again at 600C ext or not, and whether there is any asymmetry while climbing down. All these important questions can be answered. You can also swap the TCs on the board while running to see if there is a problem there.

    I’m expecting that since its sitting there while eating the H2, it will behave a little differently, may be there can be more dT. After this the ash can be extracted for analysis, more run time = better signal in analysis. So do not hurry to analysis, the powder is not going to run away 😉

    • Ged

      At this rate, Alan and Skip might start suspecting we like to watch them work ;). Can’t forgot that bookend calibration before fuel removal surgery, too, hah.

    • Axil Axil

      The reactor should be reheated and the test continued until the pressure reaches and stablizes at is its lowest level. This info is important to know.

      • Bob Matulis

        Per your previous point, a significantly extended run will improve chances of detecting transmutation of the ash.

    • LookMoo

      Meanwhile The Russians, Chinese replicate the Rossi eCat.

      MFMP is a Tombstone over USA education system.

      • Omega Z

        LookMoo
        You Post-
        “Meanwhile The Russians, Chinese replicate the Rossi eCat.”

        These people are Scientists with PhD’s & Years of lab experience.
        There results have Question marks.

        You Post-
        “MFMP is a Tombstone over USA education system.”
        A Group of private open source oriented people who have day jobs taking it upon themselves to try & understand & replicate LENR many with no prior experience in the LENR field. The Russians & Chinese have shown Respect for MFMP’s efforts then your post.

        Your Post Reflects Badly on Your Education & Understanding…

        • LookMoo

          I’m sure that MFMP sooner or later make it.. before a eCat is available at Wall-mart. Americans will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other alternatives.

          In this case it will take some time.

      • Ed Pell

        Have you read the Chinese paper? I find it impossible to decipher. Go read it and then decide if you want to throw stones.

        As for MFMP they just had the best demo of cold fusion in a decade and you are unhappy? Where’s your demo?

  • Obvious

    Specular boundary condition

  • Obvious

    Specular reflection boundary condition

  • US_Citizen71

    With the small volume of fuel is this test I think we need to temper our expectations of what the output would be if it had a LENR event. Most of the other tests that have been done that have shown a probable excess have used over a gram of fuel. The smaller fuel load likely needs a detection protocol more sensitive than temperature measurement. The Glowsticks might work well in calorimeter made from something like a gallon paint can. A steel pipe large enough in diameter to house the Glowstick welded a short distance from the bottom through the can would make a good testing setup. The Glowstick could be kept centered by an alumina firebrick spacer near either end. Mount another small piece of pipe through the lid to let steam escape and cover the whole thing with insulation. A continuous water supply can be added using various means to control the level and monitor the water boiled off. Cheaper easy calorimeter. This is something I have thought of building, but living in a townhome with out a garage the only safe testing place would be my fireplace and I’m not sure sending a large quantity of steam up my chimney would be a good thing.

    • Sanjeev

      Parkhomov style calorimetry will be the 3rd step and must be surely done. It can re-use the same reactor with fresh fuel. It can be done while waiting for the analysis results of the ash from this run.

      • Axil Axil

        you will be disappointed. No transmutations will be detected. Even the formation hydrogen solids will be hrd to detect.

        • Alain Samoun

          No any Ni62? Why it worked with the Lugano test then?

          • Axil Axil

            Lagano was 32 days at 2500 watts of excess heat production. This last MFMP test was some very small fraction of that excess heat output. Transmutation is proportional to the total amount of excess power produced.

          • Alain Samoun

            Axil,we are not really sure of the 2500 watts and if you had 100% of Ni62 in 32 days,you may have some in this latest test, worth to measure in my opinion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We showed empirically and via calculation that it was likely a lot less excess heat was produced in the Lugano reactor. Others have done so also. The Optris manual and our empirical work showed that emissivity was of the order of 0.9-0.95 – no where near the figures they used.

            It is interesting to note that there has been NO attempt by the Lugano researchers to defend their basis for excess heat calculation and this speaks volumes. It would still be a massive achievement if they re-appraised their data and the longer the denial goes on, the worse it will be when they do address it. At least Dr. Parkhomov had the courage to own up to his poor judgement in reporting data and to publish the supporting raw data. At the very least they should have released a statement saying “We are aware that there may be questions surrounding our emissivity basis for excess heat calculation. We are looking into it and will address it in due course”

            We learnt through experimentation and systems analysis that Celani’s early generation wires (as used in NI Week and ICCF17) were producing around half what was initially thought and over time, Celani’s research came into line with ours.

            We have published empirical evidence live that the Lugano reactor was also producing far less than claimed.

            If we saw a COP of over 3 in our *GlowStick* or other DogBone experiments, we would be genuinely surprised. If we see anything at all, we expect it to be in line with ACTUAL Lugano and Parkhomov, somewhere between 1 and 2.x . Of course anything over two puts it in the realm of Self Sustain – and at those times, IF it is purely heat and or reaction driven emission related cascade reactions, then we could se higher COP assuming we knew how to control it at those times.

            Having evidence of COP over 1.125 would make us very happy as it would exceed that seen in Celani wire to date.

            If further analysis of the *GlowStick* family of reactors show we have transmutations coincident and in line with seeming 1.3x COP – then we’ll be ecstatic.

            For me personally, transmutations / isotopic shifts would be enough.

      • Alain Samoun

        If the conversion had happened in one day,it should have increased the temperature accordingly during that day, don’t you think?

  • US_Citizen71

    With the small volume of fuel is this test I think we need to temper our expectations of what the output would be if it had a LENR event. Most of the other tests that have been done that have shown a probable excess have used over a gram of fuel. The smaller fuel load likely needs a detection protocol more sensitive than temperature measurement. The Glowsticks might work well in calorimeter made from something like a gallon paint can. A steel pipe large enough in diameter to house the Glowstick welded a short distance from the bottom through the can would make a good testing setup. The Glowstick could be kept centered by an alumina firebrick spacer near either end. Mount another small piece of pipe through the lid to let steam escape and cover the whole thing with insulation. A continuous water supply can be added using various means to control the level and monitor the water boiled off. Cheap easy calorimeter. This is something I have thought of building, but living in a townhome without a garage the only safe testing place would be my fireplace and I’m not sure sending a large quantity of steam up my chimney would be a good thing.

    • Sanjeev

      Parkhomov style calorimetry will be the 3rd step and must be surely done. It can re-use the same reactor with fresh fuel. It can be done while waiting for the analysis results of the ash from this run.

      • Axil Axil

        you will be disappointed. No transmutations will be detected. Even the formation hydrogen solids will be hrd to detect.

        • Alain Samoun

          No any Ni62? Why it worked with the Lugano test then?

          • Axil Axil

            Lagano was 32 days at 2500 watts of excess heat production. This last MFMP test was some very small fraction of that excess heat output. Transmutation is proportional to the total amount of excess power produced.

          • Alain Samoun

            Axil,we are not really sure of the 2500 watts and if you had 100% of Ni62 in 32 days,you may have some in this latest test, worth to measure in my opinion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We showed empirically and via calculation that it was likely a lot less excess heat was produced in the Lugano reactor. Others have done so also. The Optris manual and our empirical work showed that emissivity was of the order of 0.9-0.95 – no where near the figures they used.

            It is interesting to note that there has been NO attempt by the Lugano researchers to defend their basis for excess heat calculation and this speaks volumes. It would still be a massive achievement if they re-appraised their data and the longer the denial goes on, the worse it will be when they do address it. At least Dr. Parkhomov had the courage to own up to his poor judgement in reporting data and to publish the supporting raw data. At the very least they should have released a statement saying “We are aware that there may be questions surrounding our emissivity basis for excess heat calculation. We are looking into it and will address it in due course”

            We learnt through experimentation and systems analysis that Celani’s early generation wires (as used in NI Week and ICCF17) were producing around half what was initially thought and over time, Celani’s research came into line with ours.

            We have published empirical evidence live that the Lugano reactor was also producing far less than claimed.

            If we saw a COP of over 3 in our *GlowStick* or other DogBone experiments, we would be genuinely surprised. If we see anything at all, we expect it to be in line with ACTUAL Lugano and Parkhomov, somewhere between 1 and 2.x . Of course anything over two puts it in the realm of Self Sustain – and at those times, IF it is purely heat and or reaction driven emission related cascade reactions, then we could se higher COP assuming we knew how to control it at those times.

            Having evidence of COP over 1.125 would make us very happy as it would exceed that seen in Celani wire to date.

            If further analysis of the *GlowStick* family of reactors show we have transmutations coincident and in line with seeming 1.3x COP – then we’ll be ecstatic.

            For me personally, transmutations / isotopic shifts would be enough.

  • clovis ray

    i’m the only one that has been moderated on this page, getting a little tird of being gaged until, everone has left the sight, if you like i well shut up altogether,

    • Alain Samoun

      Hey Clovis! Looking at your previous comments,I’m sure that you are not black listed here: Check your computer or send a direct email to Frank regarding your problem.

    • Ged

      Definitely let Frank know. It could very well be Disqus is acting up and you happen to be caught in the glitches. It happens with automated systems like this.

    • TomR

      Clovis, I read all your posts and I see no reason why Frank would moderate your posts, just as Alain also says.

  • clovis ray

    i’m the only one that has been moderated on this page, getting a little tird of being gaged until, everone has left the sight, if you like i well shut up altogether,

    • Alain Samoun

      Hey Clovis! Looking at your previous comments,I’m sure that you are not black listed here: Check your computer or send a direct email to Frank regarding your problem.

    • Ged

      Definitely let Frank know. It could very well be Disqus is acting up and you happen to be caught in the glitches. It happens with automated systems like this.

    • TomR

      Clovis, I read all your posts and I see no reason why Frank would moderate your posts, just as Alain also says.

      • clovis ray

        Ok, guys, i know your right, Frank is a top rate guy, and has been my friend a very long time, and wouldn’t purposely, moderate anyone unless they were really being a nuisance, lol,

  • Axil Axil

    MFMP or one of its volunteer contributors should design and implement a computer driven test protocol that automates the test of a reactor to remove the need of humans as a limiting factor in the conduct of the test. This automated tester should be made available to all replicators. It is difficult to have one of two people properly conduct a long running test of a LENR reactor because of the limitations of the human body and spirit. A large team like those who conduced the Lagano test is required to conduct a long term test where transmutation results become apparent.

    • Ed Pell

      I think it is more a concern about fire. The testing needs to move from inside a house, that no one wants to burn down, to an empty field where is can be left unattended for days. Or a concrete and metal factory building like Rossi uses.

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is my intention, with DAQFactory working with Labjacks

      https://www.azeotech.com/j/products/compare-versions.html

      Run time would be $149

      but I need time!

      Others are working on arduino etc based solutions – so that is the intention.

    • clovis ray

      i like your test protocol,idea, but our group think is a great tool when it comes to experimental procedures, when things go wrong, besides we have so much fun watching over the shoulder of the replicators. –smile

  • Kristian

    Would it be helpful if the community raised money for additional Optris cameras? It seems like such a camera would have been very interesting to have used in this experiment, but my understanding is that such cameras are quite expensive…

    • Bob Greenyer

      A real time power monitor for Alan would be VERY useful ($1700) and an Optris ($4500) and computer to run it would be very useful. The RAVI files provide the great ability to do a lot of post experiment analysis.

      • Kristian

        What would be the best and easiest way to donate money for this (and MFMP in general)? Is the best way to donate directly to MFMP via http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/donate ?

        • clovis ray

          Hi, kristian,
          i’m sure bob will answer your question, but until then i will say i use, pay- pal, just go to their site, and click on donations.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We loose 4% to paypal.

          The best option if you are in the US making a substantial donation is to make it to our 501c3 charity. If elsewhere directly to the CICs account in UK.

          I have in the past been able to negotiate hard to get big discounts on many pieces of equipment – like the PCE830 we have and use of the Optris pi160/Williamson Pyrometer. You can specify that you want to donate for a particular purchase if you want.

          We can send you all the details if you write to us at info@quantumheat.org

          Thank you for considering helping the effort.

          • R101

            substantial donation

            The substantial part counts me out as I’m a poor Australian

          • Bob Greenyer

            US $10 on the site really helps – for instance, that covered P&P for 3 shipments of Parkhomov Ni.

          • clovis ray

            This from PAY PAL,
            When you donate through PayPal Giving Fund, all fees are on us. That means 100% of your donation goes to the nonprofit of your choice.

      • Omega Z

        Bob
        Perhaps National Instruments would be willing to donate or lend some equipment.

        • Axil Axil

          https://youtu.be/iS4qNbMCBL0?t=4057

          At 1:05 into the video near the end, National instriments states that they want to support the development of cold fusion by developing tools that researchers need to produce data from which theories can be developed.

          National instriments wants MFMP to tell them what tools they need to solve the cold fusion issue. It is time to reach out to National Instriments to get everything required to make progress in MFMP experiments.

          also

          http://coldfusionnow.org/james-truchard-opening-niweek-2012-ni-gives-free-labview-to-cold-fusion-scientists-since-1989/

          Dr Truchard the founder of National Instriments has supported cold fusion research for years, offering LabView software free to all researchers in the field. Last year, LENR featured prominently at NIWeek 2012, the National Instruments showcase of their new products and solutions for scientific research.

          Its now time that MFMP enter into a partnership with National Instriments so that they might get their share of National instriments free experimental equipment and technecal support.

          Also see

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwCMRH75ssw

          • clovis ray

            This is great news, axil THANKS, i’m sure the mf/mp team will be happy to except, they have multiple labs that needs good equipment, and national instruments have the best.

      • Axil Axil

        Get all the free stuff and help that you need from national Instriments, See my post below.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes maybe we could see some of the micro burst of LENR energy that pit things.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Interesting observation. That should be clarified by comparison with the calibration run. Unfortunately, there are no data for the input power – I guess they will be uploaded later.

    • Ged

      As Mike and Ed pointed out, that behavior is -exactly- what should be seen if there is excess heat. The PID was watching the active cell, so if it started producing heat, the PID would have throttled back input power which would be seen as a reduction in temperature on the null cell. The power analysis between the run and the control run will be useful in showing that more, but even to my eye I could tell it looked like the power trended down as the divergence increased while at a stable temp.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Agreed. The missing data might be useful, though, for a deeper analysis.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I expect it to be published today when Alan and Skip are back in the Lab (Garage).

        • Ged

          Completely and strongly agreed.

  • Ged

    I think it should be ok, as all componants can survive that for a time, and it was brief. An important thought though; we’ll see.

  • great blog post Frank!

  • tobalt

    As the present reactor used little fuel in a probably large reactor there was

    1. High pressure due to much residual “idle” gas inside that just got hot.
    2. Low amount of reactant didnt generate enough watts for a break even sizuation (aka self sustain mode).

    more fuel with less residual air volume might be able to mitigate these two issues.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Sure self sustaining reaction was present as estimated COP was not far off! Alan ran into it on way down his 100 C run backs of that I am sure also. Got to be careful as full self sustainig mode (ssm) cannot be continuously controlled, that’s why I would like to see manual control option on controller. Just push it ever once in a while to get ssm to move up or down, hopefully?

  • Mike Henderson

    The decrease in the temperature of the unfueled side was exactly what would be expected.

    The “two reactors” are actually two ends of the same reactor and share a common heating element. They each get (almost exactly) half of the total power input. The thermostat was used to maintain the temperature at the fueled side’s thermocouple. When less power was required to hold a setpoint, the unfueled side was deprived of power too. This caused the unfueled side to be cooler than the fueled side.

    Alan has not provide power consumption data to us yet. If the reactor was indeed generating its own heat, we would expect that the system would have consumed about 20-30% less power to hold a given temperature than it did during a no-fuel calibration run.

    • Obvious

      The variance of the active compared to null is exactly what an excess of watts in the active side should look like. The increase in output watts is compounded by an increase in temperature. The reason for that is a matter of conjecture.

  • Justa Guy

    My No. 1 Recommendation for Future Live GlowStick Experiments … Alan needs an Alternate/Independent Broadband/HighSpeed Internet Connection. ALL DATA (Power, etc.) needs to be massaged/uploaded in realtime, when the vast workforce of volunteers are there on the Internet, willing to contribute and help out … This will also relieve any anxiety that Alan may have with hooking up to HUGNet on the Internet to get the data up there without jeopardizing the experiment operation and trying/testing things while the experiment is running. I can easily assist here in doing this (as well as countless others; Alan is close to Silicon Valley and a plethora of computing talent/resources)….

    … All-in-all an excellent experimental run. Kudos to Alan/Skip/MFMP/Contributors/YOU for making it happen!

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Good idea, me356 did an excellent job in the running of live short term information but would be nice to have current total graphs also so one is not blinded by to narrow a view, but the short term views are wonderful for control relate information & performance reviews. Alan had both views available but we couldn’t read the screens. Maybe we should have a small floating window for the fuel element & radiation detector & wide views of short & long term test data. I really didn’t know how power ( as related to voltage drop across element was varying during test) just happened to pick it up after test & it made everything during the test much clearer to me. Just a thought.

  • Andre Blum

    no and yes. No in the sense that it is (to my understanding) a pretty common nickel powder Parkhomov ordered somewhere, and could order again. Yes in the sense that it is believed to have shown excess heat.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Peter from NeoFire bought a shipping container and runs his experiments in that – this is a good approach. I have suggested second had multi-fuel stoves – not even tongue in cheek!

  • Bob Greenyer

    A real time power monitor for Alan would be VERY useful ($1700) and an Optris ($4500) and computer to run it would be very useful. The RAVI files provide the great ability to do a lot of post experiment analysis.

    • Omega Z

      Bob
      Perhaps National Instruments would be willing to donate or lend some equipment.

      • Axil Axil

        https://youtu.be/iS4qNbMCBL0?t=4057

        At 1:05 into the video near the end, National instriments states that they want to support the development of cold fusion by developing tools that researchers need to produce data from which theories can be developed.

        also

        http://coldfusionnow.org/james-truchard-opening-niweek-2012-ni-gives-free-labview-to-cold-fusion-scientists-since-1989/

        Truchard has supported cold fusion research for years, offering LabView software free to all researchers in the field. Last year, LENR featured prominently at NIWeek 2012, the National Instruments showcase of their new products and solutions for scientific research.

        Its now time that MFMP get their share of National instriments free experimental equipment and technecal support.

    • Axil Axil

      Get all the free stuff and help that you need from national Instriments, See my post below.

  • Truls Fossdal

    Great experiment and interesting results. Of course having the actual power input as an real time parameter would make the picture much clearer for what was actually going on. I understand this is not trivial with the power source and duty cycle from the PID you are using, but is there a way to feed the PID gains as a live parameter from your controller?

    Even though it is not direct measurement of the applied power it can really tell a lot of the process it’s regulating and actually give you even more information than the raw power measurements.

    I always include my P,I and D gains in my display when I fine tune a controller simply because they give so much information of the actual process you are trying to control. I find that process delays, oscillations and fall back times after overshoot and response times in general gets more understandable looking at those gains, even more so if something fundamentally changes in the system(which I hope is what we saw in the experiment).

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Agree but this is a fuzzy on the fly tuned controller with no manual option. Can one even get the current PID setting. Been a long while since I have been behind a PID & just maybe times have changed. This controller doesn’t even let one go to manual. I always liked to take manual control & put some steps in to see processes response to the broad frequency content of a step input down & back up later & let automatic take place in the interim, No Truis? Have I missed something since retirement, I know people were experimenting with fuzziness overrides just as I was leaving. i too would like to see PID gains.

      • Truls Fossdal

        I guess you are right, most PID controller comes with fuzzy auto tuning as default. I guess it’s only because of my bad habit of ending up programming a simple PID algorithm myself that I thought this could be a simple solution. It would however be an interesting approach since you don’t have to worry about harmonics and other hairy signals to get an accurate power measurement, just if the process requires more or less ON time from the controller.

        As a side note i suspect that a perfectly tuned PID controller might also mask some of the processes we are looking for here as it tends to smooth out all system responses. As i think we are dealing with highly nonlinear multivariable processes here, maybe a badly tunes controller with lots of oscillations and varying duty cycles is what is needed to bring the system out of a comfortable steady state equilibrium. Didn’t ME356 find that his controller seemed to kill the ignition in his experiments?

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I think me356 programmed his PID algorithm also in his Raspberry hobbyist machine. Can’t remember if he killed ignition. Denis Vasilenkos test was very interesting when he couldn’t get to 1250 C set-point. I pulled his controller spec sheets up to help but he had no manual either just like Alan doesn’t. Dennis experienced a limit cycle his controller couldn’t handle at about 950 C & I was watching but couldn’t help with Russian language manual even with Google translation. He did try cutting back on available AC input via power supply regulation but no luck there. They were just coming in with these fuzzy logic over rides or managers when I retired 15 years ago. Guess they look at dynamic response based on last move and make changes on the fly. Did a little with Dynamic Matrix Horizon Predictive control before retiring & that helped get process to set point without over shoot etc. Thanks for your incite & feedback! Think me356 is setting up for another test, hopefully soon Truis. Like noisy input voltage to heaters Sanjeev showed. Think those inherent step present strong EM content (ssm) LENR need to keep going & move in it’s power process? Note Rossi ssm operates for days without control signal input!

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like many people do not know what the objective of the experiment was and what was expected. Next time, it will be helpful to write it down clearly somewhere or in the spreadsheet (if any). The objective and description of the setup should be the first thing people should see. Either MFMP or online contributors could do that.

    • Bob Greenyer

      better yet – a simple explanatory video

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have published all of the analysis to date. Ours and Parkhomovs

        In the Nickel, there appeared to be up to 6-7% carbon by EDX – but that can be an artefact of the technique.

        Peter from NeoFire is going to do TOF-SIMS and SKINR are going to do ICP-MS – so we will know with clarity.

        As for his LiAlH4 – it has around 10% Chlorine – this was confirmed by our own analysis via Mastromatteo.

        We would like to do TOF-SIMS, ICP-MS and Neutron activation on the LiAlH4 also and are working towards that and then all of the above and EDX on the ashes that are most promising.

  • penswrite

    After Skip and Alan recover, and complete their ride and breakfast at Alice’s Restaurant, a run-up of the intact reactor to, say, 630 C. sounds like a sound proposal. Pressure was dropping and there was a sustained apparent delta-t, at this temperature. Maybe just keep it there for a prolonged period. It must have been very tiring to mind the apparatus, answer questions, restart the youtube, etc., BUT it was exciting for many of to watch the experiment unfold in real-time on the web. Thanks for that, Alan, Skip, Frank, Bob and others!
    But, for the next run of this same reactor, I would be content to simply check a periodically updated data spreadsheet. Maybe this spreadsheet data logging process could be automated, and left to run for a long time without too much upkeep or supervision.
    This run might continue for weeks. Or at least as long as the pressure keeps dropping, nothing goes bang, and sundry staple supplies don’t wither. Beer, for volunteer minders? Or maybe not. Sigh.
    Anyway, way to go so far MFMP!

    • Axil Axil

      I agree with this totally. Its too bad that Skip and Alan are human, These good fellows should be robots or computers who need no rest or fun, Am I bad???

      • penswrite

        Axil, Nobody can begrudge Alan and Skip their deserved rest or fun (or a beer).

        Besides, R2D2’s probably don’t need any of these. But since they probably don’t need breathable air, clean energy, a predictable climate future, or fusion-in-a-bottle, (or beer) either, why would they care whether we advance LENR?

        • Axil Axil

          When you understand what it takes to make progress in LENR and develope the various Cats, Rossi’s robot like dedication and disregard for his human needs is that much more impressive. This dedication and tolerace for pain is remarkable.

          • penswrite

            Axil, quite a number of years ago, Rossi declared a decision to dedicate his efforts toward the private commercial development of his e-cats. That is certainly understandable, given the history of the quest for “cold fusion,” from 1989 to today.

            However, there are many of us who hope for a speedier route to clean-cheap-energy LENR practical-products. Lots of us hope that outcome will come sooner via collaborative open science conducted with the help of many hands, across the globe, via the internet’s rapid dissemination of knowledge and information .

            Granted, since MFMP’s combined worldwide live audience for this last experiment, on you-tube at least, was never much over 95 at one time, such a hope sometimes seems only wishful. But, as we both know, progress is being made.

            There is a world of unimagined discovery within LENR awaiting our understanding and development. As we also know, it might be only one mind that first unlocks the remaining gates to that world. But, I’ll predict that many minds, in collaboration, will get us there soonest.

          • Omega Z

            penswrite

            “was never much over 95 at one time”

            Being that the live feed screen was so busy(4 things being displayed) & little detail could be made out, 95 seems a healthy number. Especially since it could be compared to watching grass grow. If these are to be live feed, A different display setup should be arranged.

            As to the rest of your post, i think there is a high probability that Rossi will have units in regular production before any of this open source produces any thing of use other then people having a better understanding as to how complex LENR really is.
            As to my statement “watching grass grow”, It’s just the nature of the beast.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It may be precisely because so many people are working on this that a product is released. That is part of the point of the MFMP, to act as a motivator for those that claim they have something. There is no point rushing if one is the only person on the race track.

            Every day that goes by without this in wide use is more bad political decisions, war, death and environmental degradation.

            The MFMP has publicly said from its first days that it does not care how this gets done (as long as it is legal) – just that it is done.

          • georgehants

            Thank you Bob, could not agree with you and MFMP more.

    • Justa Guy

      … As an example of how the data taking process can be automated, the following link is to a Google Sheet of a BeagleBone Black that has a Bosch BMP180 Barometric (& Temperature) Sensor that is updated “live” every 30 seconds without human intervention (I’m not sure how much longer the link will be live/available, so it might become a Dead Link… and … there are dropouts in the data due to other uses of a system, in case you notice the lack of data vs time):

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1odAYiJpMcQar2yMIDUWfHo4Rp26MNpaygU42RU19Fh4

      Warning: The Google Sheet Script will become very “busy” updating the plot with the amount (weeks) of data. Simply close the Tab/Window if it slows your machine down. I think this is due to Google’s Plotting Script needing Optimization.

    • Skip

      Someone say beer?
      (Thanx)

      • Bob Greenyer

        mmmmmm beer

  • Axil Axil

    The input heat was controled by the temperature of the fueled reactor. As the reaction increased the heat production of the fueled reactor, the amount of input heat that feed the dummy reactor decreased and the dummy reactor cooled in responce to that decrease in the power feed since the power feed was the same for both reactors.

  • Obvious

    Once the compiled data is ready, we can see if the active dropped relative to the previous control, or the null dropped relative to the control, or if the combined power is identical to the control. If the latter is true, then it is simply a power imbalance between sides that caused the temperature difference. If the combined power consumption is the same, and the null side the same as the control, but the fuelled side is hotter, then more complicated explanations are required, including the elusive LENR phenomenon if all other mundane explanations can be dismissed by due diligence. It might be a couple of days until the data is available.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Last night I took a screen shot of temperature of fueled element green trace on recorder & brown trace which was voltage drop across fuel element (volts rms) and then compared trace to the spread sheet COP estimate & immediately saw that the inverted COP looked just like the space between temperature & voltage (brown trace) . One could see voltage which is proportional to power being backed down by controller on power ramp up (ssm) LENR energy was forming or COP was developing. I could also explain the run back at end of test & difficulties experienced by Alan there. ( two incidents of LENR power almost tripping out controller on run backs & the final shutdown). Convinced me of presence of ssm LENR power; now review team will make the more detailed analysis in post test review, but LENR did appear!

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Station chart for test duration.

  • Justa Guy

    Here are my [wild] thoughts as to what might be happening on some fundamental level, and I am sure there are quite a few others that are thinking the same, namely/lately Mike Henderson on during the Chat Sessions and his mention of Nickel Sintering…

    It is extremely important to maintain the maximum Nickel Surface Area, while slowly heating, trying to attach/dissociate/hammer as much Hydrogen Gas to/below the immediate surface. If one goes too high with the temperature, Nickel will start to sinter and the Surface Area (to Volume) will start to fall, and less Hydrogen will be easily attached/dissociated/hammered on/into the Nickel Sub/Surface. But …. the higher the temperature the easier it should be to “process” the Hydrogen Gas where it is useful on/into the Nickel. Also, the higher the pressure, the easier it is to do this, and right now Alan is holding a very high pressure reserve, but may have sintered some of the Nickel. Once the sintering occurs, it is pretty much irreversible on the “Surface Area” front; the H2 Gas Pressure will stay very high with little place to go. I’m not sure what happens if/when the Nickel melts (with respect to Hydrogen), so I will leave those thoughts to the rest of you to comment on.

    … Here’s a useful link to Nickel Sintering:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00774272

    … It’s a very delicate game between pressure/temperature and I’m not sure what the best recipe/protocol is. Maybe YOU do!

    If I find a copy of the paper (by searching) I’ll repost with a link…

    … OK, go and tear my thoughts to pieces! 🙂

    I forgot to add that it may be possible (with a portable X-Ray Device), to view inside the GlowStick and see the State/Condition of the Nickel, even while running, but I haven’t thought that completely through, yet … Is anyone familiar with such devices, as to cost/loan? It may be useful, perhaps.

    • penswrite

      Wouldn’t the steady decline of pressure suggest that the nickel has not yet sintered shut to H2?

      • Justa Guy

        You’re absolutely right. As long as the Pressure decreases, it is most likely going somewhere. The problem is that (to many of us) it is painfully slow and it is much slower of a pressure drop than Parkhomov, if I’m not mistaken … So the argument I am making, is that perhaps the amount of sintering that has occurred so far, is a lot and now the pressure decrease is very slow because it can’t find a place to go, and now less might go in to contribute to the excess heat process that may go on (in the future).

        Addendum: If the Parkhomov Cells aren’t holding H2 Gas well (i.e., leaking), then what is happening with the GlowStick is OK, and we must be patient and let the Hydrogen ad/absorb. Then significant sintering would be an unknown at this point. Many long hours might be ahead. Also, I am assuming that the ratio of Nickel to Hydrogen Atoms is similar to Parkhomov’s; I’m afraid I haven’t gone thru that calculation to confirm. If there is way more Hydrogen/Nickel than Parkhomov had, that could explain the higher pressure somewhat.

    • Dr. Mike

      Justa Guy,
      I believe the effect of sintering the Ni is an important factor in optimizing LENR performance that probably isn’t being considered by many experimenters. Powdered Ni is readily available because it can be sintered. It might be a good idea to search the literature to find what additives were detrimental to sintering and add these to the current fuel. I agree with you that it should be extremely important to maintain a high Ni surface area.
      Dr. Mike

  • Bob Greenyer

    We loose 4% to paypal.

    The best option if you are in the US making a substantial donation is to make it to our 501c3 charity. If elsewhere directly to the CICs account in UK.

    I have in the past been able to negotiate hard to get big discounts on many pieces of equipment – like the PCE830 we have and use of the Optris pi160/Williamson Pyrometer. You can specify that you want to donate for a particular purchase if you want.

    We can send you all the details if you write to us at info@quantumheat.org

    • R101

      substantial donation

      The substantial part counts me out as I’m a poor Australian

      • Bob Greenyer

        US $10 on the site really helps – for instance, that covered P&P for 3 shipments of Parkhomov Ni.

      • Obvious

        Correspondence with the manufacturer of the Jyalucem alumina cement (used by Alan) confirms no sodium content in the cement.
        Good to know.

        • Bob Greenyer

          But it is ONLY used on the outside.

          • Obvious

            Yes. Just checking off questions from the list.

          • Mike Henderson

            In the GS3 trial, the temperature of the fueled side was used to regulate the power input. The fueled temperatures match up quite closely with the GS2 Power / Temp calibration curve. Temperatures on the unfueled side are significantly below the temperature that would be expected at a given power level. This is an indication of anomalous heat being added to the fueled side which, in turn, caused a reduction in input power level.

          • US_Citizen71

            To me that suggests GS2 might have been successful. After the delta reversal on G3 the fueled side drops below GS2 but otherwise the curve matches. I would surmises that due to heat transfer to the null the fueled side was held back. The test should be repeated with physically separate reactors for the null and fueled cores in series with only half the total Kanthal wire used on GS3 being used for the heating coil on each of the new reactors.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Mike, this is an interesting graph you have here for sure – Thankyou for your great work

          • Mike Henderson

            Starting from a red square, first look down to get the base wattage then trace a horizontal line toward the left to the point where it intersects with the calibration curve (gold triangles). The length of that horizontal line is the excess power in watts for base wattage. For example, let’s take the set above 670 W, the unfueled temp is about 775. The horizontal distance to the calibration line is about 90 W. The measured COP for that group of points is (670 + 90) / 670 = 1.10. The points above 750 W show a measured COP of about 1.46. The points around 500 W show a measured COP of about 1.2, but the signal-to-noise level is pretty low in that range.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Think LENR process off center in fueled element by looking at glow so this probably bias’ TC in a conservative direction ie lower than actual reading. On basis of run back observations Alan ran into it pretty early to be troubling his fuzzy controller, for what it’s worth Mike. Amazed at how slow the LENR energy appeared to come in. Rossi lost a lot of his fuel elements playing with the Lady & he is very methodical I should think & persistant for the Worlds benefit & our knowledge of the Lugano fuel you are puzzling over now. Wish I had the time & energy to help you in your search for the truth – Jim

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Yes!

        • Mike Henderson

          Should I use Power = v^2 / R to compute power in watts?
          Was the resistance 9.1 ohms?

          • Mike Henderson

            Plot of outside temp vs power as v^2 / R. Note the sharp left turn at 600 deg C.

            http://imgur.com/9WLl5Ww

          • Bob Greenyer

            Wow – interesting… I noticed the flattening of the RMS 15 min average even as the temp and “gain” was going up.

            You do know you can drop images here (though need a link for better quality)

          • Mike Henderson

            Much better, thank you.

            Notes – I averaged power over 30 second intervals to smooth this out. Also I used resistance of 9.1 ohm from memory. I did not vary resistance with temp.

            Please confirm my analysis. I recall Alan reporting 1kW toward the end, but I calc’d much lower values.

          • Andre Blum

            Not that I have such plans, but I somehow ended up looking up many of the building blocks (PID controller, alumina tubes, kanthal A1 wire, etc) of this test on ebay, to get an idea of price involved per setup. During this, I stumbled upon an offer for “Carbonyl Nickel Powder T255 (0.9gr) And LiAlH4 (0.1gr)”. What would be the purpose of that? Is Nickel + LiAlH4 a sensible combination outside LENR experiments?

          • Sanjeev

            Isn’t GBP 15 a really high cost for that ? Its 1 gram only.

          • Tedd Jensen

            Its made special for LENR experiments.

          • Bob Greenyer

            please see Alans note above

          • Pretty darn suggestive.

            What might make it better is adding time as a 3rd dimension. As is, it clearly indicates an exothermic reaction triggered in the reaction chamber. What’s not clear is that it lasts for hours and hours (which is key to distinguishing between chemical and something else).

            Also needs units/axis titles, and a second axis on the left for estimated interior temperature would be good I think.

            And if outside temperature could be related to estimated power out (another vertical axis) then that would be all the key data in one chart and easy to explain. 400 W in, 450 W out or something along those lines.

            Maybe put the calibration data faded in the background too.

            Just thinking out loud.

          • Sanjeev

            The corrected graph is above, see Mike’s original comment above.

          • Ah ok. Delete that chart then if possible. I deleted my comment.

          • Mike Henderson

            Here is the corrected graph of Glowstick 3 Outside Active Temp vs Input Power. Power values are calculated as v^2 / r and are smoothed by averaging over 90 seconds. A power vs temp calibration was done with Glowstick 2 and can be found at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kUUNrNlI1ZmV0UlE/edit

          • Bob Greenyer

            From Alan

            “The power should be calculated by V^2/R *ONLY* from the raw data. Then the calculated power from the ~2 sec samples can be averaged over longer periods. We have a chart of resistance vs. temperature from the first calibration and I will add that to the archive soon.”

          • Sanjeev

            Resistance is 8.6 ohms from the drawing on the public spreadsheet.

  • Omega Z

    LookMoo
    You Post-
    “Meanwhile The Russians, Chinese replicate the Rossi eCat.”

    These people are Scientists with PhD’s & Years of lab experience.
    There results have Question marks.

    You Post-
    “MFMP is a Tombstone over USA education system.”
    A Group of private open source oriented people who have day jobs taking it upon themselves to try & understand & replicate LENR many with no prior experience in the LENR field. The Russians & Chinese have shown Respect for MFMP’s efforts then your post.

    Your Post Reflects Badly on Your Education & Understanding…

  • pg

    what next? Being sure about the excess heat…

  • Andreas Moraitis

    IMHO, two measures might be helpful to support the obtained results:

    1 – In addition to the thermocouples, one could use a pyrometer to validate the readings, at least every once in a while.

    2 – A calibration run with bare Ni powder on the ‘active’ side should be suitable to clarify if there is a significant influence on the thermal characteristics of the tube.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Jones Beene who posts often on the Vortex-L mailing list proposes that a comparison between the following two reactor loadings is required to move forward:

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

      Substituting Aluminum or Magnesium for Nickel, addresses concerns he has about chemical energy effects and hydrogen heat from LiAlH4 decomposition. See this link to read more: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102959.html

      Alan’s experiment represents progress and one kind of comparison. The comparison proposed by Beene, and your proposal, Andreas, both need doing – in my opinion.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Parkhomov’s first reactors had a FAR smaller diameter at the point of attachment of the TC – which was practically connected to the sub-millimeter diameter wire which was on a 10mm core withe a 5mm bore. He actually used flat NiChrome resistance wire from a toaster to begin with. The TC was then coated with cement, there would be little difference in the core temp to the measured TC temp.

      The *GlowStick* GS3 had the TC way out on a much larger sheath – the differential was calibrated and published. The reactor was run up to and beyond 1250ºC internal.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    IMHO, two measures might be helpful to support the obtained results:

    1 – In addition to the thermocouples, one could use a pyrometer to validate the readings, at least every once in a while.

    2 – A calibration run with bare Ni powder on the ‘active’ side should be suitable to clarify if there is a significant influence on the thermal characteristics of the tube.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Jones Beene who posts often on the Vortex-L mailing list proposes that a comparison between the following two reactor loadings is required to move forward:

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

      Substituting Aluminum or Magnesium for Nickel, addresses concerns he has about chemical energy effects and hydrogen heat from LiAlH4 decomposition. See this link to read more: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102959.html

      Alan’s experiment represents progress and one kind of comparison. The comparison proposed by Beene, and your proposal, Andreas, both need doing – in my opinion.

  • Daniel Maris

    These results were very encouraging. I guess it’s just a case from here on in of repeat, repeat, repeat, then check and check again, refine the methodology and test out various approaches aimed at enhancing the effect.

    Could be very interesting times ahead if these results are confirmed.

  • John Littlemist

    As Bob told in the live thread, this was the first MFMP experiment with Parkhomov nickel. It would be nice to know the difference between the previously used Ni and Parkhomov’s Ni, how profound analysis has been done so far?
    Sanjeev mentioned also that the used LAH was better this time. More specifically, how did the LAH differ from the previous one?

    • Bob Greenyer

      No, the Padua cell had Parkhomov Ni (and his LiAlH4) – but due to french customs strikes we never received the power monitor – with no control there was no easy way to assess excess.

      Also – in that experiment, we waited nearly the full run for the pressure to get below atmospheric, as per Parkhomov’s advice, which it never did whilst powered.

      This was our first test with only Parkhomov Ni however.

      • John Littlemist

        Ok, thanks for clarifying. How about the SEM analyses to Parkhomov Ni and pre-Parkhomov Ni, what was the difference?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have done and published 2 pre-tests – only Parkhomov has published a post test – we will commission post tests

    • Sanjeev

      John, About the LAH, I was referring to a comment by Alan. See this capture from QH.org (A direct link to the comment is not working, so capture).

      • John Littlemist

        Ok, thanks a lot!

  • Allan Kiik

    One easy and cheap addition to make future public experiments even more interesting is recording and broadcasting electromagnetic noise made by the reactor, using guitar pickup, like this guy does – http://blog.sto.sh/2012/03/22/recording-electromagnetic-sound/

    This is actually amazing how much information we can get with hearing and change in EM noise is expected when reaction starts!

    Thanks, MFMP, for good edutainment!

  • Dave

    The first successful Parkhomov reactor has the temperature sense TC attached on the outside of the core tube approximately in the center of the windings. This is the point where he establishes the core temperature reading as far as I can tell.

    At that sense point he reports 1200 C which we are assuming is the value needed for maximum LENR in the core according to the calibrations for this test. There is plenty of reason to believe that his core was at a significantly higher temperature once core power begins to appear. You, on the other hand are assuming that 800 C at the outside TC is equal to his measurement.

    Have you proved that these two different calibrations are equivalent? I understand how you arrived at the 1200 C core temperature when 800 C at the surface is controlled by the PID. But, neither his nor your calibration is performed when core heat production takes place. Nothing appears to be done to take into account the thermal resistances between the core and the control TC location. This, in my opinion, is a fatal flaw.

    I suspect that your application of 800 C at the outside surface does not yield the same higher temperature that he is actually using. His heater coil melting suggests that this is the case. You notice that yours did not appear to suffer during the test. It is important that you compare apples to apples if you are to achieve a true replication.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Parkhomov’s first reactors had a FAR smaller diameter at the point of attachment of the TC – which was practically connected to the sub-millimeter diameter wire which was on a 10mm core withe a 5mm bore. He actually used flat NiChrome resistance wire from a toaster to begin with. The TC was then coated with cement, there would be little difference in the core temp to the measured TC temp.

      The *GlowStick* GS3 had the TC way out on a much larger sheath – the differential was calibrated and published. The reactor was run up to and beyond 1250ºC internal.

      • Dave

        I suspect that your technique for determining the core temperature by inserting a TC into the core was much more accurate than Parkhomov’s. If you assume that your glowstick heater approaches a sheet heat source by the tight winding then the core resides at the same temperature as the heater winding wire.

        This is due to the symetry and the tiny amount of heat flux flowing from the heater wires into the core region. Unless he also placed a TC inside the core and performed a calibration in the same manner, there is concern about the reproduction accuracy. The heat flux flowing through the thermal resistance from core to the outside world needs to be calibrated. Perhaps it is possible to heat the core region as you have done previously to obtain an accurate value of that variable. The same needs to be done for an exact Parkhomov design.

        You appear to have performed an excellent task of setting the core temperature at 1200 C when no core power is present. I suspect that his system is not so accurate. I can not be sure that his reported core temperature of 1200 C does not actually result in a significantly higher true core reading.

        Without a good model of the heat flow it is going to be impossible to know whether or not you and he have identically behaving systems. If after analyzing the data you determine that there was no LENR present then it will be time to chase this type of details.

        I hope that your results become positive but have reservations that you are operating at too low of a core temperature with this experiment. You have engineered an excellent test system, but may have designed it to fit a model that is not what is required to get the best results. If the initial results are negative then there is plenty room for adjustment.

        Making the core surface area to volume ratio much smaller may not be the determining factor. Simply adding thermal resistance between the core and the heater wires is probably a better approach. Your tighly wound heater wire, that approaches a sheet heat flux, will ensure that the core reaches a temperature that is approximately the same as that of the heater wires absent any core heat power contribution.

        Once core heat contribution comes into effect the thermal resistance from the core to ambient determines the level of positive feedback. Until the loop gain approaches or exceeds unity there is only a modest increase in overall closed loop gain. It seems logical to me that it is much easier to add insulation to that path before the heating wires are reached than to rely upon the internal thermal impedance of the heat conductive core material to achieve that effect.

        I admire what you guys are achieving and my comments should in no way be considered detrimental. Keep up the good work.

  • Sanjeev

    Me356 wirtes on lenr-forum that he got this IR thermometer which goes up to 2200°C and captures data directly via a USB. This should get rid of the TC malfunction problem.
    http://www.conrad-electronic.co.uk/ce/en/product/100921/Voltcraft-IR-2200-50D-USB-Infrared-Thermometer-Optics-501-50-to-2200-C?ref=searchDetail

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have spoken with him about this, given the weekends experiments, we’ll get one for Alan thanks to donations from the crowd.

      • Sanjeev

        Great !

        Hopefully more people will be willing to donate now, as there are some interesting results.

  • Sanjeev

    Me356 wirtes on lenr-forum that he got this IR thermometer which goes up to 2200°C and captures data directly via a USB. This should get rid of the TC malfunction problem.
    http://www.conrad-electronic.co.uk/ce/en/product/100921/Voltcraft-IR-2200-50D-USB-Infrared-Thermometer-Optics-501-50-to-2200-C?ref=searchDetail

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have spoken with him about this, given the weekends experiments, we’ll get one for Alan thanks to donations from the crowd.

      • Sanjeev

        Great !

        Hopefully more people will be willing to donate now, as there are some interesting results.

  • CambriaJohn

    As an engineer, it seems to me that the primary problem is getting the heat out of the chamber. I reach this conclusion from all the reports of localized thermal blowouts. Combining this with Edmund Storms’ assertion that LENR is primarily a surface phenomenon, I suggest nickel plating a steel rod so the heat can be conducted out the end of the rod. Yes, there is less surface area than with a powder, but the steel rod could be knurled to mitigate this deficiency. Yes, nickel plating might have a different crystal structure not conducive to NAE. Perhaps experimentation is the only answer to this one. If successful, the steel rod could be a real heat pipe in improved versions. I’m just sayin’.

  • Appleby

    My first post and I think it may be important.

    I have working knowledge of pressure transducers and think MFMP can head off people refusing to believe their data……move the pressure transducer away from any heat. Pressure transducers have a bad habit of inaccuracies around changing temperatures. It won’t take much to run some 1/4″ stainless tubing and get the pressure transducers on the other side of the bricks / heat shield. Hope this helps and thanks to The MFMP for all the hard work.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are honoured that you are referring your first post to the MFMP and very happy to see your engagement. Thanks for the tip.

      The Pressure transducer was chosen as it is affordable and meant to give us ball-park range pressures and change in pressures / overall macro profile during the run.

      We keep to within operating range – but we need notice we could offset the claimed pressure a little by opening and shutting the window in the cool night in Padua Italy. We recognise its lack of perfection in its current configuration – but would the extra engineering be required?

      • Appleby

        If ballpark is good enough you should be fine. We’re probably only talking about a couple hundred psi.

  • Obvious

    Correspondence with the manufacturer of the Jyalucem alumina cement (used by Alan) confirms no sodium content in the cement.
    Good to know.

    • Bob Greenyer

      But it is ONLY used on the outside.

      • Obvious

        Yes. Just checking off questions from the list.

  • Mike Henderson

    Should I use Power = v^2 / R to compute power in watts?
    Was the resistance 9.1 ohms?

    • Mike Henderson

      Plot of outside temp vs power as v^2 / R. Note the sharp left turn at 600 deg C.

      EDIT: Aw crap. Publicly humiliated again!! Graph was wrong … move along. I will correct and repost the corrected version.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Wow – interesting… I noticed the flattening of the RMS 15 min average even as the temp and “gain” was going up.

        You do know you can drop images here (though need a link for better quality)

        • Mike Henderson

          Much better, thank you.

          Notes – I averaged power over 30 second intervals to smooth this out. Also I used resistance of 9.1 ohm from memory. I did not vary resistance with temp.

          Please confirm my analysis. I recall Alan reporting 1kW toward the end, but I calc’d much lower values.

          • Bob Greenyer

            please see Alans note above

      • Mike Henderson

        Here is the corrected graph of Glowstick 3 Outside Active Temp vs Input Power. Power values are calculated as v^2 / r and are smoothed by averaging over 90 seconds. A power vs temp calibration was done with Glowstick 2 and can be found at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kUUNrNlI1ZmV0UlE/edit

        • Bob Greenyer

          From Alan

          “The power should be calculated by V^2/R *ONLY* from the raw data. Then the calculated power from the ~2 sec samples can be averaged over longer periods. We have a chart of resistance vs. temperature from the first calibration and I will add that to the archive soon.”

    • Sanjeev

      Resistance is 8.6 ohms from the drawing on the public spreadsheet.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are honoured that you are referring your first post to the MFMP and very happy to see your engagement. Thanks for the tip.

    The Pressure transducer was chosen as it is affordable and meant to give us ball-park range pressures and change in pressures / overall macro profile during the run.

    We keep to within operating range – but we need notice we could offset the claimed pressure a little by opening and shutting the window in the cool night in Padua Italy. We recognise its lack of perfection in its current configuration – but would the extra engineering be required?

    • Bob Matulis

      Any date and time for the next test run?

      • Bob Greenyer

        A 5 hour re-heat is running right now and captured data will be uploaded straight afterwards.

        Trying to get a stream organised.

        • Bob Matulis

          Is this re-run with the loaded reactor or is this the re-run with the hydrogen removed (to see if temperature difference disappears? It would seem to me ramping the temp similar to the previous test would be the best comparison if the latter. Thanks

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Bob,

            The reactor and contents will not be modified in any way.

            It is a 5 hour re-heat to 1250C

          • timycelyn

            Excellent!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Data will be published straight afterwards – they are going to try and get a stream up at some point – but they have started already.

        • Sanjeev

          Can you please ask him to upload the calibration data too ? (With power)
          I want to compare it with active.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have asked.

          • Ged

            Did the run go well? The heater still in one piece? If I am right it should be done by now?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Run finished – cell intact, will point to raw data very soon.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is a very Rough, partially labelled 15minute average based chart I made with the raw data Alan posted here

    http://tinyurl.com/o8kuxxc

    • Ecco

      I think AlanG needs a watt meter with logging capabilities.

    • Sanjeev

      One thing I notice is that the voltage remains between 45 to 50 V when the temperature rises from 600 to 700 C.

      • Ecco

        What about from ~175 to 200 °C?

        • Sanjeev

          Need to plot that area separately for clear view. I got the data. Will start playing in some time.

          • Ecco

            To me that section looks odd. Excess heat wasn’t supposed to be generated yet. However, as the target temperature set on the PID increased, input power also decreased in turn. That’s why I suggested using a wattmeter in a different comment; it would clear things up.

            I used the “raw” raw data.

            http://i.imgur.com/RpNM8xg.png

            Green/Blue = Null/active temperatures (°C)

            Red = input power as [V^2 / R] * 10 in watts, moving average using 20, 1000 and 1000 samples

          • Sanjeev

            That’s odd, something related to LAH decomposition ?
            It happens to both dummy and active and lasts for about 2 hours.

          • Ecco

            Input power was manually increased. This should have resulted in an initial rise in RMS voltage, even taking into account a chemical exothermic reaction later on due to LAH decomposition. As it didn’t, this implies there’s likely something wrong or missing, or in other words, that voltage readings and a single resistance values alone are not enough for calculating accurately input power.

          • Sanjeev

            There is a drop is resistance at this point (around 175C) that should explain it. See the graph posted by Bob above.

          • Ged

            Oh, my kingdom for some amps.

      • Bob Matulis

        Null rose from about 600 to 650 C during same period. Seems part of rise was system reaching equilibrium.

        • Sanjeev

          Null actually drops below 600, for 7 hours and only started increasing with next bump in the power to 600 and could never catch it. Since the initial offset was 0, one would expect it to be 0 again after a day of heating to be in equilibrium. (The flat part of voltage lasts for a day).

        • timycelyn

          But we don’t know how much heat leaks from live to null yet – it will be quite significant, I suspect. A good part of its rise could have been loss from the live side.

          • US_Citizen71

            The heat transfer would be a linear function, so that would explain the null tracking with the fuel side wouldn’t it?

          • timycelyn

            It would certainly contribute. Just don’t have a feeling for the magnitude, but: Null thermocouple only 1.5″ from end of active cell, and a lot of refractory close by (especially underneath. Reradiation might add to the uplift of the null result, as well as the more obvious conduction.

          • Sanjeev

            That’s what I thought too. When the voltage is not rising the dummy heats up from the active.

          • Sanjeev

            This is the close up of the area of interest, which shows the greatest anomaly.
            Click on the image for original size.

          • US_Citizen71

            You forgot to add the image.

          • Would it be possible to mark this chart with the set point changes?

          • Sanjeev

            The temperatures were on a ramp and then held for a long time. There is no info on exactly at what values it was held. Roughly its the end of the ramp.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is a consideration, some through hydrogen that is VERY good at heat transfer, and some through the ceramic filler and reactor wall.

          • Bob Matulis

            Good point. Hopefully that effect will be quantified.

          • Patrick Ellul

            Is the following taken into consideration when calculating the quantity of excess heat? The excess heat from the reacting side also heats the un-fuelled side by conduction/convection and perhaps even radiation. Or would this be negligent enough? It seems to me from the charts, that when the reaction started, the voltage stayed the same for a while, but both temperatures increased, the fuelled side more than the non-fuelled side. Wouldn’t this mean that the non-reacting side was warmed up by the reactions on the fuelled-side?

          • Mats002

            That have been discussed a little and should add to the suggested COP, but at this stage it is better to make conservative interpretations.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Resistance change graph published – raw data to follow.

    • Ged

      Pretty easy to see the voltage drops along with the null side, particularly doing the long hold at 600 C where there’s enough time and it’s close to the guide line to make it easy to see that overall trend forest from the trees of the jigglejumps. That strengthens the evidence, for sure. Also, nice clean graph presentation!

      • I have to remind myself that there are some chemical reactions that are going to be taking place and that they are a function of temperature. Not every exothermic patch is necessarily going to be an indicator of LENR.

        This one at 600 C exterior happens and then ‘sticks’ in the sense that the temperatures never converge again until many hours later during shutdown. That may indicate LENR, or it might indicate measurement trouble as suggested by the re-heat experiment.

        • Ged

          Gotta get that bookend for sure. We are way beyond chemical though.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is a very Rough, partially labelled 15minute average based chart I made with the raw data Alan posted here

    http://tinyurl.com/o8kuxxc

    • Sanjeev

      One thing I notice is that the voltage remains between 45 to 50 V when the temperature rises from 600 to 700 C.

      • Bob Matulis

        Null rose from about 600 to 650 C during same period. Seems part of rise was system reaching equilibrium.

        • Sanjeev

          Null actually drops below 600, for 7 hours and only started increasing with next bump in the power to 600 and could never catch it. Since the initial offset was 0, one would expect it to be 0 again after a day of heating to be in equilibrium. (The flat part of voltage lasts for a day).

        • timycelyn

          But we don’t know how much heat leaks from live to null yet – it will be quite significant, I suspect. A good part of its rise could have been loss from the live side.

          • US_Citizen71

            The heat transfer would be a nearly linear function, so that would explain the null tracking with the fuel side wouldn’t it?

          • timycelyn

            It would certainly contribute. Just don’t have a feeling for the magnitude, but: Null thermocouple only 1.5″ from end of active cell, and a lot of refractory close by (especially underneath. Reradiation might add to the uplift of the null result, as well as the more obvious conduction.

          • Sanjeev

            That’s what I thought too. When the voltage is not rising the dummy heats up from the active.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is a consideration, some through hydrogen that is VERY good at heat transfer, and some through the ceramic filler and reactor wall.

          • Bob Matulis

            Good point. Hopefully that effect will be quantified.

    • Ged

      Pretty easy to see the voltage drops along with the null side, particularly doing the long hold at 600 C where there’s enough time and it’s close to the guide line to make it easy to see that overall trend forest from the trees of the jigglejumps. That strengthens the evidence, for sure. Also, nice clean graph presentation!

      Edit: Since I haven’t seen him posting here, just reposting Alberto De Souza’s graph from the MFMP Facebook page of the crossover area of the run using a “moving average of 1000 samples” and the V^2/R where R=8.6 for calculating power in watts (absolute values don’t really matter for this chart, just the relative behavior). Cause it’s nifty. https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11222124_914302228591022_4493688857204698273_n.jpg?oh=c75405c06777354f8caea2d3ffbf0370&oe=55EA1B50

      • I have to remind myself that there are some chemical reactions that are going to be taking place and that they are a function of temperature. Not every exothermic patch is necessarily going to be an indicator of LENR.

        This one at 600 C exterior happens and then ‘sticks’ in the sense that the temperatures never converge again until many hours later during shutdown. That may indicate LENR, or it might indicate measurement trouble as suggested by the re-heat experiment.

        • Ged

          Gotta get that bookend for sure. We are way beyond chemical though.

  • Stephen Taylor

    My simplistic analysis is just look at how delta T increases as temperature steps up beyond 600C. Just zoom the chart and measure difference with a ruler can be seen doubling of initial large delta.

  • Stephen Taylor

    My simplistic analysis is just look at how delta T increases as temperature steps up beyond 600C. Just zoom the chart and measure difference with a ruler can be seen doubling of initial large delta.

  • Andre Blum

    Not that I have such plans, but I somehow ended up looking up many of the building blocks (PID controller, alumina tubes, kanthal A1 wire, etc) of this test on ebay, to get an idea of price involved per setup. During this, I stumbled upon an offer for “Carbonyl Nickel Powder T255 (0.9gr) And LiAlH4 (0.1gr)”. What would be the purpose of that? Is Nickel + LiAlH4 a sensible combination outside LENR experiments?

    • Sanjeev

      Isn’t GBP 15 a really high cost for that ? Its 1 gram only.

    • Tedd Jensen

      Its made special for LENR experiments.

  • Bob Matulis

    Any date and time for the next test run?

    • Bob Greenyer

      A 5 hour re-heat is running right now and captured data will be uploaded straight afterwards.

      Trying to get a stream organised.

      • Bob Matulis

        Is this re-run with the loaded reactor or is this the re-run with the hydrogen removed (to see if temperature difference disappears)? It would seem to me ramping the temp similar to the previous test would be the best comparison if the latter. Thanks

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Bob,

          The reactor and contents will not be modified in any way.

          It is a 5 hour re-heat to 1250C

          • timycelyn

            Excellent!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Data will be published straight afterwards – they are going to try and get a stream up at some point – but they have started already.

      • Sanjeev

        Can you please ask him to upload the calibration data too ? (With power)
        I want to compare it with active.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I have asked.

          • Ged

            Did the run go well? The heater still in one piece? If I am right it should be done by now?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Run finished – cell intact, will point to raw data very soon.

  • Sanjeev

    This is the close up of the area of interest, which shows the greatest anomaly.
    The voltage needs to be converted to energy, else makes no sense.
    Click on the image for original size.

    • Would it be possible to mark this chart with the set point changes?

      • Sanjeev

        The temperatures were on a ramp and then held for a long time. There is no info on exactly at what values it was held. Roughly its the end of the ramp.

  • Mike Henderson

    In the GS3 trial, the temperature of the fueled side was used to regulate the power input. The fueled temperatures match up quite closely with the GS2 Power / Temp calibration curve. Temperatures on the unfueled side are significantly below the temperature that would be expected at a given power level. This is an indication of anomalous heat being added to the fueled side which, in turn, caused a reduction in input power level.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Mike, this is an interesting graph you have here for sure – Thankyou for your great work

      • Mike Henderson

        Starting from a red square, first look down to get the base wattage then trace a horizontal line toward the left to the point where it intersects with the calibration curve (gold triangles). The length of that horizontal line is the excess power in watts for base wattage. For example, let’s take the set above 670 W, the unfueled temp is about 775. The horizontal distance to the calibration line is about 90 W. The measured COP for that group of points is (670 + 90) / 670 = 1.13. The points above 750 W show a measured COP of about 1.46. The points around 500 W show a measured COP of about 1.2, but the signal-to-noise level is pretty low in that range.

        By the way, this type of power analysis would be a LOT easier if the voltage (and wattage) were held steady then record the resulting temperature, gradually stepping up 50 watts every hour or so … instead of rapidly varying the voltage to hold a temperature and stepping up the target temperature.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Think LENR process off center in fueled element by looking at glow so this probably bias’ TC in a conservative direction ie lower than actual reading. On basis of run back observations Alan ran into it pretty early to be troubling his fuzzy controller, for what it’s worth Mike. Amazed at how slow the LENR energy appeared to come in. Rossi lost a lot of his fuel elements playing with the Lady & he is very methodical I should think & persistant for the Worlds benefit & our knowledge of the Lugano fuel you are puzzling over now. Wish I had the time & energy to help you in your search for the truth – Jim

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes!

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I’m generally concerned about the “dummy.” If the material inside the core is different, the heat conductivity may be different, and there can be other effects if AC is being used instead of DC, in the heater windings. Using an empty core is inadequate as a control. Using a nickel-lithium-aluminum alloy, maybe. Maybe cooked fuel. There would still be hydrogen conductivity to consider.

    • Ged

      Doesn’t explain magnitude nor temporal behavior change and spontaneous onset. None of that has a measurable effect according to unsuccessful previous MFMP fueled and hydrogen tests against controls.

      • Obvious

        It could be explained by two coils touching and conducting in the null side, after stretching due to heat. A drop in resistance should be noted if this is the case. It should be easy to calculate the exact drop due to a coil short using the coil calculator. Then this could be compared to the actual results, and calculated power consuption.

        • US_Citizen71

          In series, Current is Vavg / Rtot.

          Assuming an Vavg of 50V and Rtot of 8.9 Ohms

          I=5.618A
          R1=4.5 Ohms
          R2=4.4 Ohms
          V1=25.281V
          V2=24.719V
          P1=142.028W
          P2=133.717W

          Ratio of P1 to P2 is 1.065

          I don’t think it fits.

          • US_Citizen71

            But in the video which side was the fueled? In the chat it was stated the one on the left, but who’s left? The camera was above the setup with frame top towards Alan I believe. To Alan the left video side would be on his right. The left video side was dimmer which optically would indicate a shorted coil. More than one shorted coils with a bigger resistance difference might explain it.

          • Mats002

            We need a resistance measure from middle of coil to each end. Should be easy to do thanks to that the GS did not melt or blow up this time.

          • US_Citizen71

            That would help, the measurements would need to be taken at temperature as well as at room temperature to insure that all bases are covered.

          • Ged

            The left video side is the fueled side. You can see the double thermal couples on it.

            We can’t use the oversaturation of the camera image reliably, as others have explained whenever it’s come up.

          • US_Citizen71

            I’ve been watching the video of the transition to the reversed delta and before to see if there was a visual change and I don’t see one showing a reduction in bright areas. Just an increase in the brightness of the left edge of the right side (null core). Which might indicate heat flow through the solid alumina center from the left core.

          • Obvious

            I’ve run some numbers, and it is too small of an effect. So I agree.
            The effect is compounded or factored by a logarithmic value somehow. Modelling a reflection scenario is much more complex, but a T4 sneaking in there might do the trick. I just don’t see how the interior metals can reflect the heat back to the wire and then out much differently than by passing through alumina and heating the wire on the other side, unless a large amount is shed out the ends, one of which is the metal side also, and then would reflect back, (if it does at all). The coil in the middle of the reflection to the outside really makes a mess of things. If the reflection were strong enough to maintain a much higher outside temperature, then the fuel metals inside would have to be much cooler than expected. Then there is the problem of how much heat is conducted vs radiated internally to even make a reflection work at all. Where is the coil shadow?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I’m generally concerned about the “dummy.” If the material inside the core is different, the heat conductivity may be different, and there can be other effects if AC is being used instead of DC, in the heater windings. Using an empty core is inadequate as a control. Using a nickel-lithium-aluminum alloy, maybe. Maybe cooked fuel. There would still be hydrogen conductivity to consider.

    • Ged

      Doesn’t explain magnitude nor temporal behavior change and spontaneous onset. None of that has a measurable effect according to unsuccessful previous MFMP fueled and hydrogen tests against controls.

      • Obvious

        It could be explained by two coils touching and conducting in the null side, after stretching due to heat (causing coil bunching). A drop in resistance should be noted if this is the case. It should be easy to calculate the exact drop due to a coil short using the coil calculator. Then this could be compared to the actual results, and calculated power consuption.
        Edit: I calculate a single coil short reducing the resistance by 0.105 ohms, cold. So maybe 0.11 at temperature. Try reducing one side from a balanced 50/50 split of the resistance to one side with 0.11 ohms less in a calculation to see what it does. I’m on a pad in the airport, so I can’t do it myself.
        The reduced resistance on one side will not increase watts onthat side, for some that might say that. The peak Current is limited by the side with the most resistance, so the lower resistance side can never flow its potential amp capacity, so the higher resistance side gets its maximum, and the lower side goes lower in output watts. Better double- check my drop figure also, just in case.
        Edit2: additionally, the voltage difference between the two sides caused by a drop in resistance on one side can be calculated using the voltage divider formula.

        • US_Citizen71

          In series, Current is Vavg / Rtot.

          Assuming an Vavg of 50V and Rtot of 8.9 Ohms

          I=5.618A
          R1=4.5 Ohms
          R2=4.4 Ohms
          V1=25.281V
          V2=24.719V
          P1=142.028W
          P2=133.717W

          Ratio of P1 to P2 is 1.065

          I don’t think it fits.

          • US_Citizen71

            But in the video which side was the fueled? In the chat it was stated the one on the left, but who’s left? The camera was above the setup with frame top towards Alan I believe. To Alan the left video side would be on his right. The left video side was dimmer which optically would indicate a shorted coil. More than one shorted coils with a bigger resistance difference might explain it.

          • Mats002

            We need a resistance measure from middle of coil to each end. Should be easy to do thanks to that the GS did not melt or blow up this time.

          • US_Citizen71

            That would help, the measurements would need to be taken at temperature as well as at room temperature to insure that all bases are covered.

          • Ged

            The left video side is the fueled side. You can see the double thermal couples on it.

            We can’t use the oversaturation of the camera image reliably, as others have explained whenever it’s come up.

          • US_Citizen71

            I’ve been watching the video of the transition to the reversed delta and before to see if there was a visual change and I don’t see one showing a reduction in bright areas. Just an increase in the brightness of the left edge of the right side (null core). Which might indicate heat flow through the solid alumina center from the left core.

          • Obvious

            I’ve run some numbers, and it is too small of an effect. So I agree.
            The effect is compounded or factored by a logarithmic value somehow. Modelling a reflection scenario is much more complex, but a T4 sneaking in there might do the trick. I just don’t see how the interior metals can reflect the heat back to the wire and then out much differently than by passing through alumina and heating the wire on the other side, unless a large amount is shed out the ends, one of which is the metal side also, and then would reflect back, (if it does at all). The coil in the middle of the reflection to the outside really makes a mess of things. If the reflection were strong enough to maintain a much higher outside temperature, then the fuel metals inside would have to be much cooler than expected. Then there is the problem of how much heat is conducted vs radiated internally to even make a reflection work at all. Where is the coil shadow?

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m not a chemist but what about using another chemical that thermally decomposes to stand in for the lithium aluminium hydride in a dummy reactor? It should make gas so that pressures are closer between the dummy and the fueled. I was thinking of something without hydrogen so that there is no chance of reaction. May be nitrogen instead. A quick search gave me sodium nitrite.

    ‘Above 330 °C sodium nitrite decomposes (in air) to sodium oxide, nitrogen(II) oxide and nitrogen dioxide.[5]

    2 NaNO2 → Na2O + NO + NO2’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m not a chemist but what about using another chemical that thermally decomposes to stand in for the lithium aluminium hydride in a dummy reactor? It should make gas so that pressures are closer between the dummy and the fueled. I was thinking of something without hydrogen so that there is no chance of reaction. May be nitrogen instead. A quick search gave me sodium nitrite.

    ‘Above 330 °C sodium nitrite decomposes (in air) to sodium oxide, nitrogen(II) oxide and nitrogen dioxide.[5]

    2 NaNO2 → Na2O + NO + NO2’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite

  • Patrick Ellul

    Is the following taken into consideration when calculating the quantity of excess heat? The excess heat from the reacting side also heats the un-fuelled side by conduction/convection and perhaps even radiation. Or would this be negligent enough? It seems to me from the charts, that when the reaction started, the voltage stayed the same for a while, but both temperatures increased, the fuelled side more than the non-fuelled side. Wouldn’t this mean that the non-reacting side was warmed up by the reactions on the fuelled-side?

    • Mats002

      That have been discussed a little and should add to the suggested COP, but at this stage it is better to make conservative interpretations.

  • Preston Brown

    They did post the raw data from the run today. Looks pretty good.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I highly recommend continuing this. How repeatable is the behavior?

      Next: a series of tests where the experimenters do not know what fuel is in the reactor. It is simply not surprising to me, though, that a fueled reactor would have a different behavior than an unfueled one. And it is tricky to determine what changes in fuel will produce what changes in behavior. As well, there is random variation in the heater behavior. The blind testing can tease that one out. but a substantial series is needed.

      Little will be learned by opening the reactor. Much might be learned by studying the long-term behavior. With PdD work, direct evidence for nuclear reaction was not found until helium was studied, and in that study, “dead cells” made perfect controls, since they were otherwise identical, i.e., the differences were out of control, nanostructure, etc.

      Scalar offset, existing at low temperatures (say, under 700 C), indicates no XP, unless we assume XP arises at much lower temperatures than we have thought, and there is much evidence this is not so. Scalar offset may produce an appearance of XP, but the behavior is not consistent. So: what is the origin of the scalar offset? It is crucial to determine that.

      From the behavior of the fueled cell in this run, it’s “dead.” So now it may be possible to use it as the control in a run with a new fueled cell. It’s not perfect; when the LiAlH4 degasses, it may foam, it may create unexpected effects. However, this would be getting closer to a clean control.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Looks to me like it just needs analysis, and a bookend calibration. But given the nickel is already saturated and LiAlH all reacted away, an earlier start point isn’t surprising if indeed it is still or was LENR. It is -different- from the first run though, and that itself is interesting. Bookend, bookend, bookend.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Jonas Hellö

      So it’s all been a measurement error..? 🙁

      Is the fuel removed?

      • Ged

        Looks fine to me, just different now that the LiAlH4 is gone. The fuel is still there and the device wasn’t changed since last run. This was another unknown experiment.

        The bookend calibration is what will actually tell us if there is an error in the device, not this.

    • Ged

      Looks to me like it just needs analysis, and a bookend calibration. But given the nickel is already saturated and LiAlH all reacted away, an earlier start point isn’t surprising if indeed it is still or was LENR. It is -different- from the first run though, and that itself is interesting. Bookend, bookend, bookend.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Resistance change graph published – raw data to follow.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Basic graph of re-heat data, see what you think…

    • Ecco

      The active-null temperature difference has a very close relationship with heater voltage/input power:

      http://i.imgur.com/OpQ9aGj.png

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Ecco

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Most likely the heat in the loaded tube is less evenly distributed than in the dummy, due to the thermal characteristics of the sintered fuel (provided that the TC readings are correct). The Optris camera would be ideal to check that. Alternatively, one could use a pyrometer or additional thermocouples. Anyway, the effect seems to be so regular that there should be a rather simple explanation.

    • Nigel Appleton

      Was that with hydrogen in situ, or had the hydrogen been released?
      Could one of the thermocouple junctions have been somewhat oxidised?
      Is it possible to swap thermocouple connexions and try again at least to 500 C or so?

    • Stephen

      Has a comparison been made for the pressure for the reheat compared with the test data during heat up and cool down? It seems to be lower to me in the raw data. Could this mean that the gas has has continued to be absorbed or reacted in some way? Or maybe that the free volume has increased?

    • Mats002

      To me it looks like no new fire but a systematic difference between null and active side. The effect should be activated at some temp making a bump not a linear increase like that.

      • Unless the previous run took care of the activation and now it’s just ready to roll.

        It does look like some kind of measurement artifact, but I don’t think we can rule out a LENR reaction as a linear function of temperature on already activated fuel just yet.

        • Ecco

          A calorimeter could answer that question.

          • Ged

            A book end calibration will help greatly too.

        • Mats002

          Agree, it is premature to rule out anything.

    • Ged

      The nickel is hydrogenated from the start and LiAlH already long gone. Does look like a crossover again, but earlier, but can’t quite make it out. The behavior is changed. Also looks like the difference is much smaller, so could be a little dead?

      Note however the sagging in the voltage.

      Book end calibration after killing the fuel is a must and will rule out or at least allow removal of any mechanical or systematic artifacts.

    • Bob Matulis

      The data does not look what I would expect from a LENR reaction (activity over 600C). It will be interesting to do another 5 hour run – except with the fuel removed. If the chart looks the same as what you just posted the explanation is something other than LENR. However, if the data from the two reactors match it would suggest some excess heat was being produced due to the fuel.

      BTW, I really appreciate the objective nature of the observations on this site. It builds on my confidence that true science is being pursued here. We are all hoping for excess heat but whatever the truth is trumps all that. Keep up the good work!

      • Ged

        I second all that sentiment. One more piece of data–with the fuel inactivated doing that second calibration run–I think will clarify everything greatly for what the most likely cause is. This is so important. If the excess heat wasn’t LENR and instead some unexpected design flaw, we must know for future designs and experimental interpretations. And if it was LENR, we need to remove all background effects to accurately measure it and better design future experiments for detection like calorimetry.

    • Sanjeev

      Too clean.

      • Ged

        Perhaps it should be so on the second time. We can’t let preconcieved (bias) notions define what we think, only analysis. The second calibration, if it shows this exactly, will demonstrate the explanation lies in the physical, and if subtracted out from the first run causes the excess to disappear (the cause would still need to be adequately defined though), that’ll fully account for the data. But if the bookend calibration does not show this, then perhaps one would have to change expectations.

        But, don’t let expectations of what we think it should be color us a priori.

      • Ged

        Compared to control run 1, and the null side, it very much shows excess heat production. Question is why, but the why must explain it all. Just because the used, changed fuel gave a smoother (when zoomed out) curve with earlier crossover point doesn’t in itself indicate any error. That’s a biased notion. We need the second calibration run to show if there is a physical error that occurred in the device after running it in the first active run (had to happen after calibration 1), or not. But explanations must account for all the data.

        According to their calibration, we know the external to internal temp relationship, so it should have run as high as Parkhomov, and seen excess heat for the first time within the same domain that Parkhomov usually saw it start. Parkhomov never could run a reactor more than once, from my understanding, so this is very much uncharted territory.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Basic graph of re-heat data, see what you think…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Most likely the heat in the loaded tube is less evenly distributed than in the dummy, due to the thermal characteristics of the sintered fuel (provided that the TC readings are correct). The Optris camera would be ideal to check that. Alternatively, one could use a pyrometer or additional thermocouples. Anyway, the effect seems to be so regular that there should be a rather simple explanation.

    • Nigel Appleton

      Was that with hydrogen in situ, or had the hydrogen been released?
      Could one of the thermocouple junctions have been somewhat oxidised?
      Is it possible to swap thermocouple connexions and try again at least to 500 C or so?

    • Stephen

      Has a comparison been made for the pressure for the reheat compared with the test data during heat up and cool down? It seems to be lower to me in the raw data. Could this mean that the gas has has continued to be absorbed or reacted in some way? Or maybe that the free volume has increased?

    • Mats002

      To me it looks like no new fire but a systematic difference between null and active side. The effect should be activated at some temp making a bump not a linear increase like that.

      • Unless the previous run took care of the activation and now it’s just ready to roll.

        It does look like some kind of measurement artifact, but I don’t think we can rule out a LENR reaction as a linear function of temperature on already activated fuel just yet.

        • Mats002

          Agree, it is premature to rule out anything.

    • Ged

      The nickel is hydrogenated from the start and LiAlH already long gone. Does look like a crossover again, but earlier, but can’t quite make it out. The behavior is changed. Also looks like the difference is maybe smaller, so could be a little dead?

      Note however the sagging in the voltage.

      Bookend calibration after killing the fuel is a must and will rule out or at least allow removal of any mechanical or systematic artifacts.

      Edit: Don’t get glum though! This change in behavior is interesting. If the new crossover is where the voltage sags, that would be interesting too.

      Edit2: the graph is pretty crunched, but zooming in, it is clear the voltage and null decrease over time while holding at 600 C. Also, difference might even be bigger. So, no glumness ;), just investigation to fit the facts completely. And that bookend.

    • Bob Matulis

      The data does not look like what I would expect from a LENR reaction (activity over 600C). It will be interesting to do another 5 hour run – except with the fuel removed. If the chart looks the same as what you just posted the explanation is something other than LENR. However, if the data from the two reactors match it would suggest some excess heat was being produced due to the fuel.

      BTW, I really appreciate the objective nature of the observations on this site. It builds on my confidence that true science is being pursued here. We are all hoping for excess heat but whatever the truth is trumps all that. Keep up the good work!

      • Ged

        I second all that sentiment. One more piece of data–with the fuel inactivated doing that second calibration run–I think will clarify everything greatly for what the most likely cause is. This is so important. If the excess heat wasn’t LENR and instead some unexpected design flaw, we must know for future designs and experimental interpretations. And if it was LENR, we need to remove all background effects to accurately measure it and better design future experiments for detection like calorimetry.

    • Sanjeev

      Too clean.

      • Ged

        Perhaps it should be so on the second time. We can’t let preconcieved (bias) notions define what we think, only analysis. The second calibration, if it shows this exactly, will demonstrate the explanation lies in the physical, and if subtracted out from the first run causes the excess to disappear (the cause would still need to be adequately defined though), that’d fully account for the data. But if the bookend calibration does not show this, then perhaps one would have to change expectations.

        But, don’t let expectations of what we think it should be color us a priori.

      • Dave

        I agree that this run does not appear to show excess heat production. There may be a tiny amount present which may show up once the data is thoroughly sorted through.

        My concern that this experiment is not running at the same high temperatures as used by Dr. Parkhomov due to placement of the sense TC and material thermal conduction characteristics may be valid. I hope it will be possible one day to clear up this issue.

        The best solution is to place a good high temperature TC inside the core interior of one of these designs as well as one of Parkhomov’s devices that is generating excess heat according to well behaved data.

        • Ged

          Compared to control run 1, and the null side, it very much shows excess heat production. Question is why, but the why must explain it all. Just because the used, changed fuel gave a smoother (when zoomed out) curve with earlier crossover point doesn’t in itself indicate any error. That’s a biased notion. We need the second calibration run to show if there is a physical error that occurred in the device after running it in the first active run (had to happen after calibration 1), or not. But explanations must account for all the data.

          According to their calibration, we know the external to internal temp relationship, so it should have run as high as Parkhomov, and it saw excess heat for the first time within the same domain that Parkhomov usually saw it start. Parkhomov never could run a reactor more than once, from my understanding, so this is very much uncharted territory.

    • Preston Brown

      Oh, I had time reversed. BTW, If you look closely at the data during the ramp down you will see a huge drop in the delta T just below 600C.

      I’m ready to see what happens during the bookend cal test; great work guys….

  • Bob Greenyer
    • The Lugano test suffered from not having two independent methods of measuring the outside temperature. If IR cameras and emissivity coatings are impractical for MFMP then we have to find another way.

      The temperature data has to be solid or the power conclusions will never be accepted.

    • pelgrim108

      The photos suggest that the fueled side ( left in the photo, right in the video) was the one with the excess glow. Every one in the chat assumed that the the left one in the video ( wich had less glow in the video and was also more concentrated in 1 spot) was the lueled side.

      Can you make it clear to me ( in a way that doesnt leave it open for multiple interpretations), wich one is wich one, and wich one had the more glow.

      • Ged

        Left in the video is the fueled side–the double TCs. See the Part 2 video for a very clear look. The picture and the video are both looking the same direction. Can’t trust “glow” from the camera, as it is not accurately indicative of temperature.

        • pelgrim108

          I was looking at a photo from the setup for the calibration run wich has the pressure sensor on the left side. I now found the photos from the actual run wich have the pressure sensor on the right side. So that is the reason for my confusion. Thanks Ged for a clear answer.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • The Lugano test suffered from not having two independent methods of measuring the outside temperature. If IR cameras and emissivity coatings are impractical for MFMP then we have to find another way.

      The temperature data has to be solid or the power conclusions will never be accepted.

    • gregha

      What is the Santa Cruz location where Alan, etc are located; a school, a company site? The MFMP site doesn’t seem to describe.

    • pelgrim108

      Edit: I have it all wrong in this comment.

      The photos suggest that the fueled side ( left in the photo, right in the video) was the one with the excess glow. Every one in the chat assumed that the the left one in the video ( wich had less glow in the video and was also more concentrated in 1 spot) was the fueled side.

      Can you make it clear to me ( in a way that doesnt leave it open for multiple interpretations), wich one is wich one, and wich one had the more glow.

      • Ged

        Left in the video is the fueled side–the double TCs. See the Part 2 video for a very clear look. The picture and the video are both looking the same direction. Can’t trust “glow” from the camera, as it is not accurately indicative of temperature.

        • pelgrim108

          I was looking at a photo from the setup for the calibration run wich has the pressure sensor on the left side. I now found the photos from the actual run wich have the pressure sensor on the right side. So that is the reason for my confusion. Thanks Ged for a clear answer.

  • Ged

    Looks fine to me, just different now that the LiAlH4 is gone. The fuel is still there and the device wasn’t changed since last run. This was another unknown experiment.

    The bookend calibration is what will actually tell us if there is an error in the device, not this.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I highly recommend continuing this. How repeatable is the behavior?

    Next: a series of tests where the experimenters do not know what fuel is in the reactor. It is simply not surprising to me, though, that a fueled reactor would have a different behavior than an unfueled one. And it is tricky to determine what changes in fuel will produce what changes in behavior. As well, there is random variation in the heater behavior. The blind testing can tease that one out. but a substantial series is needed.

    Little will be learned by opening the reactor. Much might be learned by studying the long-term behavior. With PdD work, direct evidence for nuclear reaction was not found until helium was studied, and in that study, “dead cells” made perfect controls, since they were otherwise identical, i.e., the differences were out of control, nanostructure, etc.

    Scalar offset, existing at low temperatures (say, under 700 C), indicates no XP, unless we assume XP arises at much lower temperatures than we have thought, and there is much evidence this is not so. Scalar offset may produce an appearance of XP, but the behavior is not consistent. So: what is the origin of the scalar offset? It is crucial to determine that.

    From the behavior of the fueled cell in this run, it’s “dead.” So now it may be possible to use it as the control in a run with a new fueled cell. It’s not perfect; when the LiAlH4 degasses, it may foam, it may create unexpected effects. However, this would be getting closer to a clean control.

  • Ged

    I would just like to remind everyone, that whatever explanation is proposed for the data, be it physical (errors), chemical, nuclear, combination, or something else, it must be able to explain all the data.

    Including the first Control run: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/GlowStick/GS3/GS3_cal1_30s.jpg

    The first Experimental run: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2056705058

    And the second Experimental run: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2057679776.

    The proposal must explain magnitudes, it must explain temporal and state change behavior, everything, no matter what “it” is.

  • Ged

    I would just like to remind everyone, that whatever explanation is proposed for the data, be it physical (errors), chemical, nuclear, combination, or something else, it must be able to explain all the data.

    Including the first Control run: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/GlowStick/GS3/GS3_cal1_30s.jpg

    The first Experimental run (excess heat compared to null and control): http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2056705058

    And the second Experimental run (excess heat compared to null and control): http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2057679776.

    The proposal must explain magnitudes, it must explain temporal and state change behavior, everything, no matter what “it” is.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Will it be possible to deactivate the fuel with complete confidence? If delta T remains after attempt to deactivate then fuel removal may be the only way to be sure there is no heat produced in the hydrogen loaded nickel. Is fuel removal even possible without disturbing the calibration conditions? Can the nickel be “unloaded”?

  • Stephen Taylor

    Will it be possible to deactivate the fuel with complete confidence? If delta T remains after attempt to deactivate then fuel removal may be the only way to be sure there is no heat produced in the hydrogen loaded nickel. Is fuel removal even possible without disturbing the calibration conditions? Can the nickel be “unloaded”?

  • Sanjeev

    One thing I notice in the reheat data is that the voltage needed to maintain a temperature of 630 on active side is about 60V, while the voltage needed for same temperature in the last run was only 47V (average).
    That’s a power difference of 160 watts. What is the possible explanation ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      interesting – can you try plotting something like needed power against temp for both runs.

    • ecatworld

      There could have been a change in the structure of the fuel after heating once and cooling. Remember when Parkhomov in his last test restarted his reactor after a day or so — he got excess heat from it, but it was cut in half (approximately)

      • Sanjeev

        That makes the original run and re-heat an apple and orange situation.
        Lets see if the re-calibration run (fuel removed) gives any clues.

        • Sanjeev

          Comparison of dT for original run and re-heating. Lots of difference.
          In the re-heat, the climb-up dT is more than climb down dT.

          • Ged

            Fascinating. Thanks for this analysis Sanjeev. This is new territory with no preconceptions of what we could see.

          • Love the way the reheat blue curve lines up visually with the post 700 C active run red line.

            The clear conclusion is that *something* happened to the active reactor at ~600 C external during the active run. Those somethings could include:

            * Introduced a bias in the outer thermocouple (but how? physical change in contact points? lemon?)
            * Established the conditions for a reaction whose rate scales more or less with temperature and can go on for hours
            — this could be a chemical reaction (still lots of hydrogen at high pressure; but can any chemical reaction explain the magnitude and duration of observations? analysis needed)
            — or this could be something nuclear like LENR

          • Stephen Taylor

            One suggestion before I get out of here. How about running the reactor for a very long time at a very safe temperature like 400C. If it is active as we hope then isotopic changes can have time to accrue and become obvious on later analysis. If it is inactive the isotopes will be natural and the reheat calibration showed us the measurement anomaly. At conservative temperature maybe Alan can be comfortable running it unattended depending on the operating environment.

          • Axil Axil

            I would like to see a long run with a cycling temperature between 400 and 750. 600C seems to be where the reaction began. A temperature cycle is how Rossi usually pumps his reactors.

    • Bob Matulis

      One possible explanation is lag time. The first run was over a much longer period which allowed the temperature to closer approach equilibrium at any given time. I would expect a shorter run (5 hours) to require more power to achieve a same temperature compared to previous run since it does not have as much time to warm up.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan would like to add on this:

      “The 30 second or 5 minute average voltage data must not be used for calculating power.

      The correct way to determine power is to use the raw (~2 second) voltage data, square each datum and divide by the coil resistance calculated from the linear equation in my chart posted yesterday. Then these individual power samples can be averaged over longer intervals. I showed this method to be accurate within about 3% in the GS2 calibrations. But even if an estimated coil resistance is used, power calculation accuracy of around +-5% can be found.”

      Sanjeev, are you able to do this for both data sets and see where things lie?

      • Sanjeev

        Sure. I will try that. The only tool I have is Excel 😀

        • Bob Greenyer

          Excel should do!

          • Sanjeev

            Here is the chart. I used a fixed value of resistance (5% error according to Alan) and the overlay was done in Photoshop. Hopefully it is correct.

          • Ged

            Be cool if we could get the raw calibration 1 data to add to this chart, as it is… very interesting. Look at that hysteresis. Seems the re-heat had lower heat per unit power in than the original run, if I am reading this right? Also, the re-heat doesn’t show the same lateral, rightward x-axis transition around 600 C? Though amount of time could play a big role here, as the original run lasted way longer than the quick re-heat.

            Yeah, more I look at these awesome charts you made, more I am hurting for seeing the calibration run charted this way together with them.

          • Sanjeev

            Well, the power data in “raw” files is different from other files. So the difference of power at 630 C is now only about 50W. (not 160W as I previously guessed from other graphs).
            I don’t know why the reverse paths are appearing. Perhaps Excel continued averaging after the power off period, so can be ignored.

          • Ged

            Also, I don’t seem to see the “null hotter when less than 600 C” part of the first run? The second run acting like the early part of the first run in this chart isn’t as it is suggested in the other charts (such as the one you posted right before this one), so I’m not sure how to interpret.

          • Sanjeev

            There is no null reactor data in this plot, only the active temperatures are compared to power.

          • Ged

            Maybe a total (combining null and active) would be interesting, but looking at the nulls would be definitely recommended as something doesn’t seem to be adding up for me in the early parts of this graph. The “crossover” in the first run stands out like a sore thumb and is well demonstrated here, but the re-heat (which is above null at these temps) and the “below null” of the first run are too close together to make sense. Hm, and all this while the re-heat is showing less heat per unit in and should be even cooler than the “less than null” early part of the first run.

          • Sanjeev

            Should provide more info if compared to the first calibration. That data is awaited.

          • Sanjeev

            After removing the values after power off.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Wow – this is a sticking chart – and heres why.

            On the way up, it follows the re-heat until LiH finally breaks down around 1000ºC (600ºC external), resulting in free molten Lithium / Aluminium.

            On the way down, it does not stop deviation from the re-heat until around the solidification temperature of Lithium.

          • Ged

            Even more interesting. Thank you very much for this insight.

            Some of the “reheat taking more watts in” behavior may be from the speed it was done (which would need more power to drive quickly, maybe, but I don’t know by -how much-), but the reheat doesn’t experience the same break down and heat production on the active side at 600 C? We see it zoom past the break point for the original run, where more heat per watt was made, and it doesn’t even hint at that behavior. So the re-heat was secretly inactive? This chart is just frying my brain cells without the calibration to ground them.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I will try again to get the calibration data

          • Bob Greenyer

            Here you go… *GlowStick* GS3 Calibration Data

            https://goo.gl/9RS9Q8

          • Ged

            Thank you, Bob!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Composite animation of graphs made by Ecco:

            https://goo.gl/rmQR8g

          • Ged

            If we look at just the divergence behavior in Run 1, and compare to Run 2 near Run 2’s end (so not when Run 1 was at maximal), it’s 69 W calculated by double moving average more power going into Run 2 to reach 630 C than Run 1. I think that is the best very conservative estimate of production in Run 1, as that uses Run 2 (and also Run 3 it appears) as a calibration control rather than another experimental.

          • Is there a way you can check for Helium when you open the reaction chamber? Lithium gaining a nucleon and then fissioning to Helium is one of the more cogent theories floating around.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is the purpose of Bob Higgins’ {GarbageCan}

          • Daniel Maris

            Sounds like a very interesting interpretation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Sanjeev – can you flip the axis on this comp plot – will make more sense visually – leave in the points after power cut off.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes it does. Flipped :

          • Bob Greenyer

            Perfect, thanks

          • Bob Greenyer

            *GlowStick* GS3 Calibration Data Published

            https://goo.gl/9RS9Q8

            Will you be able to treat it in the same way?

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks a lot Bob. Here is the plot everyone was waiting for. Big signal here !

          • Ged

            Wow. I was not expecting that huge a difference.

            This is the real money shot–comparing with actual power in. Nothing more to say other than “impressive”.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, the green fish is much bigger than blue. 🙂

            Even the re-heat is showing an excess. But before we start celebrating, a re-calibration must be done without the fuel to cross check.

          • Ged

            Absolutely, whole heartedly agreed.

          • Sanjeev

            Its surprising to see that the blue reached 800C at 500W, while the green took 770W. That’s a difference of 270W.
            Can you or someone check if I messed up the plot ?

          • Ged

            Looking into it now.

          • Sanjeev

            Another one including the dummy side for fueled run (yellow) and dummy side for calibration (purple). Sorry for bad overlay, did it in excel itself by placing them over one another, but gives you an idea. Better plots will be made by Alan as usual.

          • Ged

            We can subtract the offset between the nulls from the active run, and that should give a more accurate if conservative (since heat is flowing from the hotter active to the cooler null, but hard to place the percentage on that) estimate of the difference between active run and active calibration control in power requirements. Then we can see how much power was produced in the experimental versus control–as there’s obviously quite a lot since the difference between nulls is much less than between active sides, but not 270 W worth.

            I’m almost there with you, just having to reverse the raw experiment 1 data.

          • Ged

            Here we go; all data is from the RAW files. I used Alan’s resistance versus temperature data to compute the change in resistance to change in temperature, and used that to fill in all the resistance data, and from there used V^2/R to calculate power. Next, I followed what you did to do a moving average of 500 points, but then I additionally did a 30 point double moving average, as these are better at handling trends. It isn’t as good as a double exponential smoothing, but I can look into that later.

            Take home message: I confirm your data and analysis. With my double moving average, I get the control requiring 245 W more power to reach 750 C than Run1. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img911/1716/VizS34.png

          • Sanjeev

            Great !
            Much more accurate and clean. Thanks.
            Bob needs to see this.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Thermal hysteresis because the LENR Lady is with us unaffected much by melt & remelt no less?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      (ssm) LENR heat

  • Sanjeev

    One thing I notice in the reheat data is that the voltage needed to maintain a temperature of 630 on active side is about 60V, while the voltage needed for same temperature in the last run was only 47V (average).
    That’s a power difference of 160 watts. What is the possible explanation ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      interesting – can you try plotting something like needed power against temp for both runs.

    • Frank Acland

      There could have been a change in the structure of the fuel after heating once and cooling. Remember when Parkhomov in his last test restarted his reactor after a day or so — he got excess heat from it, but it was cut in half (approximately)

      • Sanjeev

        That makes the original run and re-heat an apple and orange situation.
        Lets see if the re-calibration run (fuel removed) gives any clues.

    • Bob Matulis

      One possible explanation is lag time. The first run was over a much longer period which allowed the temperature to closer approach equilibrium at any given time. I would expect a shorter run (5 hours) to require more power to achieve a same temperature compared to previous run since it does not have as much time to warm up.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan would like to add on this:

      “The 30 second or 5 minute average voltage data must not be used for calculating power.

      The correct way to determine power is to use the raw (~2 second) voltage data, square each datum and divide by the coil resistance calculated from the linear equation in my chart posted yesterday. Then these individual power samples can be averaged over longer intervals. I showed this method to be accurate within about 3% in the GS2 calibrations. But even if an estimated coil resistance is used, power calculation accuracy of around +-5% can be found.”

      Sanjeev, are you able to do this for both data sets and see where things lie?

      • Sanjeev

        Sure. I will try that. The only tool I have is Excel 😀

        • Bob Greenyer

          Excel should do!

          • Sanjeev

            Here is the chart. I used a fixed value of resistance (5% error according to Alan) and the overlay was done in Photoshop. Hopefully it is correct.

          • Ged

            Be cool if we could get the raw calibration 1 data to add to this chart, as it is… very interesting. Look at that hysteresis. Seems the re-heat had lower heat per unit power in than the original run, if I am reading this right? Also, the re-heat doesn’t show the same lateral, rightward x-axis transition around 600 C? Though amount of time could play a big role here, as the original run lasted way longer than the quick re-heat.

            Yeah, more I look at these awesome charts you made, more I am hurting for seeing the calibration run charted this way together with them.

          • Sanjeev

            Well, the power data in “raw” files is different from other files. So the difference of power at 630 C is now only about 50W. (not 160W as I previously guessed from other graphs).
            I don’t know why the reverse paths are appearing. Perhaps Excel continued averaging after the power off period, so can be ignored.

          • Ged

            Also, I don’t seem to see the “null hotter when less than 600 C” part of the first run? The second run acting like the early part of the first run in this chart isn’t as it is suggested in the other charts (such as the one you posted right before this one), so I’m not sure how to interpret.

          • Sanjeev

            There is no null reactor data in this plot, only the active temperatures are compared to power.

          • Ged

            Maybe a total (combining null and active) would be interesting, but looking at the nulls would be definitely recommended as something doesn’t seem to be adding up for me in the early parts of this graph. The “crossover” in the first run stands out like a sore thumb and is well demonstrated here, but the re-heat (which is above null at these temps) and the “below null” of the first run are too close together to make sense. Hm, and all this while the re-heat is showing less heat per unit in and should be even cooler than the “less than null” early part of the first run.

            Edit: Maybe I am just confusing myself. Does seem from this single analysis that the re-heat was dead and inactive, lacking all the activity of the first run, then, even though we don’t see that in the other analyses. I guess this one is beyond my pay grade and I’ll need someone else to interpret it. The control and nulls being likewise graphed could still help elucidate.

          • Sanjeev

            Should provide more info if compared to the first calibration. That data is awaited.

          • Sanjeev

            After removing the values after power off.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Wow – this is a striking chart – and heres why (assuming I am interpreting it right)

            On the way up, it follows the re-heat until LiH finally breaks down around 1000ºC (600ºC external), resulting in free molten Lithium / Aluminium.

            On the way down, it does not stop deviation from the re-heat until around the solidification temperature of Lithium.

            NOTE: the cool down curve is after power is cut.

          • Ged

            Even more interesting. Thank you very much for this insight.

            Some of the “reheat taking more watts in” behavior may be from the speed it was done (which would need more power to drive quickly, maybe, but I don’t know by -how much-), but the reheat doesn’t experience the same break down and heat production on the active side at 600 C? We see it zoom past the break point for the original run, where more heat per watt was made, and it doesn’t even hint at that behavior. So the re-heat was secretly inactive? This chart is just frying my brain cells without the calibration to ground them.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I will try again to get the calibration data

          • Bob Greenyer

            Here you go… *GlowStick* GS3 Calibration Data

            https://goo.gl/9RS9Q8

          • Ged

            Thank you, Bob!

          • Is there a way you can check for Helium when you open the reaction chamber? Lithium gaining a nucleon and then fissioning to Helium is one of the more cogent theories floating around.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is the purpose of Bob Higgins’ {GarbageCan}

          • Mats002

            Lugano did not check gases in the reactor, so your suggestion would cover new ground.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Sanjeev – can you flip the axis on this comp plot – will make more sense visually – leave in the points after power cut off.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes it does. Flipped :

          • Bob Greenyer

            Perfect, thanks

          • Bob Greenyer

            *GlowStick* GS3 Calibration Data Published

            https://goo.gl/9RS9Q8

            Will you be able to treat it in the same way?

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks a lot Bob. Here is the plot everyone was waiting for. Big signal here !

          • Ged

            Wow. I was not expecting that huge a difference.

            This is the real money shot–comparing with actual power in. Nothing more to say other than “impressive”.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, the green fish is much bigger than blue. 🙂

            Even the re-heat is showing an excess. But before we start celebrating, a re-calibration must be done without the fuel to cross check.

          • Ged

            Absolutely, whole heartedly agreed.

          • Sanjeev

            Its surprising to see that the blue reached 800C at 500W, while the green took 770W. That’s a difference of 270W.
            Can you or someone check if I messed up the plot ?

          • Ged

            Looking into it now.

          • Sanjeev

            Another one including the dummy side for fueled run (yellow) and dummy side for calibration (purple). Sorry for bad overlay, did it in excel itself by placing them over one another, but gives you an idea. Better plots will be made by Alan as usual.

          • Ged

            We can subtract the offset between the nulls from the active run, and that should give a more accurate if conservative (since heat is flowing from the hotter active to the cooler null, but hard to place the percentage on that) estimate of the difference between active run and active calibration control in power requirements. Then we can see how much power was produced in the experimental versus control–as there’s obviously quite a lot since the difference between nulls is much less than between active sides, but not 270 W worth.

            I’m almost there with you, just having to reverse the raw experiment 1 data.

          • Ged

            Here we go; all data is from the RAW files. I used Alan’s resistance versus temperature data to compute the change in resistance to change in temperature, and used that to fill in all the resistance data, and from there used V^2/R to calculate power. Next, I followed what you did to do a moving average of 500 points, but then I additionally did a 30 point double moving average, as these are better at handling trends. It isn’t as good as a double exponential smoothing, but I can look into that later.

            Take home message: I confirm your data and analysis. With my double moving average, I get the control requiring 245 W more power to reach 750 C than Run1. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img911/1716/VizS34.png

            Edit: At 630 C, in that beginning upward turn in Run 2 right before termination, Run 2 is consuming 69 W more than Run 1 for the same temperature by double moving average. I think this is a good very conservative estimate of the power being produced in Run 1 at that point, as the activity in Run 1 has had a behavioral break compared to Run 2 after 600 C.

          • Sanjeev

            Great !
            Much more accurate and clean. Thanks.
            Bob needs to see this.

          • ss dd

            edit – nevermind, misread the graph

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            I think you are still generating (ssm) LENR heat & that is giving you elevated temperatures while backing down the calibration power curve or thermal hysteresis? You would see it in fueled & unfurled as you do? Jim Nice plots again. That LENR generation spot could also be moving in the fuel element.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Don’t think Alan’s calibration runs were slow enough to see LENR appear again in results. Thanks for your insightful graphs. Need more power & not helped by (ssm) LENR to get calibration data. Will download & further look at your new overlays.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Yes Ged is right. I think the NEW FIRE is stll there & Alan needs only to do much slower ramps in next test to hopefully see its presence again!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Thermal hysteresis because the LENR Lady is with us unaffected much by melt & remelt no less?

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            This is a great graph, very meaningful, wait in anticipation as you massage this data into further graphs & calibration runs.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      (ssm) LENR heat

  • Sanjeev

    Comparison of dT for original run and re-heating. Lots of difference.
    In the re-heat, the climb-up dT is more than climb down dT.

    • Ged

      Fascinating. Thanks for this analysis Sanjeev. This is new territory with no preconceptions of what we could see.

    • Love the way the reheat blue curve lines up visually with the post 700 C active run red line.

      The clear conclusion is that *something* happened to the active reactor at ~600 C external during the first active run. Those somethings could include:

      * Introduced a bias in the outer thermocouple (but how? physical change in contact points? lemon?)
      * Established the conditions for a reaction whose rate scales more or less with temperature and can go on for hours
      — this could be a chemical reaction (still lots of hydrogen at high pressure; but can any chemical reaction explain the magnitude and duration of observations? analysis needed)
      — or this could be something nuclear like LENR

  • Stephen Taylor

    If we are looking at excess heat instead of a measurement problem then one possible explanation is that initial loading and activation is not the same as reheating a previously activated cell. The reheat can possibly generate excess heat in a more linear fashion and at lower temperatures. One of many possibilities (speculative). No need to overlook favorable scenarios.

  • Stephen Taylor

    If we are looking at excess heat instead of a measurement problem then one possible explanation is that initial loading and activation is not the same as reheating a previously activated cell. The reheat can possibly generate excess heat in a more linear fashion and at lower temperatures. One of many possibilities (speculative). No need to overlook favorable scenarios.

  • Axil Axil

    Even after many years of experience, Rossi is not assured that his next reactor test will not blow up. So a working reactor is a rare and precious things.

    MFMP has produced their first working LENR reactor after a number of failures. If the past is prolog, it might be some time before MFMP produces another working reactor. Therefore, it is foolish to assume that a new working reactor will be easy to re-fabricate or that MFMP is at a level of competence in reaction construction that guaranties that the next reactor will be functional.

    It is therefore essential that MFMP should use this current reactor to run as many tests as can be envisions before it is ripped apart. Another opportunity for productive LENR experimentation might be difficult to come by so we should make the most of this one. Let’s not learn from our mistakes.

    • Stephen Taylor

      It makes sense to continue to work this reactor as long as possible.

      • Ged

        There are more experiments and checks that can be done before the bookend calibration and dissection, such as switching TC channels, or additional TCs, or cycling the temperatures around 600 C like Axil Axil originally proposed for testing the nanoparticle hypothesis, and probably more I alone can’t think up.

        I just really want that bookend calibration which would rule out or isolate all physical and measurement contributions from the reactor design, so doing more work risks killing the heaters. It’s a fine balance…

        • Stephen Taylor

          Just not sure how to do a valid bookend that will accomplish all that.

          • Ged

            Anything that kills the core and then allows one to run the reactor again same as the first calibration will do perfectly. Problem is, as you point out, killing the core sufficiently. Nitrogen gas should do that though, quite well, as it would get rid of all the hydrogen and other reactive compounds through nitration–but not explosively like oxygen.

            Argon is another possibility, by flushing out the hydrogen and being inert, but we don’t know for sure how tightly hydrogen associates with the nickel after running the reactor once.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Yes, and I agree it is so important to get the calibration data. There are always so many difficult choices. So good to have MFMP at the helm!

          • Ged

            How they survive armchair quarterbacking like mine is a testament to their fortitude ;).

            On an unrelated note, I just realized the hydrogen is distributed across the entire length of the GlowStick, through the interstitial space between the solid filler rod and the inner wall of the core–this is how it gets to the pressure transducer in the first place. So hydrogen is on both sides… will have to vacuum it out, but also raises the possibility that lithium (when it was hot enough to vaporize) may also be coating the entirety of the GlowStick. Not sure what that may do when it comes to acting as a gas barrier..

          • Axil Axil

            If the dummy tractor is not perfectly sealed from the contents of the fueled reactor, it is possible that there may be leakage of the LENR active material from the fueled reactor to the dummy. The dummy must be examined for the presence of lithium alloy. Hydrogen leakage may cause LENR in the dummy. The result of leakage may be an underestumation of the COP of the fueled reactor.

          • Ged

            Well, we do assume that nickel is the active substrate, so to speak, and that won’t be moving around. But I dunno, maybe it is sealed? Hydrogen is wily though, and there must be some space between the core inner wall and the filler rod for the latter to be physically inserted. But, if it is sealed, by cement on the filler rod perhaps, then it’s a moot point I guess.

      • Axil Axil

        A eutectic alloy melts to become a free running liquid at a single temperature, which is lower than the melting point of any of its components.

        The melting point of lithium aluminum alloy(2%Al, 98%Li) is 177C

        • Mats002

          I understand you as that the first run created the alloy and the second run would start the reaction at 177 (or a little higher) and that is an explanation to the second run spread of temps for null and active? Well her’s another one: one side of the coil degraded severly already in the first run at about 600 C and the fluctations is no longer above error margin.

          • US_Citizen71

            A simple measurement with an Ohm meter will tell if the coil has shorted/degraded.

            I believe this has been done hasn’t it? –> MFMP represenative

          • Bob Greenyer

            The resistance is still as expected

          • Mats002

            Double check: you have made a measure from the middle of the coil to each end and they have the same ohm?

          • Bob Greenyer

            hmmmm – it is sealed in Cement – can do in eventual tear down.

          • Ged

            See Sanjeev’s new chart below, Mats. That explanation just doesn’t hold water or fit the data now. But still good to check again (if the total ohms are still the same, it’s hard to argue for a mechanism where one side loses resistance by the -same amount- the other side would have to -gain- resistance; and remember, we had the control run which already baked the elements all the way up to 780 C external).

          • Mats002

            I have been deep in electronics and experienced same components (materials) under stress having very different life span. That difference could be throughout the same wire. Ohm can go both ways. I would like to rule out this (admit unlikely) scenario, it is a simple measure.
            I will stop nagging about this now, hope we see non-linear XH !

          • Ged

            Don’t stop nagging till you are satisfied! I am personally just unconvinced by that idea, and that’s just me–you must get the data you need to get a satisfying answer one way or the other, and that will benefit everyone’s understanding.

            For me, it’s particularly due to Sanjeev’s chart showing the re-heat taking just slightly more power in per unit temperature (and then of course, the first run’s breakaway production of heat sends it shooting off to the right and completely breaking behavior for power in, thus excess heat per unit in, while the re-heat doesn’t do that), and not just from the seeming infeasibility of one side of the same wire coated in the same cement losing by the same amount that the other side gains as total ohms remain stable. There must be another explanation to meet this behavior…

        • Axil Axil

          For most of the phase of AL-LI, it looks like 600C is the melting point of that eutectic alloy. This melting point temperature might be a reason why the reaction seems to startup at 600C.

          • Mats002

            Al-Li alloy has been discussed here before, if Raney Ni is formed that is an exothemic process adding to the malfunctional coil signal.

          • Ged

            It is not exothermic enough–orders of magnitude less than the energy disparity between the sides and control run seen so far, and would never last hours at such watt levels, so that is insufficient an explanation; it does not match behavior or magnitude of the data.

          • Mats002

            I said adding to a degraded coil (on one side) not as the total explanation, with respect!

          • Ged

            Still too transient; it would have just been a momentary blip considering we are on time scales of hours in our x-axis on these graphs, so I don’t think it can even act in “combination”. And we have never seen evidence of it being a detectable event in other systems–just not sensitive enough to see that happen in a measly gram of fuel let alone 0.3 grams.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The 177C figure is the important one here.

            600C is the external temp – internal temp around 1000ºC (end of LiH breakdown)

            See my comments attached to Sanjeevs graph below.

    • Mats002

      And ple-e-e-ase measure the coil resistance for each side BEFORE burning out the coil. The sooner the better. THEN continue :/

  • Axil Axil

    Even after many years of experience, Rossi is not assured that his next reactor test will not blow up. So a working reactor is a rare and precious thing.

    MFMP has produced their first working LENR reactor after a number of failures. If the past is prolog, it might be some time before MFMP produces another working reactor. Therefore, it is foolish to assume that a new working reactor will be easy to re-fabricate or that MFMP is at a level of competence in reaction construction that guaranties that the next reactor will be functional.

    It is therefore essential that MFMP should use this current reactor to run as many tests as can be envisioned before it is ripped apart. Another opportunity for productive LENR experimentation might be difficult to come by so we should make the most of this one. Let’s not learn from our mistakes; let’s not make mistakes..

    • Stephen Taylor

      It makes sense to continue to work this reactor as long as possible.

      • Ged

        There are more experiments and checks that can be done before the bookend calibration and dissection, such as switching TC channels, or additional TCs, or cycling the temperatures around 600 C like Axil Axil originally proposed for testing the nanoparticle hypothesis, and probably more I alone can’t think up.

        I just really want that bookend calibration which would rule out or isolate all physical and measurement contributions from the reactor design, so doing more work risks killing the heaters before that can be done. It’s a fine balance…

        • Stephen Taylor

          Just not sure how to do a valid bookend that will accomplish all that.

          • Ged

            Anything that kills the core and then allows one to run the reactor again same as the first calibration will do perfectly. Problem is, as you point out, killing the core sufficiently. Nitrogen gas should do that though, quite well, as it would get rid of all the hydrogen and other reactive compounds through nitration–but not explosively like oxygen.

            Argon is another possibility, by flushing out the hydrogen and being inert, but we don’t know for sure how tightly hydrogen associates with the nickel after running the reactor once.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Yes, and I agree it is so important to get the calibration data. There are always so many difficult choices. So good to have MFMP at the helm!

          • Ged

            How they survive armchair quarterbacking like mine is a testament to their fortitude ;).

            On an unrelated note, I just realized the hydrogen is distributed across the entire length of the GlowStick, through the interstitial space between the solid filler rod and the inner wall of the core–this is how it gets to the pressure transducer in the first place. So hydrogen is on both sides… will have to vacuum it out, but also raises the possibility that lithium (when it was hot enough to vaporize) may also be coating the entirety of the GlowStick. Not sure what that may do when it comes to acting as a gas barrier..

          • Axil Axil

            If the dummy tractor is not perfectly sealed from the contents of the fueled reactor, it is possible that there may be leakage of the LENR active material from the fueled reactor to the dummy. The dummy must be examined for the presence of lithium alloy. Hydrogen leakage may cause LENR in the dummy. The result of leakage may be an underestumation of the COP of the fueled reactor.

          • Ged

            Well, we do assume that nickel is the active substrate, so to speak, and that won’t be moving around. But I dunno, maybe it is sealed? Hydrogen is wily though, and there must be some space between the core inner wall and the filler rod for the latter to be physically inserted. But, if it is sealed, by cement on the filler rod perhaps, then it’s a moot point I guess.

    • Mats002

      And ple-e-e-ase measure the coil resistance for each side BEFORE burning out the coil. The sooner the better. THEN continue :/

  • Robert Ellefson

    One consideration regarding the first vs. second run results may come from a possible change in core hysteresis losses that accompanied the melting point of aluminum, which could have caused partial sintering of the fuel and hence enhanced losses from eddy currents in the ‘cake’ vs powdered fuel forms. I think the assumption that active vs. control are both receiving the same input power is erroneous, although the significance of the delta remains undetermined. Nonetheless, I really think it is a mistake not to consider the core hysteresis effects.

    • Axil Axil

      The low temperature results from the test indicate that the dummy reactor produces more heat due to core hysteresis than the fueled reactor.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Which low temperature tests results are you referencing? The new, powdered fuel mixture during initial ramp-up? The notion I am referencing is that the heated ‘active’ fuel mixture may undergo a change in the induced magnetic response character of the material, such that it modifies the overall losses from magnetic hysteresis after initial heating. This idea can be tested by comparing the B-H hysteresis loops for active, both pre-heated and post-heated, with the control core. The measurement can be done with either the right digital o-scope or a simple op-amp circuit to integrate the H-field’s current in order to measure the B field response and plot them with an X-Y o-scope mode.

  • Robert Ellefson

    One consideration regarding the first vs. second run results may come from a possible change in core hysteresis losses that accompanied the melting point of aluminum, which could have caused partial sintering of the fuel and hence enhanced losses from eddy currents in the ‘cake’ vs powdered fuel forms. I think the assumption that active vs. control are both receiving the same input power is erroneous, although the significance of the delta remains undetermined. Nonetheless, I really think it is a mistake not to consider the core hysteresis effects.

    • Axil Axil

      The low temperature results from the test indicate that the dummy reactor produces more heat due to core hysteresis than the fueled reactor.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Which low temperature tests results are you referencing? The new, powdered fuel mixture during initial ramp-up? The notion I am referencing is that the heated ‘active’ fuel mixture may undergo a change in the induced magnetic response character of the material, such that it modifies the overall losses from magnetic hysteresis after initial heating. This idea can be tested by comparing the B-H hysteresis loops for active, both pre-heated and post-heated, with the control core. The measurement can be done with either the right digital o-scope or a simple op-amp circuit to integrate the H-field’s current in order to measure the B field response and plot them with an X-Y o-scope mode.

  • Axil Axil

    A eutectic alloy melts to become a free running liquid at a single temperature, which is lower than the melting point of any of its components.

    The melting point of lithium aluminum alloy(2%Al, 98%Li) is 177C

    http://pruffle.mit.edu/3.00/Lecture_36_web/img7.gif

    • Mats002

      I understand you as that the first run created the alloy and the second run would start the reaction at 177 (or a little higher) and that is an explanation to the second run spread of temps for null and active? Well her’s another one: one side of the coil degraded severly already in the first run at about 600 C and the fluctations is no longer above error margin.

      • US_Citizen71

        A simple measurement with an Ohm meter will tell if the coil has shorted/degraded.

        I believe this has been done hasn’t it? –> MFMP represenative

        • Bob Greenyer

          The resistance is still as expected

          • Mats002

            Double check: you have made a measure from the middle of the coil to each end and they have the same ohm?

          • Bob Greenyer

            hmmmm – it is sealed in Cement – can do in eventual tear down.

          • Ged

            See Sanjeev’s new chart below, Mats. That explanation just doesn’t hold water or fit the data now. But still good to check again (if the total ohms are still the same, it’s hard to argue for a mechanism where one side loses resistance by the -same amount- the other side would have to -gain- resistance; and remember, we had the control run which already baked the elements all the way up to 780 C external).

            Edit: I’ll link it so you don’t have to dig for it http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2058593537

          • Mats002

            I have been deep in electronics and experienced same components (materials) under stress having very different life span. That difference could be throughout the same wire. Ohm can go both ways. I would like to rule out this (admit unlikely) scenario, it is a simple measure.
            I will stop nagging about this now, hope we see non-linear XH !

          • Ged

            Don’t stop nagging till you are satisfied! I am personally just unconvinced by that idea, and that’s just me–you must get the data you need to get a satisfying answer one way or the other, and that will benefit everyone’s understanding.

            For me, it’s particularly due to Sanjeev’s chart showing the re-heat taking just slightly more power in per unit temperature (and then of course, the first run’s breakaway production of heat sends it shooting off to the right and completely breaking behavior for power in, thus excess heat per unit in, while the re-heat doesn’t do that), and not just from the seeming infeasibility of one side of the same wire coated in the same cement losing by the same amount that the other side gains as total ohms remain stable. There must be another explanation to meet this behavior… But a direct check will directly answer the question ;).

    • Axil Axil

      For most of the phase of AL-LI, it looks like 600C is the melting point of that eutectic alloy. This melting point temperature might be a reason why the reaction seems to startup at 600C.

      • Mats002

        Al-Li alloy has been discussed here before, if Raney Ni is formed that is an exothemic process adding to the malfunctional coil signal.

        • Ged

          It is not exothermic enough–orders of magnitude less than the energy disparity between the sides and control run seen so far, and would never last hours at such watt levels, so that is insufficient an explanation; it does not match behavior or magnitude of the data.

          • Mats002

            I said adding to a degraded coil (on one side) not as the total explanation, with respect!

          • Ged

            Still too transient; it would have just been a momentary blip considering we are on time scales of hours in our x-axis on these graphs, so I don’t think it can even act in “combination”. And we have never seen evidence of it being a detectable event in other systems–just not sensitive enough to see that happen in a measly gram of fuel let alone 0.3 grams.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The 177C figure is the important one here.

        600C is the external temp – internal temp around 1000ºC (end of LiH breakdown)

        See my comments attached to Sanjeevs graph below.

  • Stephen

    I don’t know if its a coincidence but it almost appears as if the pressure and trend at 600 degrees during the second run is what it would have been if the original test had continue to run and the downward trend had continued over the intervening days. I don’t know if this would imply a steady leak or absorption of hydrogen regardless of the low pressure in the time between test?

    • Stephen

      It might be interesting to run a similar test in a few days to see if the pressure continues to drop more… or even drops below atmospheric?

    • Andre Blum

      nice observation and graph.

      • Bob Greenyer

        seconded

  • Stephen

    I don’t know if its a coincidence but it almost appears as if the pressure and trend at 600 degrees during the second run is what it would have been if the original test had continue to run and the downward trend had continued over the intervening days. I don’t know if this would imply a steady leak or absorption of hydrogen regardless of the lower pressure and temperature in the time between test?

    • Stephen

      It might be interesting to run a similar test in a few days to see if the pressure continues to drop more… or even drops below atmospheric?

    • Andre Blum

      nice observation and graph.

      • Bob Greenyer

        seconded

  • Stephen Taylor

    One suggestion before I get out of here. How about running the reactor for a very long time at a very safe temperature like 400C. If it is active as we hope then isotopic changes can have time to accrue and become obvious on later analysis. If it is inactive the isotopes will be natural and the reheat calibration showed us the measurement anomaly. At conservative temperature maybe Alan can be comfortable running it unattended depending on the operating environment.

    • Axil Axil

      I would like to see a long run with a cycling temperature between 400 and 750. 600C seems to be where the reaction began. A temperature cycle is how Rossi usually pumps his reactors.

      • Mats002

        I have made the same conclusion so I side you on that but I would like to rule out the degraded coil scenario first because another run will A) make prev run coil state impossible to know and B) risk of melt/blow that coil.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Another run was started about an hour ago. The cell has not been touched in any way, however leads to the active and null side TCs have been switched

    The PID is set for a 5 hour ramp to 780ºC

    Data to follow.

    • Daniel Maris

      Great news!

    • Ged

      Awesome, thank you Bob, and Alan and Skip. This is an important test to rule out funky data board shenanigans. Also, nice to have it pumped higher than 600 C this time — give us a larger range to compare for a re-heat against the original.

    • Sanjeev

      Its good that you are taking it to 780. There can be power differences in that region.

      I plotted the comparison you asked for (below) and the power difference is much lower than previously seen from 30 sec averaged data. (The raw power data is somewhat different.)

      • Bob Greenyer

        see my comment re compound and phase changes in relation to your chart.

    • US_Citizen71

      Is the filler rod on the pressure sensor side glued in? If not, can it be slide out without breaking it? A long drill bit could be hand turned into the active side to empty it and allow a better bookend test when the time comes. The drill bit could be included with a sample for analysis to rule out any transfer of material from the bit to the ash.

      http://www.amazon.com/DEWALT-DW1602-1-8-Inch-12-Inch-Extra/dp/B00004RGYL/ref=lp_256270011_1_6?s=power-hand-tools&ie=UTF8&qid=1433277454&sr=1-6

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is glued in with an extremely small spot of cyanoacrylate – right at the end of the central core – a little part of the filler rod hangs out the end so the glue fix can be broken

        • US_Citizen71

          A drop or two of acetone will help. Does wonders for fingers glued to many things as well. 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    Another run was started about an hour ago. The cell has not been touched in any way, however leads to the active and null side TCs have been switched

    The PID is set for a 5 hour ramp to 780ºC

    Data to follow.

    • Ged

      Awesome, thank you Bob, and Alan and Skip. This is an important test to rule out funky data board shenanigans. Also, nice to have it pumped higher than 600 C this time — give us a larger range to compare for a re-heat against the original.

    • Sanjeev

      Its good that you are taking it to 780. There can be power differences in that region.

      I plotted the comparison you asked for (below) and the power difference is much lower than previously seen from 30 sec averaged data. (The raw power data is somewhat different.)

      • Bob Greenyer

        see my comment re compound and phase changes in relation to your chart.

    • US_Citizen71

      Is the filler rod on the pressure sensor side glued in? If not, can it be slide out without breaking it? A long drill bit could be hand turned into the active side to empty it and allow a better bookend test when the time comes. The drill bit could be included with a sample for analysis to rule out any transfer of material from the bit to the ash.

      http://www.amazon.com/DEWALT-DW1602-1-8-Inch-12-Inch-Extra/dp/B00004RGYL/ref=lp_256270011_1_6?s=power-hand-tools&ie=UTF8&qid=1433277454&sr=1-6

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is glued in with an extremely small spot of cyanoacrylate – right at the end of the central core – a little part of the filler rod hangs out the end so the glue fix can be broken

        • US_Citizen71

          A drop or two of acetone will help. Does wonders for fingers glued to many things as well. 🙂

    • Dave

      Does the PID controller still use the sense TC from the active coil or is that now connected to the null? If the leads are switched it appears that the control sensor is now on the other coil.

      • Skip

        The PID TC is the same as before

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Five hour ramp won’t bring in much LENR in my estimate. She is a slow Lady. Could offset in power generation due to LENR as can be seen in offset in glow in fuel element be effecting TC (damage). I think it may be reading low & we actually experienced more (ssm) LENR during first test.

  • Skip

    The PID TC is the same as before

  • tobalt

    the reheat curve looks suspiciously like an offset of the TCs. maybe not of the tcs themsleves, but one might be closer to a hotspot or something.

    a hotspot/coldspot could be created during the actual first run due to gravity: molten metals would accumulate at the bottom of the active reactor changing its thermal isotropy. resolidifying the fuel would not change that back..

    in hindsight, the apparent thermal difference could have been no excess but thermal anisotropies in the chambers. Furthermore, every other experimentator using a similar measurement scheme would observe the same false effect.

    to clarify the situation both of the following must be KNOWN / MEASURED:

    1) input power to both chambers, ie. read the middle voltage too in the future.
    2) the real temperature of teh chambers. this could be solved approximately by sticking many redundant TCs at the chambers (maybe at least 3 at different sides). But most proper way would be calorimetry.

    • Ged

      How can “thermal anisotropies” appear suddenly? Be of such magnitude, and temporal behavior? Thermal conduction in a cylinder wouldn’t allow that given the heating source wraps around the core to heat from all directions with the thermal couple on the top and outside. This can be classically modeled with the Ut=Uxx partial derivative heat equation. Considering past MFMP nickel filled experiments and controls all sitting right on top of eachother, even with a stainless steel core swapped for the alumina, because of the way cylinders inwardly heated by a wrapping heat source function, I can’t buy that explanation without further evidence, proof, and/or elaboration.

      This is pretty cool though, thanks to our intrepid data analyzer, Sanjeev: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2059023919

      • tobalt

        Hey Ged,

        I agree that my explanation is no more likely than excess heat 🙂 however the reheat run hints stronly at offsets of the TC reading. Either due to changed characteristics (unlikely) or really different temps at the two TCs.

        If we now need to prove that excess heat is responsible for the latter it is mandatory to do the easy steps that i outlined in 1 and 2. The mission of MFMP is to provide unambiguous validation. Right now this experimental data cannot provide this.

        the argumentation will always be that lenr has to be conclusively proven by a single reactor data. Not that referees have to disprove it. I would say it is possible that it is there and that it can be prove the way i suggested.

        • Ged

          That is true! It is good suggestions no matter what.

  • tobalt

    the reheat curve looks suspiciously like an offset of the TCs. maybe not of the tcs themsleves, but one might be closer to a hotspot or something.

    a hotspot/coldspot could be created during the actual first run due to gravity: molten metals would accumulate at the bottom of the active reactor changing its thermal isotropy. resolidifying the fuel would not change that back..

    in hindsight, the apparent thermal difference could have been no excess but thermal anisotropies in the chambers. Furthermore, every other experimentator using a similar measurement scheme would observe the same false effect.

    to clarify the situation both of the following must be KNOWN / MEASURED:

    1) input power to both chambers, ie. read the middle voltage too in the future.
    2) the real temperature of teh chambers. this could be solved approximately by sticking many redundant TCs at the chambers (maybe at least 3 at different sides). But most proper way would be calorimetry.

    • Ged

      How can “thermal anisotropies” appear suddenly? Be of such magnitude, and temporal behavior? Thermal conduction in a cylinder wouldn’t allow that given the heating source wraps around the core to heat from all directions with the thermal couple on the top and outside. This can be classically modeled with the Ut=Uxx partial derivative heat equation. Considering past MFMP nickel filled experiments and controls all sitting right on top of eachother in behavior, even with a stainless steel core swapped for the alumina, because of the way cylinders inwardly heated by a wrapping heat source function, I can’t buy that explanation without further evidence, proof, and/or elaboration.

      This is pretty cool though, thanks to our intrepid data analyzer, Sanjeev: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2059023919

      • tobalt

        Hey Ged,

        I agree that my explanation is no more likely than excess heat 🙂 however the reheat run hints stronly at offsets of the TC reading. Either due to changed characteristics (unlikely) or really different temps at the two TCs.

        If we now need to prove that excess heat is responsible for the latter it is mandatory to do the easy steps that i outlined in 1 and 2. The mission of MFMP is to provide unambiguous validation. Right now this experimental data cannot provide this.

        the argumentation will always be that lenr has to be conclusively proven by a single reactor data. Not that referees have to disprove it. I would say it is possible that it is there and that it can be prove the way i suggested.

        • Ged

          That is true! It is good suggestions no matter what.

  • ss dd

    MFMP posted the calibration data on facebook. I made the following charts, but couldnt do a better job because my laptop has trouble handling the data file. Maybe someone can do a better job and put those two charts together? I used the mean averages for 200 data points and V^2.

  • ss dd

    Would also be interesting to look at the null temperature for experiment vs calibration. If the null experiment is higher than null calibration, it might show that there is some heat transfer from the active side to the null side.

  • Ged
  • Preston Brown

    There is some new data posted from today. They forgot to swap the labels for active and null on a couple of the graphs. Also the deltaT goes down a lot when they moved the heater coils on the active cell 2mm at one point during the run. I’m sure they will post it soon with more details.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Data from 3rd run can be found here:

    https://goo.gl/1I6qJc

    • The labels are confusing on the graphs. Is purple always active and green always null?

      • Dave

        Is there any way to determine how critical the heater coil mechanical placement is to the measurements? If temperature causes the coil to expand then the amount of contact and location of that contact would change. I recall that the heater coils are only tied down in the center of the structure and allowed to move horizontally. Is this correct?

        Obviously, if that contact is critical it is easy to imagine that the heating process will cause changes to that parameter that may or may not return once the heating reverses. Also, is it true that the slight change in location of one of the TC’s made a major change to its reading?

        I am beginning to suspect that mechanical issues are a major challenge that we have underestimated thus far.

        • Mike Henderson

          Can someone help? I did some math on the Elforsk Lugano report and cannot get mass balance to square up.

          I pursued the issue of “Could we see isotope changes given amount of anomalous heat in a relatively short, low COP test?” So I got the before / after isotope data from the Lugano report to calculate binding energy changes in Li and Ni. The report said isotope analysis has an error of about 3%, so I figured I could back into how long the reaction would need to run to detect isotope shifts.

          But along the way I ran into a problem –

          .9 gm of Ni in the fuel begins with “natural abundances” — a weighted average atomic weight of 58.9. After the test, the Ni in the ash was 98.7% Ni62, the weighted average atomic weight is 61.9. The average atom of Ni gained 2 neutrons. This would suggest that the mass of Ni increased .049 grams.

          Do the same math for Li, but this time (it shifts from Li7 to Li6) there is a loss of mass of .0022 gm. .1 gm of LAH contains .0183 gm of Li. The average atomic weight shifted (ICP) decreased from 6.94 to 6.09.

          The net mass gain (Ni and Li) is .0467 grams. But there is only .010 gm of H in .1 gm of LAH fuel.

          There must be some other source of neutrons for the Ni / Li isotope balances to square up. Or is there another explanation? We’d need about .5 liter of hydrogen gas at STP to make up the shortfall, so without a hydrogen feed or some other neutron source it does not add up.

          • Axil Axil

            Look at the end of the Lagano report. It shows that many elements just disappeared. How can you explain that?

          • Mike Henderson

            I attributed that to sampling. Only a few granules were analysed. Some fuel granules showed Fe, some did not so there were sample discrepancies even before the test was run.

          • Axil Axil

            Then why can’t sample discrepancies answer your question?

          • Mike Henderson

            Because I don’t see megawatt-hour levels of binding energy changes without isotope shifts on that same order of magnitude. I’d hate to invoke matter-antimatter annihilation to close this loop. 😉

          • Axil Axil

            The assumption your making is that evey nickel particle was converted to Ni62. This may not be the case. To show this total conversion, all nickel particles would need to be analized.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree with regard to the sampling problem, but if you take the data at face value the total mass difference works out to 2.2 MWh, which is pretty close to the measured 1.5 MWh energy gain. LENR G made this nice spreadsheet a while ago:

            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit?pli=1#gid=0

            The “missing neutron” issue remains so far unsolved. So, of course it is possible that the data are not representative and the numbers converge just by chance.

          • Ah thanks, Andreas. Beat me to it.

            There’s also some analysis of the numbers here:
            http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

          • Axil Axil

            Does the problem of the bad temperture readings lower the total energy production calculations?

          • All the numbers in the spreadsheet except for one are based only on the fuel/ash analysis and not affected by any temperature measurement errors.

            The exception is the cell with the report’s specific energy (and then that affects the ratio of calculated energy to what was in the report). So the ratio would be higher than the 1.37 (and thus a little less persuasive).

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Axil with the off centered hot LENR spot seen benevolently in the pulsating glowing fueled element during the test I think more energy was being generated than TC inferred. It looks like the Lady moves slowly & takes time to give up her energy as Alan found in his run back at the end of first test & had to shut down. Denis Vasilenko was visited by her & it took his fuel element after large limit cycle he had to contend with & because he could not take manual control, lost his fuel element to burnout IMHO!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            My take is that the LENR process is a thermally self regulated control system as of itself & the containment design ie as heat rises the SSP process at the surface of the metal generating thermal neutrons is disrupted probably by thermal expansion & limits the reaction based on radiant fourth power temperature cooling losses, Evidently from what we have seen it is a slow process & can be moved around by external thermal inputs pushing or nudging the process up.& down as Rossi is able to move it to desirable load points for his client & it just sits there regulating itself. It does not have the prompt neutron feature of commercial reactors thanks to whoever or whatever made us Axil? Jim

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi uses a cat and mouse design. By that I mean a multi stage design where he has a number of stages from low performance to high performance. The amount of fuel in each stage might generate these differing levels of performance.

            The mouse may have a small amount of fuel and is well controled. The Cat may contain a larger amount of fuel but is more prone to blowout. The mouse may drive the Cat so that the mouse keeps the Cat from blowout. Rossi came up with is Mouse and Cat design after many years of blowout problems.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Not so sure about that Axil. This is a nuclear reactor type process which I have worked with for many of my days before retiring 15 years ago. I think his ssm process can be moved up & down a power ramp as we do in nuclear reactor by stepped power inputs to LENR to disrupt or encourage an upward or downward movement of his self sustaining fuel elements by knowing the time constants of the isotope formation process & either encourage it in the upward path of downward. This requires a special fuzzy non linear control system the researchers do not have – then lost fuel element by burnout, No Axil Axil Your long time admiring friend you probably didn’t know was with you & Peter, Jim

          • Dave

            It would be great if Rossi’s device is actually internally self regulated but the history of blown out or melted down reactors suggests otherwise. He may have found a material inserted within his fuel that poisons the reaction once it reaches a planned temperature level, but he has never stated this.
            Of course, it is necessary to harness positive thermal feedback in order to achieve a high COP which none of the replicators has seen so far. Once the loop gain of the system is sufficient to do this one is left with difficult stability problems to solve.
            To produce a high gain, stable, and ultimately useful design is going to require careful system planning. So far, all of the replicators are more or less shooting from the hip while the important parameters are remaining hidden from view. How to separate the variables is the biggest challenge facing us at this time. Perhaps someone will get lucky one of these days and we can all celebrate.
            Once we observe a working device with a COP of greater than 2 that does not self distruct, we will be on the right track. Rossi has been there for quite some time now according to his writings.

          • Ged

            Part of the explanatory theory is that other nickel isotopes are donating neutrons to help build Ni62, via neutron shuttling, since Ni62 is the most stable nucleon (energy minimum). It doesn’t have to be only from H or Li. In fact, the main theory build I have had for awhile so far is that the fusion events are a required but rare ignition switch that starts the neutron shuffling and shuttling, leading to the isotopic changes that release most of the energy of the reaction. Don’t know if this idea helps though.

            Edit: Also other isotopes, like Ni61 would just need one neutron to reach the minimum at Ni62, and then there’s Ni64 and stuff which could give up neutrons to help other Ni isotopes reach 62 while reaching 62 itself. So it’s much more potentially complicated.

          • Thomas Clarke

            If you accept 98% conversion to 62Ni you can work out the H required from the average atomic weight of the fuel Ni. This is (natural) 58.7. So there is on average 3.3 nucleons added per atom or a mass increase (in the nickel) of roughly 5.6%.

            So taking other isotopes into account does not alter the equation much over what would be the case if you assumed all 58->62 conversion. And, if you wish to do it, it is not very complicated!

          • Ged

            I see what you are saying, nicely done putting it very cleanly.

            A lot of calculations were done in that isotope data thread back in the day, so I think all these questions have been long addressed. As other say, no one says one granule is representative of the total fuel stock, as given the temperatures being high enough to melt the core of the nickel, it’s easy to propose a mechanism where neutron heated nickel (now Ni62) would convect up to the outer wall of the reactor, cool, and solidify as a purified grain. That would leave sampling error as a big problem unless enough grains were sampled, or positional data of the grains were recorded when removed from the reactor (if possible).

            The energy calculations come out very good, but the limited sampling makes tracking isotopes accurately just not possible–there’s no way, even if we saw what was expected, that the error bars would be small enough to be confident with such a small sample size.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Mike and others below,

            Since I’ve spent some time looking at the Lugano data and reconciling all that others have said, I’ll comment here. I find most of my posts on ECW now get moderated out (which means I post here less than if my posts were 99% accepted) but I like accuracy so I will comment here even with some chance of weird moderation.

            On the Ni and Li data. You are right there is a problem with lack of H. There is also a problem with too much heat (by a factor of at least 3, including the apparent Li conversion as an endothermic reaction). There is also a problem of why the large 58,60Ni -> 62Ni enthalpy does not show up on the power vs time graph given that this reaction would seem to be driven too completion.

            To square these problems (if you want to do this) you have to assume the 98% 62Ni data is inaccurate. Obviously theories can then be constructed that allow uneven conversion, especially since the mechanism for said conversion is not currently clear. But in that case we cannot really tell what is the overall isotopic composition of the ash, nor even whether there was any isotopic change. An unusual mechanism for isotopic enrichment in this system would account for the isotopic results with no nuclear change required.

            Essentially this data is too irreconcilable with simple rules like energy balance and mass balance to be 100% trustable. Once you no longer trust it the isotopic change is no longer clear evidence of nuclear activity.

            On the subject of the Lugano heat excess. The Lugano Prof’s calculation, corrected for Planck curve and alumina emissivity (using their values, and a correct 0.95 for the band emissivity), gives COP=1.07 for both of the two active tests.

            However it must be realised that the possible errors in this calculation are high. I would give this figure a tolerance +50% – 30%.

            That means, if you choose to hypothesise some exotic behaviour, a power imbalance in the range of around +400W – -300W. Multiplying by 30 days that gives energy balance limits: +0.3MWh – -0.2MWh total (approx).

            If you choose to reckon the prof’s data is not complete or inaccurate perhaps you can get broader limits than this, but not much so.

          • Stephen

            Its interesting. If I understood right it seems that even if all the protons in Li7and H was converted to Neutrons we would not have sufficient in number neutrons to change all the Ni58 to Ni62. It seems likely it is a sampling issue but I wonder if there is another possibility.

            If I remember right we have an Isotope ratio measurement in terms of proportion rather than abundance. Could it be that some of the Ni58 is also transmuted to Iron or some other elements by some mechanism if so then the ratio could be reduced. I suppose this would imply increased abundances of those other element however and possibly Beta radiation and I suppose these were not seen?

          • GreenWin

            Mike, you might want to view the latest slide deck from Lew Larsen (Widom Larsen theory) reviewing isotopic shift data starting with P&F in 1989. His explanation of neutron capture in situ, combined with exotic QM entanglement in condensed matter might address some of your concerns (theoretically.) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-us-government-labs-reported-clearcut-neutron-capture-data-from-pf-cells-in-oct-1989-may-13-2015

    • Sanjeev

      Does that rule out the board malfunction issue ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        don’t think there is a board malfunction.

        Looks like the offset is caused by a combination of new TC and wire movement in run.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Data from 3rd run can be found here:

    https://goo.gl/1I6qJc

    • The labels are confusing on the graphs. Is purple always active and green always null?

    • Sanjeev

      Does that rule out the board malfunction issue ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        don’t think there is a board malfunction.

        Looks like the offset is caused by a combination of new TC and wire movement in run.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ecco followed Sanjeev’s lead and Alan’s power calculation approach to plot the active sides raw data using the following tools:

    Python3 + Matplotlib + Pandas

    Something has caused an offset between the calibration and subsequent fuelled runs – but what explanation do we have for the departure on the first run above 600ºC?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Slowly escaping hydrogen that burns near the surface? This could be clarified by running the reactor in an inert atmosphere.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – can we work out what the total potential heat from that would be – but 100s Watts for hours?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I think the energy from hydrogen combustion (if there is any) cannot be compared to that from the coil if the heat concentrates mainly on the reactor surface or its immediate surroundings. You would need only little energy to maintain a relatively high temperature. So it might be worthwhile testing – the more explanations can be excluded, the better (IMHO).

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – for sure. How do you account for the fact that there is still very significant pressure in the cell in the subsequent runs, but there is no apparent affect from this H2 combustion process?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            For example, the pores in the alumina tube might have been sealed by condensates in the cooling-off phase of the first run. On the other hand, one could argue that – since the hydrogen could apparently flow from the active into the passive cell – it should have been able to escape from there as well. But anyway, testing is better than guessing…

          • Bob Greenyer

            I had exactly these two thoughts – and yes – testing is better than guessing, but the test you propose is a real challenge – plus it would change the environment.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is certainly not the most important issue at the moment.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Rossi has been running in the self sustained mode for his client which tells me process itself is capable of (ssm) operations & controlled by short burst of external power when wanting to move it up or down, Yes a positive step can move it in any direction dependent on it’s pulse width & LENR thermal neutron base generation dependency on their time constants of isotope production & decay & energy release. The TC problem is one of geometry with respect to the really high energy generation rate of micro explosions. Could see this in pulsing glow of fuel element during the test with hot spot left of fuel elements center.IMHO Jim Nice thoughts you have Thomas!

      • tobalt

        as i explained earlier. The excess temperatures cannot be explained by chemical events.

        The excess is either
        a) nuclear excess heat
        b) measurement error

        i outlined several times already how to distinguish these

    • Bob Greenyer

      The offset is likely due to the active side TC being changed between calibration – this is what Alan said before the first run.

      “We’ll install an extra thermocouple for the active side data, slightly closer to the centre, while leaving the existing one controlling the PID. That way, the calibration of set point against core temperature will be valid, and the comparison of the active vs null temperatures in the streaming data can be used to look for excess heat in real time.”

      • So the thermocouple slightly closer to the center of the reactor reads ~100 C higher just because of position? I’m having a hard time buying that.

    • I think that the run #3 data for the null reactor needs to be graphed too. If I understand correctly, the null reactor in run3 had the thermocouple that measured the anomaly at 600+ C in run1. We need to see if that collected data as expected on the null reactor to build confidence there is no measurement problem with that device.

    • Ged

      Here’s my double moving average chart up to Run 1 and 2 again, just as it’s a little cleaner to read due to double moving averages being much better at handling trends like this. I will try to get Run 3 integrated as well, but I have to go deal with urgent matters.

      http://imageshack.com/a/img911/1716/VizS34.png

      And with all the nulls:

      http://imageshack.com/a/img673/1713/fpEhMI.png

      My method description is here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2059201948

      I wanted to calculate out the offset using the nulls to accurately normalize the active side runs, but it’s a lot harder than that sounds due to the runs using different lengths of time and temperature steps. Very interesting Run 3 data though.

    • Sanjeev

      The third run is tending towards the calibration at higher end. Even if you consider the 3rd run as new calibration, the 1st one still shows excess.
      Whatever caused the shift, it cannot explain the behavior of first run above 600C. It could not be repeated. Is the fuel dead now ?
      Anyway what is the next plan ? To repeat the experiment with fresh fuel or to jump to calorimetry straight ?

      • Bob Matulis

        The subsequent runs were done in far shorter time periods and faster warm up (5 hours). Perhaps ramping the temperature at the same rate as the first run would be worthwhile. It would be nice to see the excess heat begin at 600C again.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Could the fuel hot spot be moved relative to the TC & generating heat on calibration run as seen by off set of glow luminosity in first test relative to TC ie not calibration but process site moving & still generating energy with respect to heater raising input power, just a wild idea for what we are seeing. Let me think further. I thought during test off set in generation apparent with relation to TC might effect calcs & true temp measurement?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Quick video review of last post “Active” run test of the *GlowStick* GS3

          []=Project Dog Bone=[]

          http://youtu.be/um9pN00HiVA

          • Ged

            This run’s new data could help elucidate more. Really looking forward to the bookend calibration though. Only then, do we truly re-test the equipment itself. And soon, my graphs shall reach maximum Spaghettification. Mortals shall tremble at the sight.

          • Bob Greenyer

            hahah.

            I still suspect that the ‘anomaly’ is related to a physical change in the apparatus, as annoying as that may be.

            Alan will release the data soon and his thinking.

          • Ged

            Whatever the truth may be, we shall see! Nothing can hide from the Spaghettimonster.

            If it is related to a physical change (and we’d have to determine exactly what it is and how it relates to all the data), then we will have to figure out how to nail the thing down and prevent that from happening in future designs. Not so easy given how well made this one is already. Maybe something on a completely different tangent… Looking forward to that TrashCan.

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha

            oh, Bob Higgins just got back from his trip…

            …{GarbageCan} please!

          • Sanjeev

            That’s the whole point of experimenting, go on removing the variables till its a solid result.

          • Ged

            Truer words.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            I think the Lady is playing with you guys & she is still active even after having melted & solidified her metal a few time Bob? good to see she is robust after all. I know Sanjeev suspect a nuclear power source playing with us?

          • Sanjeev

            What is being tested/checked in this last run ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – the TCs have been swapped back and there has been a little tweak age to the coil – Alan will explain

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ecco followed Sanjeev’s lead and Alan’s power calculation approach to plot the active sides raw data using the following tools:

    Python3 + Matplotlib + Pandas

    Something has caused an offset between the calibration and subsequent fuelled runs – but what explanation do we have for the departure on the first run above 600ºC?

    (Click graph to see full resolution)

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Slowly escaping hydrogen that burns near the surface? This could be clarified by running the reactor in an inert atmosphere.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – can we work out what the total potential heat from that would be – but 100s Watts for hours?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I think the energy from hydrogen combustion (if there is any) cannot be compared to that from the coil if the heat concentrates mainly on the reactor surface or its immediate surroundings. You would need only little energy to maintain a relatively high temperature. So it might be worthwhile testing – the more explanations can be excluded, the better (IMHO).

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – for sure. How do you account for the fact that there is still very significant pressure in the cell in the subsequent runs, but there is no apparent affect from this H2 combustion process?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            For example, the pores in the alumina tube might have been sealed by condensates in the cooling-off phase of the first run. On the other hand, one could argue that – since the hydrogen could apparently flow from the active into the passive cell – it should have been able to escape from there as well. But anyway, testing is better than guessing…

          • Bob Greenyer

            I had exactly these two thoughts – and yes – testing is better than guessing, but the test you propose is a real challenge – plus it would change the environment.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is certainly not the most important issue at the moment.

      • tobalt

        as i explained earlier. The excess temperatures cannot be explained by chemical events.

        The excess is either
        a) nuclear excess heat
        b) measurement error

        i outlined several times already how to distinguish these

    • Bob Greenyer

      The offset is likely due to the active side TC being changed between calibration – this is what Alan said before the first run.

      “We’ll install an extra thermocouple for the active side data, slightly closer to the centre, while leaving the existing one controlling the PID. That way, the calibration of set point against core temperature will be valid, and the comparison of the active vs null temperatures in the streaming data can be used to look for excess heat in real time.”

      • So the thermocouple slightly closer to the center of the reactor reads ~100 C higher just because of position? I’m having a hard time buying that.

    • I think that the run #3 data for the null reactor needs to be graphed too. If I understand correctly, the null reactor in run3 had the thermocouple that measured the anomaly at 600+ C in run1. We need to see if that collected data as expected on the null reactor to build confidence there is no measurement problem with that device.

    • Ged

      Here’s my double moving average chart up to Run 1 and 2 again, just as it’s a little cleaner to read due to double moving averages being much better at handling trends like this. I will try to get Run 3 integrated as well, but I have to go deal with urgent matters.

      http://imageshack.com/a/img911/1716/VizS34.png

      And with all the nulls:

      http://imageshack.com/a/img673/1713/fpEhMI.png

      My method description is here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/31/mfmp-glowstick-test-provided-hope-of-excess-heat-detection-from-lenr-what-next/#comment-2059201948

      I wanted to calculate out the offset using the nulls to accurately normalize the active side runs, but it’s a lot harder than that sounds due to the runs using different lengths of time and temperature steps. Very interesting Run 3 data though.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Yes run length has major influence on results. It is there. Thanks for access to your thoughts!

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        If the sight of LENR power generation is very small & local as seen in the glowing fuel element could movements of it location on calibration test cause off sets in TC recalibrations that you seem to be seeing in the data. Could be just generating small amount of LENR on restarts that might produce random looking bias’s. No problems with the TC just the process? Just a wild thought! Jim

        • Ged

          Always possible when in the land of unknown. We need the bookend calibration to show us if that is the case.

    • Sanjeev

      The third run is tending towards the calibration at higher end. Even if you consider the 3rd run as new calibration, the 1st one still shows excess.
      Whatever caused the shift, it cannot explain the behavior of first run above 600C. It could not be repeated. Is the fuel dead now ?
      Anyway what is the next plan ? To repeat the experiment with fresh fuel or to jump to calorimetry straight ?

      • Bob Matulis

        The subsequent runs were done in far shorter time periods and faster warm up (5 hours). Perhaps ramping the temperature at the same rate as the first run would be worthwhile. It would be nice to see the excess heat begin at 600C again.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Good thinking Bob!

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Yes much too short run time in reheat test for LENR, very interesting!

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Look like fuel is contributing a little again, but calibration runs were too short in time to see accumulation is my guess. Nice observation Sanjeev!

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Could the fuel hot spot be moved relative to the TC & generating heat on calibration run as seen by off set of glow luminosity in first test relative to TC ie not calibration but process site moving & still generating energy with respect to heater raising input power, just a wild idea for what we are seeing. Let me think further. I thought during test off set in generation apparent with relation to TC might effect calcs & true temp measurement?

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        The fuel may not be dead now & responsive to heat input for it generation?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Composite animation of graphs made by Ecco:

    https://goo.gl/rmQR8g

    • Ged

      If we look at just the divergence behavior in Run 1, and compare to Run 2 near Run 2’s end (so not when Run 1 was at maximal), it’s 69 W calculated by double moving average more power going into Run 2 to reach 630 C than Run 1. I think that is the best very conservative estimate of production in Run 1, as that uses Run 2 (and also Run 3 it appears) as a calibration control rather than another experimental.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        I know it’s there & Alan was just going too fast on calibrations for her to come in as in first run. The power scatter graphs were interesting also will have to look at them more!

  • Mats002

    OK looks like real excess heat in Run #1, too much energy to be chemical, I am puzzled. What if the melted alloy of Al-Li get good electric and ferromagnetic properties at 600 C while the null side still is in a Ni powder state. Then some induction heating effect start for the active side. The current is AC, and the chopping somehow adds to induction. The following runs do not get this effect because the alloy got solid and reheating the alloy do not give the pro-induction properties back again?

    • Ged

      Induction heating isn’t a free lunch, it still takes as much power as anything else, so it can’t change temp to power in relationships.

      • Mats002

        This induction scenario would decrease the resistance over the active half of the coil, as if adding another load in parallell to it, and thus the voltage in the middle of the coil would offset, making the active temp diverge from the null temp at 600 C. The simple way to rule out this scenario is to measure the voltage at center of the coil which also others have proposed for future runs.

    • Axil Axil

      We can get an insight into the chemical processes going on inside the reactor during reheat by looking at the gas pressure.

  • Mats002

    OK looks like real excess heat in Run #1, too much energy to be chemical, I am puzzled. What if the melted alloy of Al-Li get good electric and ferromagnetic properties at 600 C while the null side still is in a Ni powder state. Then some induction heating effect start for the active side. The current is AC, and the chopping somehow adds to induction. The following runs do not get this effect because the alloy got solid and reheating the alloy do not give the pro-induction properties back again?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes Mats002.

    • Ged

      Induction heating isn’t a free lunch, it still takes as much power as anything else, so it can’t change temp to power in relationships, I believe. Good ideas though.

      • Mats002

        This induction scenario would decrease the resistance over the active half of the coil, as if adding another load in parallell to it, and thus the voltage in the middle of the coil would offset, making the active temp diverge from the null temp at 600 C. The simple way to rule out this scenario is to measure the voltage at center of the coil which also others have proposed for future runs.

    • Axil Axil

      We can get an insight into the chemical processes going on inside the reactor during reheat by looking at the gas pressure.

  • Dave

    Is there any way to determine how critical the heater coil mechanical placement is to the measurements? If temperature causes the coil to expand then the amount of contact and location of that contact would change. I recall that the heater coils are only tied down in the center of the structure and allowed to move horizontally. Is this correct?

    Obviously, if that contact is critical it is easy to imagine that the heating process will cause changes to that parameter that may or may not return once the heating reverses. Also, is it true that the slight change in location of one of the TC’s made a major change to its reading?

    I am beginning to suspect that mechanical issues are a major challenge that we have underestimated thus far.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Using spot temperature measurement as a proxy for heat flow in these experiments is fundamentally difficult. It can work OK when you have solid volumes in which TCs can be placed with known low thermal gradient across volume so that mechanical changes are insignificant. That means nowhere near electric heating elements or edges.

    Even then you have other issues all of which must be checked:
    Is the TC well enough sealed that it cannot be contaminated by H or anything else?
    Has the TC always been within its safe temp range (otherwise it can change properties from overheating)
    Has anything about the outside of the reactor or its environment changed that will affect total thermal resistance? The classic thing here is simply the surroundings heating up which causes apparent increase in output power with time (if you take temperature as proxy for output power)?
    Has anything inside the reactor changed that affects thermal resistance longitudinally?

    MFMP are quite capable of dealing with these issues one by one given time. It would however be more efficient if they started with a more solid form of calorimetry. Several such have been proposed and even built by other groups (e.g. GIST).

    MFMP (and others) are perhaps encouraged to do these “quick and dirty” tests because of the high COP claimed by Parkhomov and one or two others, but not seen by many more others including the Lugano profs. If this exists they are right, it can quickly be shown.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Rossi has been running in the self sustained mode for his client which tells me process itself is capable of (ssm) operations & controlled by short burst of external power when wanting to move it up or down, Yes a positive step can move it in any direction dependent on it’s pulse width & LENR thermal neutron base generation dependency on their time constants of isotope production & decay & energy release. The TC problem is one of geometry with respect to the really high energy generation rate of micro explosions. Could see this in pulsing glow of fuel element during the test with hot spot left of fuel elements center.IMHO Jim Nice thoughts you have Thomas!

      • Dave

        James, you will find it quite difficult to pin Rossi down on the SSM subject. Many folks have asked him about the actual amount of time that the device drifts in this mode and he is extremely evasive. If the SSM is only for 15 minutes, then I would not really consider it that but instead part of a slow PWM mode. Much depends upon the thermal capacitances and resistances of his devices.
        Also, once positive feedback is applied and the device is pushed to a point just below thermal run away the thermal resistance approaches a large value which tends to keep the device at a semi constant temperature. Of course active cooling would enable you to exceed the thermal run away threshold and still not melt down.
        If the increase in heating rate is slow enough, he could adjust the flow rate of the incoming cool water to operate as his active cooling. He does not answer questions pertaining to this subject to protect his IP.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I know Rossi it is a matter of days, weeks Dave. Cheers, only time will tell what he reveals to us publicly. Its totally his option & we must thank him for the Lugano ash analysis or we would not be here, right?

          • Dave

            I admire what Rossi has accompolished for us. It takes someone of his tenacity and strong will to plow forward under such serious resistance as he has encountered during this development. He appears to be from the same mold as many of the other gifted Italian inventors over the centuries. We need to figure out how to bottle that capability and spread it around.

            My take on the SSM operation is that it is much shorter and needs to be refreshed frequently. I have modeled some thermal positive feedback concepts and it is not easy to tickle the system to a very fine degree with noise present and achieve a high COP. As you suggest one day we will learn the tricks.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      I just read your critic of the Lugano effort. Have you seen anything in the MFMP tests where TCs, watt input calculations during runs showing excess LENR. I am sure it is there just looking at data from Lugano, me356 & Denis Vasilenkos tests. Having retired 15 years ago after spending all of my career in nuclear , fossil, & petrochemical plant simulation, testing & control analysis & post dynamic test evaluation it’s presence is obvious to me.

      I liked the PCE 830 watt inputs to fuel elements, current pulses shape & freq spectrum of TRIAC signal in Lugano and was surprised seeing your calculation dispute their results with optical temperature reading errors?

      Has anything you have seen to date or calculated changed your valued opinion? I think me356 is curently preparing a test using TCs but also optical temp as controller feedback. Would you touch base with him with your concerns, he should be able to clear up discrepancies a bit?

      During the past GS3 test I think TC measurement was low because of asymmetric location of LENR in fuel element as clearly seen in glow offset of center during the test & comparing it to uniform glow of non fueled element. Sure MFMP further testing will show us the truth.

      Like the PCE 830 instruments recordings & equipment specs. Anxiously awaiting your thought on the most interesting subject & appreciate your calculation efforts incites.

      These last test on fueled & unfueld elements clearly show temp diffenece during testing as did Denis’ test.

      Now me356 should give us a much clearer picture, No?

      Jim

      PS Glad to see you back in the bleachers!

  • Axil Axil

    I believe that this experiemnt is suffering from a undersized fuel load. But a larger fuel load will most likely blowout the alumina tube when the temperature hits the 600C critical temperature level. The energy burst from a larger fuel load when the reactor hits that critical temperture threshold will blowout the tube.

    The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a .3 gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous.

    Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. It even shows periods of self sustaining operation. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist instatanious bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts.

    Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained and his insolation is an oxide. Like in a nuclear rector, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction.

    But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management.

    A strong reactor design like the tungsten design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the energy bursts produced by that large fuel load, A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do.

  • Axil Axil

    I believe that this experiemnt is suffering from a undersized fuel load. But a larger fuel load will most likely blowout the alumina tube when the temperature hits the 600C critical temperature level. The energy burst from a larger fuel load when the reactor hits that critical temperture threshold will blowout the tube.

    The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a .3 gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous.

    Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. It even shows periods of self sustaining operation. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist instatanious bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts.

    Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained and his insolation is an oxide. Like in a nuclear fission reactor, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction.

    But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management.

    A strong reactor design like the tungsten design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the energy bursts produced by that large fuel load, A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do.

    • Dave

      At this time we can not be confident that any form of chain reaction is taking place within the core other than that due to the overall temperature rise as LENR generated heat flux flows through thermal resistances to reach the ambient.

      Unless some form of critical mass is a factor, greater amounts of fuel are not going to be that significant except for in a linear manner. By this I mean, double the fuel and you get double the heat flux at a given core temperature.

      My opinion is that the greater and useful COPs that Rossi has reported upon are a consequence of positive feedback. This is due to the thermal flux flowing through the net path thermal resistances causing the total loop gain to increase significantly. If we desire a useful COP then it will be necessary for us to either find a way to improve the heat generation capacity of the fuel or come up with a thermal design that traps more of that heat before it escapes to the ambient.

      It is apparent that Rossi has a secret formula for fuel that we do no posses at this time. How else can we believe that his low temperature ECAT works while we are having such a difficult time making one operate at such unreasonably high temperatures?

      I hope that one day someone will stumble upon the magic formula that remains a trade secret known only to Rossi and his assigns. He likely is happy that everyone is chasing this wild goose at unreasonably high temperatures while he continues to perfect the more useful low temperature system.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        My take is that the LENR process is a thermally self regulated control system as of itself & the containment design ie as heat rises the SSP process at the surface of the metal generating thermal neutrons is disrupted probably by thermal expansion & limits the reaction based on radiant fourth power temperature cooling losses, Evidently from what we have seen it is a slow process & can be moved around by external thermal inputs pushing or nudging the process up.& down as Rossi is able to move it to desirable load points for his client & it just sits there regulating itself. It does not have the prompt neutron feature of commercial reactors thanks to whoever or whatever made us Axil? Jim

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi uses a cat and mouse design. By that I mean a multi stage design where he has a number of stages from low performance to high performance. The amount of fuel in each stage might generate these differing levels of performance.

          The mouse may have a small amount of fuel and is well controled. The Cat may contain a larger amount of fuel but is more prone to blowout. The mouse may drive the Cat so that the mouse keeps the Cat from blowout. Rossi came up with is Mouse and Cat design after many years of blowout problems.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Not so sure about that Axil. This is a nuclear reactor type process which I have worked with for many of my days before retiring 15 years ago. I think his ssm process can be moved up & down a power ramp as we do in nuclear reactor by stepped power inputs to LENR to disrupt or encourage an upward or downward movement of his self sustaining fuel elements by knowing the time constants of the isotope formation process & either encourage it in the upward path of downward. This requires a special fuzzy non linear control system the researchers do not have – then lost fuel element by burnout, No Axil Axil Your long time admiring friend you probably didn’t know was with you & Peter, Jim

        • Dave

          It would be great if Rossi’s device is actually internally self regulated but the history of blown out or melted down reactors suggests otherwise. He may have found a material inserted within his fuel that poisons the reaction once it reaches a planned temperature level, but he has never stated this.
          Of course, it is necessary to harness positive thermal feedback in order to achieve a high COP which none of the replicators has seen so far. Once the loop gain of the system is sufficient to do this one is left with difficult stability problems to solve.
          To produce a high gain, stable, and ultimately useful design is going to require careful system planning. So far, all of the replicators are more or less shooting from the hip while the important parameters are remaining hidden from view. How to separate the variables is the biggest challenge facing us at this time. Perhaps someone will get lucky one of these days and we can all celebrate.
          Once we observe a working device with a COP of greater than 2 that does not self distruct, we will be on the right track. Rossi has been there for quite some time now according to his writings.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            I think most researchers have destroyed their own fuel elements with trying to control a (ssm) LENR process as Rossi has learned losing hundreds if not thousand of his in the learning process. I am a retired nuclear engineer with experience in control, simulating, testing of BWRs, PWRs, Gas cooled reactors, starting my careen with the NERVA Nuclear Rocket program & even working with fossil & petrochemical plants & Rossi is right on thru tenacious hard work. The flux level in nuclear reactors is raised to raise power & a neutron balance in kept by control rods etc. Hopefully we can move Rossi ssm process up & down with external power pulsed inputs. Keep up the good work Dave!

          • Dave

            Congratulations James, you have the type of knowledge that we need in this field. I have been seeking evidence of some form of critical mass but so far have come up empty. The original shape factor that Rossi experimented with would tend to have a greater volume to area ratio than these latest ones.

            He started with all his fuel concentrated within a small odd shaped volume. This should have increased the tendency for internal positive feedback of both thermal and any nuclear coupling like you have dealt with. The latest ECAT he is testing in the USA factory uses a flat design where the fuel is spread out in two dimensions mainly.

            The two dimensional design apparently allows him to take away the heat quickly through the large surface area. One would think that any positive feedback using heat as the feedback factor would require it to be externally determined by air gaps, or insulation in this case. And, this is his main ECAT design that he is counting upon to sell his products.

            The Hot Cat design that is being replicated by everyone at this time is interesting. It’s long narrow core shape is different than the other designs. The volume to surface area is linear in one dimension which is radius. Clearly that makes modifications easy to achieve since a different linear drill size can adjust the performance. It could be that Rossi uses this general configuration to test new fuel mixes that he can then mathematically transform into the desired behavior for his X-Y main product configuration.

            I am wondering whether or not Rossi is diverting the experimenters away from the real goal of a flat plate design. They may be fed a low performance test vehicle that can prove LENR is present except with a terrible fuel choice which operates at much too high of a temperature to be useful. And, the COP is not sufficient to compete with his main design. Can you think of a better way to keep the competition at bay?

      • Axil Axil

        The answer may be the oposite of what you are assuming. Rossi used a gram of fuel at Lagano. His reactor did not blowout because he had heat radiating fins on the surface of his reactor to cool it. When MFMP and Parhemov used a gram of fuel, the reactor most often blowout because of poor cooling of the high heat levels produced when the LENR reaction started. No replicator has added heat fins to their reactor as Rossi had shown at Lagano. Most replicators use a gram of fuel because that amount was defined in the Lagano report. But that large amount must be acompanied by heat fins to remove energy from the reactor core.

        Now MFMP uses far less fuel and their reactor does not blowout. This question can be resolved by running a series of tests that vary the amount of fuel precisely in the reactor in the range from low to high amounts and find the fuel load amount that is just under the blowout point.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Dave & Axil I don’t think there is a magic fuel formula at all or the Cat & mouse are necessary to raise power or if that is what Rossi does? In conventional nuclear power plants we raise the power generation level to any place we want by putting the neutron flux in an increasing or decreasing mode & then stop it to generate stable power in BWRs, PWRS, Gas cooled reactors, Nuclear Rockets etc and the same applies for the Rossi (ssm) mode of power generation. In all these ramps & attempts a (ssm) has visited us & we & Rossi for a long time & led to a numbers of lost fuel elements to burnout because our controllers can’t handle the non linear process of generating power as we approach large values of (ssm) LENR power on our move up in temperature ramps. We need some good nuclear control engineering ideas to make a moving power process out of this. The source is so strong that we don’t need more fuel or a helper Cat to be successful at this.
        Rossi just moves his Hot E-Cat to a high thermal out put to provide energy to his current client at infinite COP thru self regulation buy radiant self regulating feed back process. The controlling ultra low momentum process for thermal neutron generation can be disrupted or helped to move up or down by the proper input of external power pulse to influence neutron generation & isotope decay process as we do to move conventional nuclear plants & MFMP will eventually show us how that’s done I am sure.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Dave & Axil I don’t think there is a magic fuel formula at all or the Cat & mouse are necessary to raise power or if that is what Rossi does? In conventional nuclear power plants we raise the power generation level to any place we want by putting the neutron flux in an increasing or decreasing mode & then stop it to generate stable power in BWRs, PWRS, Gas cooled reactors, Nuclear Rockets etc and the same applies for the Rossi (ssm) mode of power generation. In all these ramps & attempts a (ssm) has visited us & we & Rossi for a long time & led to a numbers of lost fuel elements to burnout because our controllers can’t handle the non linear process of generating power as we approach large values of (ssm) LENR power with respect to external input power on our move up in temperature ramps. We need some good nuclear control engineering ideas to make a moving power process out of this. The source is so strong that we don’t need more fuel or a helper Cat to be successful at this.

      Rossi just moves his Hot E-Cat to a high thermal out put to provide energy to his current client at infinite COP thru self regulation buy radiant self regulating feed back process. The controlling ultra low momentum process for thermal neutron generation can be disrupted or helped to move up or down by the proper input of external power pulse to influence neutron generation & isotope decay process as we do to move conventional nuclear plants & MFMP will eventually show us how that’s done I am sure.

      How else does Rossi shut down successfully an element in the self sustaining mode of full power or partial power generation, that is the question we must address & it has been solved in conventional nuclear power plants developed & tuned by smart government funded research available to us now!

  • Mike Henderson

    Can someone help? I did some math on the Elforsk Lugano report and cannot get mass balance to square up.

    I pursued the issue of “Could we see isotope changes given amount of anomalous heat in a relatively short, low COP test?” So I got the before / after isotope data from the Lugano report to calculate binding energy changes in Li and Ni. The report said isotope analysis has an error of about 3%, so I figured I could back into how long the reaction would need to run to detect isotope shifts.

    But along the way I ran into a problem –

    .9 gm of Ni in the fuel begins with “natural abundances” — a weighted average atomic weight of 58.9. After the test, the Ni in the ash was 98.7% Ni62, the weighted average atomic weight is 61.9. The average atom of Ni gained 3 neutrons. This would suggest that the mass of Ni increased .049 grams.

    Do the same math for Li, but this time (it shifts from Li7 to Li6) there is a loss of mass of .0022 gm. .1 gm of LAH contains .0183 gm of Li. The average atomic weight shifted (ICP) decreased from 6.94 to 6.09.

    The net mass gain (Ni and Li) is .0467 grams. But there is only .010 gm of H in .1 gm of LAH fuel.

    There must be some other source of neutrons for the Ni / Li isotope balances to square up. Or is there another explanation? We’d need about .5 liter of hydrogen gas at STP to make up the shortfall, so without a hydrogen feed or some other neutron source it does not add up.

    • Axil Axil

      Look at the end of the Lagano report. It shows that many elements just disappeared. How can you explain that?

      • Mike Henderson

        I attributed that to sampling. Only a few granules were analysed. Some fuel granules showed Fe, some did not so there were sample discrepancies even before the test was run.

        • Axil Axil

          Then why can’t sample discrepancies answer your question?

          • Mike Henderson

            Because I don’t see megawatt-hour levels of binding energy changes without isotope shifts on that same order of magnitude. I’d hate to invoke matter-antimatter annihilation to close this loop. 😉

          • Axil Axil

            The assumption you are making is that evey nickel particle was converted to Ni62. This may not be the case. To show this total conversion, all nickel particles would need to be analized.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I agree with regard to the sampling problem, but if you take the data at face value the total mass difference works out to 2.2 MWh, which is pretty close to the measured 1.5 MWh energy gain. LENR G made this nice spreadsheet a while ago:

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit?pli=1#gid=0

      The “missing neutron” issue remains so far unsolved. So, of course it is possible that the data are not representative and the numbers converge just by chance.

      • Ah thanks, Andreas. Beat me to it.

        There’s also some analysis of the numbers here:
        http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

      • Axil Axil

        Does the problem of the bad temperture readings lower the total energy production calculations?

        • All the numbers in the spreadsheet except for one are based only on the fuel/ash analysis and not affected by any temperature measurement errors.

          The exception is the cell with the report’s specific energy (and then that affects the ratio of calculated energy to what was in the report). So the ratio would be higher than the 1.37 (and thus a little less persuasive).

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Axil with the off centered hot LENR spot seen benevolently in the pulsating glowing fueled element during the test I think more energy was being generated than TC inferred. It looks like the Lady moves slowly & takes time to give up her energy as Alan found in his run back at the end of first test & had to shut down. Denis Vasilenko was visited by her & it took his fuel element after large limit cycle he had to contend with & because he could not take manual control, lost his fuel element to burnout IMHO!

    • Ged

      Part of the explanatory theory is that other nickel isotopes are donating neutrons to help build Ni62, via neutron shuttling, since Ni62 is the most stable nucleon (energy minimum). It doesn’t have to be only from H or Li. In fact, the main theory build I have had for awhile so far is that the fusion events are a required but rare ignition switch that starts the neutron shuffling and shuttling, leading to the isotopic changes that release most of the energy of the reaction. Don’t know if this idea helps though.

      Edit: Also other isotopes, like Ni61 would just need one neutron to reach the minimum at Ni62, and then there’s Ni64 and stuff which could give up neutrons to help other Ni isotopes reach 62 while reaching 62 itself. So it’s much more potentially complicated.

      • Thomas Clarke

        If you accept 98% conversion to 62Ni you can work out the H required from the average atomic weight of the fuel Ni. This is (natural) 58.7. So there is on average 3.3 nucleons added per atom or a mass increase (in the nickel) of roughly 5.6%.

        So taking other isotopes into account does not alter the equation much over what would be the case if you assumed all 58->62 conversion. And, if you wish to do it, it is not very complicated!

        • Ged

          I see what you are saying, nicely done putting it very cleanly.

          A lot of calculations were done in that isotope data thread back in the day, so I think all these questions have been long addressed. As other say, no one says one granule is representative of the total fuel stock, as given the temperatures being high enough to melt the core of the nickel, it’s easy to propose a mechanism where neutron heated nickel (now Ni62) would convect up to the outer wall of the reactor, cool, and solidify as a purified grain. That would leave sampling error as a big problem unless enough grains were sampled, or positional data of the grains were recorded when removed from the reactor (if possible).

          The energy calculations come out very good, but the limited sampling makes tracking isotopes accurately just not possible–there’s no way, even if we saw what was expected, that the error bars would be small enough to be confident with such a small sample size.

    • Jan Nie

      Later will explained, that at these group of phenomenons, mass is produced (i.e. created).
      Its mean not only transmutated.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Mike and others below,

      Since I’ve spent some time looking at the Lugano data and reconciling all that others have said, I’ll comment here. I find most of my posts on ECW now get moderated out (which means I post here less than if my posts were 99% accepted) but I like accuracy so I will comment here even with some chance of weird moderation.

      On the Ni and Li data. You are right there is a problem with lack of H. There is also a problem with too much heat (by a factor of at least 3, including the apparent Li conversion as an endothermic reaction). There is also a problem of why the large 58,60Ni -> 62Ni enthalpy does not show up on the power vs time graph given that this reaction would seem to be driven too completion.

      To square these problems (if you want to do this) you have to assume the 98% 62Ni data is inaccurate. Obviously theories can then be constructed that allow uneven conversion, especially since the mechanism for said conversion is not currently clear. But in that case we cannot really tell what is the overall isotopic composition of the ash, nor even whether there was any isotopic change. An unusual mechanism for isotopic enrichment in this system would account for the isotopic results with no nuclear change required.

      Essentially this data is too irreconcilable with simple rules like energy balance and mass balance to be 100% trustable. Once you no longer trust it the isotopic change is no longer clear evidence of nuclear activity.

      On the subject of the Lugano heat excess. The Lugano Prof’s calculation, corrected for Planck curve and alumina emissivity (using their values, and a correct 0.95 for the band emissivity), gives COP=1.07 for both of the two active tests.

      However it must be realised that the possible errors in this calculation are high. I would give this figure a tolerance +50% – 30%.

      That means, if you choose to hypothesise some exotic behaviour, a power imbalance in the range of around +400W – -300W. Multiplying by 30 days that gives energy balance limits: +0.3MWh – -0.2MWh total (approx).

      If you choose to reckon the prof’s data is not complete or inaccurate perhaps you can get broader limits than this, but not much so.

    • Stephen

      Its interesting. If I understood right it seems that even if all the protons in Li7and H was converted to Neutrons we would not have sufficient in number neutrons to change all the Ni58 to Ni62. It seems likely it is a sampling issue but I wonder if there is another possibility.

      If I remember right we have an Isotope ratio measurement in terms of proportion rather than abundance. Could it be that some of the Ni58 is also transmuted to Iron or some other elements by some mechanism if so then the ratio could be reduced. I suppose this would imply increased abundances of those other element however and possibly Beta radiation and I suppose these were not seen?

    • GreenWin

      Mike, you might want to view the latest slide deck from Lew Larsen (Widom Larsen theory) reviewing isotopic shift data starting with P&F in 1989. His explanation of neutron capture in situ, combined with exotic QM entanglement in condensed matter might address some of your concerns (theoretically.) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-us-government-labs-reported-clearcut-neutron-capture-data-from-pf-cells-in-oct-1989-may-13-2015

  • Axil Axil

    What happened to the gas pressure in the last run. Did it drop? Dis it rise then drop. What table has this data?

    • Ged

      The raw data has the pressure readings. Haven’t looked at them though.

      • Axil Axil

        IMHO, the pressure reading are very inportant. When the pressure drops, good things happen for LENR.

  • Axil Axil

    What happened to the gas pressure in the last run. Did it drop? Did it rise then drop. What table has this data?

    • Ged

      The raw data has the pressure readings. Haven’t looked at them though.

      • Axil Axil

        IMHO, the pressure readings are very important. When the pressure drops, good things happen for LENR.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Stilll know LENR visited GS3 first test. Interesting to watch analyst massage the data. Time will tell & ash will be unalterable proof. Some remnants available or generated in post test calibrations of much shorter duration than original run. The Lady when she comes in does so slowly in time of that I am now sure?

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Stilll know LENR visited GS3 first test. Interesting to watch analyst massage the data. Time will tell & ash will be unalterable proof. Some remnants available or generated in post test calibrations of much shorter duration than original run. The Lady when she comes in does so slowly in time of that I am now sure?

  • uDevil

    Can we have some detail about the thermocouples? Vendor/model #, wire diameter, insulation, sheath material if any. How are they attached to the reactor? Close-up pictures would be nice. Is thermocouple extension wire used? What length? How is it connected? Have the thermocouples been previously used? If so, under what conditions?

    • Skip

      Partial answers: Alan bought new K thermocouples through Amazon for GS3. They were cut at 12 inches from the “hot” end for connectors. The remaining wire its used for the electrical connections.
      The tips are tied to the outer alumina tube with Kanthal and glued with small dabs of furnace cement.
      Hopefully Alan will get a chance to do super close ups when dismantling the system (I’ll be gone by then)

  • Stephen

    I dont know if it helps but i have updated the pressure temp and voltage plot i made earlier to include the third test run using the 5m cvs files. I ensured that the data was consistent between the files that i used for these plots. Note that the Pressure continues to follow the same downward trend as if it is still being absorbed or slowly leaking. Since the rate of absorption appears constant I suspect the former as i would expect a leak to be higher under high pressure.

    Also included is a plot of the pressure for all three runs against temperature the initial runs heat up seems to deviate a lot form the cool down on the first run and the heat up and cool down on the other 2 runs. the last to runs and the initial cool down are probably much closer to what we would expect from an ideal gas law if we assume constant volume… although I haven’t done a proper analysis of this.

    The different curves in the initial cool down and the the last 2 runs are similar but have lower values probably due to the different amount of gas due to absorption or leakage.

    I wonder if the specific heat capacity for constant volume for Hydrogen gas is important? I think this also changes from monoatomic to diatomic characteristics in the region of interest. Refer to the following link.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/shegas.html

    • Ged

      Yeah, doesn’t seem like hydrogen is being absorbed or lost anymore, like in the first run. Pressure is following temperature very well in Run 3.

      • Axil Axil

        The chemical processes in the reactor that produce LENR are now near dead in the reactor.

        • Ged

          Maybe… not completely? But very… finicky? Easily killed, and hard to coax back? Not sure, but see my post and graphs above…

  • Stephen

    I dont know if it helps but i have updated the pressure temp and voltage plot i made earlier to include the third test run using the 5m cvs files. I ensured that the data was consistent between the files that i used for these plots. Note that the Pressure continues to follow the same downward trend as if it is still being absorbed or slowly leaking. Since the rate of absorption appears constant I suspect the former as i would expect a leak to be higher under high pressure.

    Also included is a plot of the pressure for all three runs against temperature the initial runs heat up seems to deviate a lot form the cool down on the first run and the heat up and cool down on the other 2 runs. the last two runs and the initial cool down are probably much closer to what we would expect from an ideal gas law if we assume constant volume… although I haven’t done a proper analysis of this. Normally in the ideal gas law PV=nRT we would expect P to evolve linearly with T assuming constant volume.

    The different curves in the initial cool down and the the last 2 runs are similar but have lower values probably due to the different amount of gas due to absorption or leakage.

    The heat up and cool downs of the two later test runs seem to follow similar curves

    The heat up of the first test is very different probably because of the phase changes and changes in volume as the LAH is heated up. This seems to be followed by a very rapid drop in pressure from the peak about 425 psi at 600 degrees C that has no relationship to the ideal gas law as the temperature is rising at this time. This implies that either the gas is being absorbed at this time or the volume is increasing a lot.

    I wonder if the specific heat capacity for constant volume for Hydrogen gas is important? I think this also changes from monoatomic to diatomic characteristics in the region of interest. Refer to the following link.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/shegas.html

    • Ged

      Yeah, doesn’t seem like hydrogen is being absorbed or lost anymore, like in the first run. Pressure is following temperature very well in Run 3.

      • Axil Axil

        The chemical processes in the reactor that produce LENR are now near dead in the reactor.

        • Ged

          Maybe… not completely? But very… finicky? Easily killed, and hard to coax back? Not sure, but see my post and graphs above…

  • Ged

    Always possible when in the land of unknown. We need the bookend calibration to show us if that is the case.

  • Axil Axil

    The answer may be the oposite of what you are assuming. Rossi used a gram of fuel at Lagano. His reactor did not blowout because he had heat radiating fins on the surface of his reactor to cool it. When MFMP and Parhemov used a gram of fuel, the reactor most often blowout because of poor cooling of the high heat levels produced when the LENR reaction started. No replicator has added heat fins to their reactor as Rossi had shown at Lagano. Most replicators use a gram of fuel because that amount was defined in the Lagano report. But that large amount must be acompanied by heat fins to remove energy from the reactor core.

    Now MFMP uses far less fuel and their reactor does not blowout. This question can be resolved by running a series of tests that vary the amount of fuel precisely in the reactor in the range from low to high amounts and find the fuel load amount that is just under the blowout point.

    • Ged

      Here we go. Thanks to ss dd for pointing out the 4th run data was up. Here is the graph compared to Run 1 and Control 1:

      http://imageshack.com/a/img537/3008/MzLjWN.png

      Run 4 is pretty dead, and otherwise same scale as previous null behavior. Very good tracking between sides.

      • Ged

        And what everyone has been Really waiting for… the penultimate mass of neon bright gummy worms:

        http://imageshack.com/a/img673/7608/84iV3P.png

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Ged and others for all you stirling graphing prowess!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data form slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think. Bob I’ll also send this to Sanjeev whose plot of power source voltage prompted this idea & my work with control & nuclear kinettic of power stations. Do you have any nuclear engineers with controls background I could discuss these issues with? Think a small analytic team would be very beneficial to support Alans testing wiith what you have showed me so far with Alan’s test and data reduction efforts. Jim

  • Skip

    Partial answers: Alan bought new K thermocouples through Amazon for GS3. They were cut at 12 inches from the “hot” end for connectors. The remaining wire its used for the electrical connections.
    The tips are tied to the outer alumina tube with Kanthal and glued with small dabs of furnace cement.
    Hopefully Alan will get a chance to do super close ups when dismantling the system (I’ll be gone by then)

  • Ged

    Looks like Ecco graphed the wrong cell, and took the null cell not active. The data headers are correct and flipped, but the positions in the sheet (channels) are still the same (as they should be), so if one doesn’t expand and look at the headers, one will make the mistake if just using the same data references as for the other runs. Easily cross checked with Alan’s direct graphs. Anyways, here’s the double moving averaged graphs from the raw data with the correct null and active for Run 3 (all calculated the same as before).

    Active cells only: http://imageshack.com/a/img912/7576/MAxleP.png

    Active and null cells: http://imageshack.com/a/img661/4219/M0nise.png

    The interesting thing is the null cells are all very close together and bunched up across the graph–a very good thing, particularly that they converge at higher temps. It also shows how divergent the active cells are, at least in Run 1 where the anomalous change in behavior occurred, and Run 3. Alan’s graphs will always have smooth temperatures (somewhat from being zoomed out too) as the PID is ensuring the temperatures stay smooth, but analyzing by power in really brings out the behavior.

    When Alan moved the active side thermal couple it only changed the reading around 15 C, temporarily. The thing to note is that the PID had just reduced the power in right before that happened and both sides had just started cooling. So, the change the TC itself I don’t think was the cause of the small drop step in the zoomed in graph from Alan, but was from convection of a moving body causing faster cooling than the normal thermal inertia. The null continues to cool after the active got that quicker cooling, and the difference between null and active is the same there as it was much earlier in the run when both were in the same temperature domain–thus the readings by the TC weren’t actually changed much at all. As soon as the PID pushes the power back up, the null and active seem to respond normally. So says the raws anyways.

    Don’t know what else to say about these graphs, other than they are interesting.

    Anyways, what do I think about this? Part of the small sprea

    • Ged

      So, this is going to take a bit of explaining, so please bare with me.

      After the main heat ramp up of the Run 3 reactor to the peak temps around 800 C for the active side, the reactor is cooled in steps down to around 470 C on the active side. So, keep in mind that the reactor has been half way cooled down, and the divergence between active and null is -greater- at this point than it was during the power up phase in the main run when it hit 470 C. The reactor is interacted with, enough to move the TC, and the active side drops a bit in temperature, and the divergence between null and active is now back to where it was during the ramp up at 470 C.

      So, again, after the bump of the TC, the null and active are diverged the same as they were when the reactor was being powered up at that same temperature point; but before the bump after powering the reactor -down- from its height, the active was much more divergent from the null.

      Now, Alan then stepped the heat back up after this, and the active did not diverge as much from the null as it did originally in the first part of Run 3, that is, it now looks like Run 2 instead of Run 1.

      Ok? Does this make sense to everyone? So, again, I don’t think the TC moving is the reason behind the change, as it’s just back to where it was during the ramp up, and prior to the new divergent behavior break we see in Run 3 around 550 C.

      Now, hold on to your hats, cause here is what happens when you graph the ramp up and peak (the graphs in my last post), and also the STEPS DOWN, and STEPS BACK UP.

      http://imageshack.com/a/img540/8877/TjQwd2.png

      Sooooooooooooo. How to read this? What is interesting? The interesting thing is that BOTH the active and the null are taking a lot more power to heat back up–both of them–both are making this “Paperclip” shape. The active is still diverging away from the current null, but not where null was during the first rampup (could be heating of that null from the active side causing that, though), So, THE ENTIRE REACTOR is now taking more power for the same heat. It is -not- a TC problem on the active cell side, as both sides are affected. That is what I can determine and surmise, could of course be wrong.

      I don’t know exactly how to interpret this, so please help me out guys. Was there anomalous heat production in the active core, and then after the bumping the effect was killed and we returned to a Run 2 like behavior?

      By the way, here’s the paperclip run 3 and run 2 together: http://imageshack.com/a/img913/1219/68JFOP.png

      • Sanjeev

        Good commentary Ged. The run3 makes things even more mysterious. The asymmetry is anomalous. Not only does the cool down phase not match the warm up, but the re-warming also does not match the earlier warm up.
        It takes more power to warm up both active and null in the later region.(around second peak). See this chart for another perspective.

        • Ged

          Very interesting, Sanjeev. Thank you for this graph, it is a really nice looking perspective. So fascinating.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          You have got some active (ssm) LENR power trailing you & holding up temperature on down ramps. Are you still experiencing calibration temp hysteresis, No? I think its trailing your temp ramp rather slowly?

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          You reach temp with some built up (ssm) LENR that is why you have to still increase power to hold temp after a while because the lady is dying out on you when ramp is stopped, I think?

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I think this data should be presented also & not hidden. Just say it can’t be currently explained. Someone out there will come up with an idea or two or three etc! that’s open science! Just try & itemize the differences for them! jim

    • Sanjeev

      Ged, you are probably right. The active/null data is to be swapped too.
      I’m surprised that the run#3 aligns with run#1 ! So I plotted the dT, its going to 110°C max. See this chart.

      • Ged

        Wow. This is a cool way of looking at it, beautiful graph. So different from Run 2. See also my other comment to my above post which should be showing up below for you, as I’d very much appreciate your thoughts on it.

        It seems we have a very fickle situation. Maybe whatever this is isn’t so easy to ignite but very easy to kill… or it has two modes, a low energy mode (run 2?), and high (Run 1 post 600 C, and Run 3 post 550 C?).

    • Sanjeev

      I just read on the quantumheat a comment Alan that the run3 temperature data is incorrect because of an offset. So lets hold our horses 😀

      • Ged

        Oh, well, that changes a lot! Dang, now I’ll have to re-graph everything ;).

        • Sanjeev

          He said in the video that the conclusion is coming !
          Also, in today’s run there is no excess….

          • Ged

            Excellent, can’t wait to see whatever it may be. Like some sort of mystery thriller’s climax.

            And that would support Run 2’s “deadness” then.

  • Skip

    Just finished another 5 hour run up. In hold mod for a few minutes, then cool down…

    • Ged

      Awesome! Look forward to the data.

  • Ged

    Looks like Ecco accidentally graphed the wrong cell, and took the null cell, not active. The data headers are correct and flipped, but the positions in the sheet (channels) are still the same (as they should be), so if one doesn’t expand and look at the headers, one will make the mistake if just using the same data references as for the other runs. Easily cross checked with Alan’s direct graphs. Anyways, here’s the double moving averaged graphs from the raw data with the correct null and active for Run 3 (all calculated the same as before).

    Active cells only: http://imageshack.com/a/img912/7576/MAxleP.png

    Active and null cells: http://imageshack.com/a/img661/4219/M0nise.png

    The interesting thing is the null cells are all very close together and bunched up across the graph–a very good thing, particularly that they converge at higher temps. It also shows how divergent the active cells are, at least in Run 1 where the anomalous change in behavior occurred, and Run 3. Alan’s graphs will always have smooth temperatures (somewhat from being zoomed out too) as the PID is ensuring the temperatures stay smooth, but analyzing by power in really brings out the behavior.

    When Alan moved the active side thermal couple it only changed the reading around 15 C, temporarily. The thing to note is that the PID had just reduced the power in right before that happened and both sides had just started cooling. So, the change the TC itself I don’t think was the cause of the small drop step in the zoomed in graph from Alan, but was from convection of a moving body causing faster cooling than the normal thermal inertia. The null continues to cool after the active got that quicker cooling, and the difference between null and active is the same there as it was much earlier in the run when both were in the same temperature domain–thus the readings by the TC weren’t actually changed much at all, it seems to me. As soon as the PID pushes the power back up, the null and active seem to respond normally. So says the raws anyways, at least based on what I can see; someone else may do a better analysis that supplants this one.

    Don’t know what else to say about these graphs, other than they are interesting.

    • Ged

      So, this is going to take a bit of explaining, so please bare with me.

      After the main heat ramp up of the Run 3 reactor to the peak temps around 800 C for the active side, the reactor is cooled in steps down to around 470 C on the active side. So, keep in mind that the reactor has been half way cooled down, and the divergence between active and null is -greater- at this point than it was during the power up phase in the main run when it hit 470 C. The reactor is interacted with, enough to move the TC, and the active side drops a bit in temperature, and the divergence between null and active is now back to where it was during the ramp up at 470 C.

      So, again, after the bump of the TC, the null and active are diverged the same as they were when the reactor was being powered up at that same temperature point; but before the bump after powering the reactor -down- from its height, the active was much more divergent from the null.

      Now, Alan then stepped the heat back up after this, and the active did not diverge as much from the null as it did originally in the first part of Run 3, that is, it now looks like Run 2 instead of Run 1.

      Ok? Does this make sense to everyone? So, again, I don’t think the TC moving is the reason behind the change, as it’s just back to where it was during the ramp up, and prior to the new divergent behavior break we see in Run 3 around 550 C.

      Now, hold on to your hats, cause here is what happens when you graph the ramp up and peak (the graphs in my last post), and also the STEPS DOWN, and STEPS BACK UP.

      http://imageshack.com/a/img540/8877/TjQwd2.png

      Sooooooooooooo. How to read this? What is interesting? The interesting thing is that BOTH the active and the null are taking a lot more power to heat back up–both of them–both are making this “Paperclip” shape. The active is still diverging away from the current null, but not where null was during the first rampup (could be heating of that null from the active side causing that, though), So, THE ENTIRE REACTOR is now taking more power for the same heat. It is -not- a TC problem on the active cell side, as both sides are affected. That is what I can determine and surmise, could of course be wrong.

      I don’t know exactly how to interpret this, so please help me out guys. Was there anomalous heat production in the active core, and then after the bumping the effect was killed and we returned to a Run 2 like behavior?

      By the way, here’s the paperclip run 3 and run 2 together: http://imageshack.com/a/img913/1219/68JFOP.png

      • Sanjeev

        Good commentary Ged. The run3 makes things even more mysterious. The asymmetry is anomalous. Not only does the cool down phase not match the warm up, but the re-warming also does not match the earlier warm up.
        It takes more power to warm up both active and null in the later region.(around second peak). See this chart for another perspective.

        • Ged

          Very interesting, Sanjeev. Thank you for this graph, it is a really nice looking perspective. So fascinating.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          You have got some active (ssm) LENR power trailing you & holding up temperature on down ramps. Are you still experiencing calibration temp hysteresis, No? I think its trailing your temp ramp rather slowly?

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          You reach temp with some built up (ssm) LENR that is why you have to still increase power to hold temp after a while because the lady is dying out on you when ramp is stopped, I think?

        • Dave

          This behavior suggests that there exists an alternate path for the heat flow from the coil heater that is changing with time. Is it possible that plating of metal inside the small core tube is increasing with each cycle? This might shunt some of the heat flux away from the main outter tube.

          The other strong possibility is that the calculation of power is not accurate. That could be somewhat tested if DC current is used for another new run or two. Hopefully, a new controller that is more stable can be used to reduce the noise level of the current and voltage readings.

          There are other possibilities that need to be address once the easy ones are eliminated.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I think this data should be presented also & not hidden. Just say it can’t be currently explained. Someone out there will come up with an idea or two or three etc! that’s open science! Just try & itemize the differences for them! jim

    • Sanjeev

      Ged, you are probably right. The active/null data is to be swapped too.
      I’m surprised that the run#3 aligns with run#1 ! So I plotted the dT, its going to 110°C max. See this chart.
      Edit: Probably wrong data here 🙁

      • Ged

        Wow. This is a cool way of looking at it, beautiful graph. So different from Run 2. See also my other comment to my above post which should be showing up below for you, as I’d very much appreciate your thoughts on it.

        It seems we have a very fickle situation. Maybe whatever this is isn’t so easy to ignite but very easy to kill… or it has two modes, a low energy mode (run 2?), and high (Run 1 post 600 C, and Run 3 post 550 C?).

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Interesting!

    • Sanjeev

      I just read on the quantumheat a comment by Alan that the run3 temperature data is incorrect because of an offset. So lets hold our horses 😀

      • Ged

        Oh, well, that changes a lot! Dang, now I’ll have to re-graph everything ;).

        • Sanjeev

          He said in the video that the conclusion is coming !
          Also, in today’s run there is no excess….

          • Ged

            Excellent, can’t wait to see whatever it may be. Like some sort of mystery thriller’s climax.

            And that would support Run 2’s “deadness” then.

  • Skip

    Just finished another 5 hour run up. In hold mod for a few minutes, then cool down…

    • Ged

      Awesome! Look forward to the data.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Quick video review of last post “Active” run test of the *GlowStick* GS3

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    http://youtu.be/um9pN00HiVA

    • Ged

      This run’s new data could help elucidate more. Really looking forward to the bookend calibration though. Only then, do we truly re-test the equipment itself. And soon, my graphs shall reach maximum Spaghettification. Mortals shall tremble at the sight.

      • Bob Greenyer

        hahah.

        I still suspect that the ‘anomaly’ is related to a physical change in the apparatus, as annoying as that may be.

        Alan will release the data soon and his thinking.

        • Ged

          Whatever the truth may be, we shall see! Nothing can hide from the Spaghettimonster.

          If it is related to a physical change (and we’d have to determine exactly what it is and how it relates to all the data), then we will have to figure out how to nail the thing down and prevent that from happening in future designs. Not so easy given how well made this one is already. Maybe something on a completely different tangent… Looking forward to that TrashCan.

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha

            oh, Bob Higgins just got back from his trip…

            …{GarbageCan} please!

          • Sanjeev

            That’s the whole point of experimenting, go on removing the variables till its a solid result.

          • Ged

            Truer words.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            I think you have an active (ssm) LENR in there that move up & down with power screwing up the calibration ramps. Are you still running calibration ramps. Jim

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data form slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think. Bob I’ll also send this to Sanjeev whose plot of power source voltage prompted this idea & my work with control & nuclear kinetics of power stations. Do you have any nuclear engineers with controls background I could discuss these issues with? Think a small analytic team would be very beneficial to support Alan’s testing wiith what you have shown me so far with Alan’s test and data reduction efforts. Sill think TRIAC signal has impact on exciting LENR Lady & we may be able to prove that with some targeted simple test by Alan – not sure how to get in touch with Alan – guess I’ll let Bob handle that. Think Chinese exited their system with frequencies injected by turning DC voltage on & off & were lucky? I think Bob had trouble using VARIAC source in his demo at Padua at ICCF19, just a thought. be glad to talk to anyone interested in these ideas, mean while i’ll further sketch out details of control picture as I am beginning to see it. I you have somebody else to pick up the ball in that area I’d be more than happy to share my crude thoughts about this. I have a lot of experience in many types of reactor control but i am a little rusty & old!

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I think the Lady is playing with you guys & she is still active even after having melted & solidified her metal a few time Bob? good to see she is robust after all. I know Sanjeev suspect a nuclear power source playing with us?

    • Sanjeev

      What is being tested/checked in this last run ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – the TCs have been swapped back and there has been a little tweak age to the coil – Alan will explain

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Bob I think you have an active (ssm) LENR source going up & down the calibration ramps playing havoc with then & no instrument errors to speak off, I think ?

  • ss dd

    Looks like the data for the 4th rerun is here http://tinyurl.com/ngxez2l

    • Ged

      Analyzing. Will post up the graph soon.

  • ss dd

    Looks like the data for the 4th rerun is here http://tinyurl.com/ngxez2l

    • Ged

      Analyzing. Will post up the graph soon.

  • Ged

    Here we go. Thanks to ss dd for pointing out the 4th run data was up. Here is the graph compared to Run 1 and Control 1:

    http://imageshack.com/a/img537/3008/MzLjWN.png

    Run 4 is pretty dead, and otherwise same scale as previous null behavior. Very good tracking between sides, very much like Run 2.

    • Ged

      And what everyone has been Really waiting for… the penultimate mass of neon bright gummy worms:

      http://imageshack.com/a/img673/7608/84iV3P.png

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Ged and others for all you stirling graphing prowess!

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data form slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think. Bob I’ll also send this to Sanjeev whose plot of power source voltage prompted this idea & my work with control & nuclear kinettic of power stations. Do you have any nuclear engineers with controls background I could discuss these issues with? Think a small analytic team would be very beneficial to support Alans testing wiith what you have showed me so far with Alan’s test and data reduction efforts. Jim

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Bob i’ve been passing some ideas around. In graduate school I took controls courses from one Monty Shultz ” Control of Nuclear Reactors & Power Plants”who aroused a passion in me for reactor control simulation, tuning & testing & design. His book was devoted to all types of nuclear plants he had been involved with for many early years. I think it would be nice to have a controls analytical team formed at MFMP. I do believe we know enough to start writing another chapter for Monty’s book but will take some effort & time by Alan to work out details. I’ll get a copy of this to Sergei for his incites!

          Wife wanted me to throw out all these books when i retired 15 years ago but told her I may need them again some day or just like to read them to relax & that day may have arrived with your testing! Think i could help develop team with you!

          Axil some discussion’s with MFMP about control of LENR for your input!

          Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data form slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think. Bob I’ll also send this to Sanjeev whose plot of power source voltage prompted this idea & my work with control & nuclear kinetics & thermal feedback of power stations. Do you have any nuclear engineers with controls background I could discuss these issues with? Think a small analytic team would be very beneficial to support Alan’s testing wiith what you have shown me so far with Alan’s test and data reduction efforts. Still think TRIAC signal has impact on exciting LENR Lady & we may be able to prove that with some targeted simple test by Alan – not sure how to get in touch with Alan – guess I’ll let Bob handle that. Think Chinese exited their system with frequencies injected by turning DC voltage on & off & were lucky? I think Bob had trouble using VARIAC source in his demo at Padua at ICCF19, just a thought. Be glad to talk to anyone interested in these ideas, mean while i’ll further sketch out details of control picture as I am beginning to see it. If you have somebody else to pick up the ball in that area I’d be more than happy to share my crude thoughts about this. I have a lot of experience in many types of reactor controls but i am a little rusty & old!

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that is an excellent idea. Need to think of the best way to coordinate it. At the moment we use BaseCamp at the back end, but am considering Slack (google both). If there are those that would like to join a controls team – then I could start another basecamp thread.

  • Mike Henderson

    I am starting to agree with those who feel the Null side is a distraction because the null side is being influenced by the active side.

    This analysis simply treats the 3-Jun run as a pure calibration run. I am assuming the fuel is completely dead and today’s run is the reactor & heater’s true heat / power profile. Let’s compare it to the two-day run last weekend.

    I have divided the data into 20 degree slices and calculated the average power input for each temperature range. (P = v^2/R where R = T * .000559 + 8.06) The plot here shows input power as a function of temperature for each day, and then subtracts the experimental run (Fri – Sat) from the calibration run (3-Jun) for excess power.

    It shows about 200 to 250 watts of anomalous heat above 650 deg C heater temp. COP of 1.3 to 1.7.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice job Mike, surprising is’nt it? The Lady LENR was/is there, No? No other explanation, see what a good nights sleep can do for an engineer’s thought process – at least our shared experience!

  • Mike Henderson

    I am starting to agree with those who feel the Null side is a distraction because the null side is being influenced by the active side.

    This analysis simply treats the 3-Jun run as a pure calibration run. I am assuming the fuel is completely dead and today’s run is the reactor & heater’s true heat / power profile. Let’s compare it to the two-day run last weekend.

    I have divided the data into 20 degree slices and calculated the average power input for each temperature range. (P = v^2/R where R = T * .000559 + 8.06) The plot here shows input power as a function of temperature for each day, and then subtracts the experimental run (Fri – Sat) from the calibration run (3-Jun) for excess power.

    It shows about 200 to 250 watts of anomalous heat above 650 deg C heater temp. COP of 1.3 to 1.7.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      See my comment to Ged above, she may not sleep deeply. Indeed a great pleasure to watch you work form the comfort of my 48 inch computers screen. Jim an admirer!

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice job Mike, surprising is’nt it? The Lady LENR was/is there, No? No other explanation, see what a good nights sleep can do for an engineer’s thought process – at least our shared experience!

  • Stephen

    Here are some updated pressure plots using the 5m data including the 4th set of data.

    In terms of pressure the behaviour of the 4th test is similar to previous 2 runs but continuing the same overall slow downward trend.

  • Stephen

    Here are some updated pressure plots using the 5m data including the 4th set of data.

    In terms of pressure the behaviour of the 4th test is similar to previous 2 runs but continuing the same overall slow downward trend.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice work Stephen. Loved watching you guys on your way to taming Rossi’s LENR Lady in you replication work of the tenacously hard working man that truly deserves his Nobel, No? One day sooner I hope. Jim

  • Ged

    One simple thing to do, once the bookend calibration is started up, is to test any non fuel related proposals by -recreating- them. No guessing, only testing. That would definitively show what if any roles such things as TCs or coils can have in impacting the data. This can only be done if there is no doubt the fuel is inactive, to remove that factor completely.

    So far, the power to temperature data shows nothing has changed in Run 4 compared to Run 2.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      There may be enough hydrogen ions trapped in the Ni Lattice to keep the Lady burning brightly as nickel once charged does not give up that charge very freely. It was fascinating to me to see the Lady playing with us & we still have secrets to uncover but this test was indeed a step in the positive direction IMHO Ged!

      • Ged

        True indeed, making sure it’s inactivated is not a trivial matter. Otherwise, we have crossed confounding influences and not enough variable isolation, and that could ruin the bookend calibration and any work done with it.

        And I concur, very much a step in the positive direction–best executed experiment to date of its kind!

  • Ged

    One simple thing to do, once the bookend calibration is started up, is to test any non fuel related proposals by -recreating- them. No guessing, only testing. That would definitively show what if any roles such things as TCs or coils can have in impacting the data. This can only be done if there is no doubt the fuel is inactive, to remove that factor completely.

    So far, the power to temperature data shows nothing has changed in Run 4 compared to Run 2.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      There may be enough hydrogen ions trapped in the Ni Lattice to keep the Lady burning brightly as nickel once charged does not give up that charge very freely. It was fascinating to me to see the Lady playing with us & we still have secrets to uncover but this test was indeed a step in the positive direction IMHO Ged!

      • Ged

        True indeed, making sure it’s inactivated is not a trivial matter. Otherwise, we have crossed confounding influences and not enough variable isolation, and that could ruin the bookend calibration and any work done with it.

        And I concur, very much a step in the positive direction–best executed experiment to date of its kind!

  • Stephen

    Incase it is useful I have made a plot of the Pressure at the 600 deg C points in each of the tests both in ramp up and cool down. Also I have plotted the rate of change between these points.

    The Initial pressure drop during the initial test was quite large about 125 psi and at high rate about -87 psi per day. Typically the rate of decay there after was about -20 or -25 psi per day with some peaks in the positive direction during the last couple of tests

  • Stephen

    Incase it is useful I have made a plot of the Pressure at the 600 deg C points in each of the tests both in ramp up and cool down. Also I have plotted the rate of change between these points.

    The Initial pressure drop during the initial test was quite large about 125 psi and at high rate about -87 psi per day. Typically the rate of decay there after was about -20 or -25 psi per day with some peaks in the positive direction during the last couple of tests.

    According to the ideal gas law if the temperature is constant these changes should be a measure of the change in free volume or change in amount of gas present

    • Justa Guy

      This is extremely useful information. If a (B + A* (1 – exponential decay)) fit is done, one might extract a rough value for a decay rate, which might elucidate what type of [virtual] leak is occurring with the gas … I emphasize gas, because we do not know if Helium might be part of the mix, too … Helium permeates/diffuses at a different rate than Hydrogen Gas. If the seal is good and some additional room temperature pressure data points (vs time) are disclosed by Alan, we may find something else about the GlowStick.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice piece of data, I am sure Peter & Axil will be pleased. Ni still responding after melting & solidifying several times now. Be careful Ni absorb hydrogen ions readily but isn’t so apt to give them up ie may be able to restart after removing hydrogen pressure – at least for a while, No?

      • Stephen

        Hello Jim,

        Thanks for your comments and your encouragement.

        I understand that neutron absorption has a lot of advantages for LENR but the source of the required amount of neutrons to convert Ni58 to Ni62 is hard to find unless it is a sampling issue. I have a question more relating to Protons however that may explain part of the story and may be someone with a nuclear physics or engineering background understands better than me.

        I understand that certain unstable isotopes that are low in neutrons can emit protons. These lie along the proton drip line and these decay by beta delayed proton emmission that usually occurs after an initial beta + emission so we end up with a change in Z of -2. Does any one know if a stable nucleus such as Ni58 could also emit a proton by a similar mechanism if that nucleus is energised sufficiently (perhaps by prior absorption a Neutron, Proton, gamma or electron capture)

        I’m wondering if we can explain the isotope ratio of Ni58 and the extra elements in the ash by this process.

        • Obvious

          There are more neutrons in there than you can shake a stick at. There are more than two elements in there. The analyses are partial, selective.

          • Ged

            Completely agreed. Really is much ado about nothing at this current point.

          • Obvious

            There is no proof that LAH is in there, although it may work OK anyways. Just that the ingredients are consistent with LAH by proportion. On purpose or for real, who knows?

          • Obvious

            Anyways, I have terrible internet where I am. Did I read right that the MFMP GS3 coils were binding?

          • Ged

            Specifically, Alan posted this on quantumheat in response to Ecco asking if Run 3 (when the thermal couple inputs were swapped) was usable due to some offset related to the swap (I don’t know full details about that):

            “It was the HUGnetLab inputs that were switched in the retest of 2 June
            (GS3-3), and the test confirmed that the DAQ system was working
            correctly. It also showed that significant error in the active TC data
            came from axial constraint of the heater coil.

            This is an important finding, because the unconstrained expansion of the coil is a key part of the GlowStick mechanical/thermal design, one that will be improved as a result of this test.

            The data may have utility beyond that, but the active temperature values
            have wide error bands and should not be used for comparison with the
            other runs.”

            I don’t have any knowledge about how this conclusion came to be, per se, but run 2 and run 4 line up almost exactly, so if anything was changed in run 4 it didn’t affect the heat to power calculations at least, by that point.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          Don’t kown if this adds any thing Stephen but it is a beautiful graphic slide set I use on occassion on isotope chain & ULM neutron source thoughts! http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-us-government-labs-reported-clearcut-neutron-capture-data-from-pf-cells-in-oct-1989-may-13-2015?utm_source=slideshow&utm_medium=ssemail&utm_campaign=upload_digest

          • Stephen

            Thanks Jim, I fully agree its a very nice presentation and very elegantly explains the role of Neutrons and the isotopes seen especially in the PD system thanks for this. Also I take Obvious’s and Ged’s point that there may be other elements and isotopes providing the required neutrons. I was wondering more if the new elements seen in the Parkhomov ash could be explained by some kind of Proton emission from excited Ni58, but I suppose if Neutron shuffling is occurring a more elegant and simple low energy solution is maybe that they are generated from Beta + emission or Electron Capture from Ni57 and Ni59 etc and the daughter elements.

            I suppose I should have raised this under the Parkhomov paper post rather than here. I apologise for that.

  • Stephen

    Hello Jim,

    Thanks for your comments and your encouragement.

    I understand that neutron absorption has a lot of advantages for LENR but the source of the required amount of neutrons to convert Ni58 to Ni62 is hard to find unless it is a sampling issue. I have a question more relating to Protons however that may explain part of the story and may be someone with a nuclear physics or engineering background understands better than me.

    I understand that certain unstable isotopes that are low in neutrons can emit protons. These lie along the proton drip line and these decay by beta delayed proton emmission that usually occurs after an initial beta + emission so we end up with a change in Z of -2. Does any one know if a stable nucleus such as Ni58 could also emit a proton by a similar mechanism if that nucleus is energised sufficiently (perhaps by prior absorption a Neutron, Proton, gamma or electron capture)

    I’m wondering if we can explain the isotope ratio of Ni58 and the extra elements in the ash by this process.

    • Obvious

      There are more neutrons in there than you can shake a stick at. There are more than two elements in there. The analyses are partial, selective.

      • Ged

        Completely agreed. Really is much ado about nothing at this current point.

        • Obvious

          There is no proof that LAH is in there, although it may work OK anyways. Just that the ingredients are consistent with LAH by proportion. On purpose or for real, who knows?

        • Obvious

          Anyways, I have terrible internet where I am. Did I read right that the MFMP GS3 coils were binding?

          • Ged

            Specifically, Alan posted this on quantumheat in response to Ecco asking if Run 3 (when the thermal couple inputs were swapped) was usable due to some offset related to the swap (I don’t know full details about that):

            “It was the HUGnetLab inputs that were switched in the retest of 2 June
            (GS3-3), and the test confirmed that the DAQ system was working
            correctly. It also showed that significant error in the active TC data
            came from axial constraint of the heater coil.

            This is an important finding, because the unconstrained expansion of the coil is a key part of the GlowStick mechanical/ther mal design, one that will be improved as a result of this test.

            The data may have utility beyond that, but the active temperature values
            have wide error bands and should not be used for comparison with the
            other runs.”

            I don’t have any knowledge about how this conclusion came to be, per se, but run 2 and run 4 line up almost exactly, so if anything was changed in run 4 it didn’t affect the heat to power calculations at least, by that point.

  • Mike Henderson

    Why was iron present in the fuel during the Lugano test? And why does the pressure plummet in some reactors but not others? Those questions might be related. For example, in Parkhomov’s reactor “the fuel mixture is in a container of thin stainless steel” and his reactor pressure was well below ambient. Perhaps the iron catalysed the Haber process in which molecular nitrogen and hydrogen dissociate to their atomic forms on an iron surface under high heat and pressure. In the industrial process, they go on to form ammonia. But in the presence of nickel, the atomic hydrogen could be rapidly absorbed into the FCC crystalline Ni.

    This hypothesis could easily be tested in a glowstick reactor: add a bit of rust to the fuel and see if the pressure goes negative.

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

    • Stephen Taylor

      @admin Frank, do you think it would be a good idea to start a GS3 summary thread? I am a little confused about what was learned and even uncertain what was observed. There were some measurement problems because of the coil bind or something and I’m not sure how to interpret the data at this point. Not sure where the discussion is happening. Any guidance will be appreciated.

      • Andre Blum

        yes, please!

      • Ged

        If there is a bind issue, all they must do is test with it fixed, and then test with it recreated and see how it differs–that’s the only way to quantify such things for sure.

        Alan’s wording makes it sound like it was something that happened in Run 3 in particular (the “paperclip” shape?), maybe having to do with when the reactor was bumped (that event that shifted the TC) and made the entire reactor on both sides start drawing way more power for the same heat compared to before the bump event?

        But yeah… we really need a summary thread, but I think we need to wait for more communication from MFMP; particularly what recreation tests are done to quantify events like the bump.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes I see. We can’t talk about summarizing until we get more information. Not finished yet.

          • Ged

            That’s my feeling, just since there are these testable unknowns like TC movings (despite being cemented) and coil binds. I’d rather see them quantified directly than leave it to speculation, as that won’t answer anyone’s questions and we’ll just be stuck debating hypotheticals. Too many variables in play while the fuel was presumed active and these events weren’t under direct intentional control.

          • Stephen Taylor

            I agree. Your input has been very helpful throughout.

          • ss dd

            I don’t know if this has been pointed out, but for the main run (run 1), active and null, we can see on Ged’s chart that for some given temperatures, the average power varies by about 30W. We don’t see that on the other runs probably because they had a faster ramp up.

            My understanding is that this variation is representative of a portion of experimental error. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to be able to quantify it?

            My statistics are quite rusty, but maybe one could take the data from the Null and active sides for a given temperature set point and compute a 95% confidence interval for power. Based on the result we can deduce what kind of COP is within or without experimental error.

            We can also look at Active Power – Null Power and maybe give a confidence interval for the measured COP.

            Does that make any sense? Maybe someone who is actually a scientist can elaborate

            Chart: https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg661%2F7306%2Fc1gw1V.png&key=k8H4sHw3Khn-7vjHm-Nbsw&w=800&h=262

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            IMHO looking at recent run without fuel & comparing temperature & power input it is more obvious greater LENR power was present & on a fresh fuel element even started generation at about 200 C well below melting point of metals around 600 C. Not sure how much solidification & remelt of subsequent test had an effect on the Ladies presence but she was there & on subsequent runs no less. just think about the non fueled run compared to first long duration powered run temperature differences, No? Like to hear your opinions! Was that the normal E Cat what we saw on fresh elements start to power? You know, the one for home heating Andrea worked on for so long & I missed the home depot deployment promised! Those UL lab guys can be real hard to deal with. Think Rossi just got tired of working with them & moved on. IMHO Jim

          • Stephen

            It may have already been noted but I disn’t see it. One difference between the initial run and the subsequent runs is that most of the excess heating did not start until after the temperature was maintained at a fixed level for some time. Initially around 600 deg C. In the subsequent runs the tempeature was always on a ramp. Is it possible that a steady thermal state is required to initialise the LENR?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data frorm slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think.

  • Mike Henderson

    Why was iron present in the fuel during the Lugano test? And why does the pressure plummet in some reactors but not others? Those questions might be related. For example, in Parkhomov’s reactor “the fuel mixture is in a container of thin stainless steel” and his reactor pressure was well below ambient. Perhaps the iron catalysed the Haber process in which molecular nitrogen and hydrogen dissociate to their atomic forms on an iron surface under high heat and pressure. In the industrial process, they go on to form ammonia. But in the presence of nickel, the atomic hydrogen could be rapidly absorbed into the FCC crystalline Ni.

    This hypothesis could easily be tested in a glowstick reactor: add a bit of rust to the fuel and see if the pressure goes negative.

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

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Mike with your help I think I can write the dynamics equations to predict how to control the replication with some input on decay times of products from lugano. I’ll try & mention this to Bob Greenyer & get Alan involved because we will need some test data frorm slight modifications ot power source freq content, I think.

  • Stephen

    Thanks Jim, its a very nice presentation and very elegantly explains the role of Neutrons and the isotopes seen especially in the PD system thanks for this. Also I take Obvious’s point that there may be other elements providing the required neutrons. I was wondering more if the new elements seen in the Parkhomov ash could be explained by some kind of Proton emission from excited Ni58, but I suppose if Neutron shuffling is occurring a more elegant and simple solution is maybe that they are generated from Beta + emission from Ni57 or Ni59 etc and the daughter elements.

    I suppose I should have raised this under the Parkhomov paper post rather than here. I apologise for that.

  • Stephen Taylor

    @admin Frank, do you think it would be a good idea to start a GS3 summary thread? I am a little confused about what was learned and even uncertain what was observed. There were some measurement problems because of the coil bind or something and I’m not sure how to interpret the data at this point. Not sure where the discussion is happening. Any guidance will be appreciated.

    • Andre Blum

      yes, please!

    • Ged

      If there is a bind issue, all they must do is test with it fixed, and then test with it recreated and see how it differs–that’s the only way to quantify such things for sure.

      Alan’s wording makes it sound like it was something that happened in Run 3 in particular (the “paperclip” shape?), maybe having to do with when the reactor was “bumped” (that event that shifted the TC) and made the entire reactor on both sides start drawing way more power for the same heat compared to before the bump event?

      But yeah… we really need a summary thread, but I think we need to wait for more communication from MFMP; particularly what recreation tests are done to quantify events like the bump.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Yes I see. We can’t talk about summarizing until we get more information. Not finished yet.

        • Ged

          That’s my feeling, just since there are these testable unknowns like TC movings (despite being cemented) and coil binds. I’d rather see them quantified directly than leave it to speculation, as that won’t answer anyone’s questions and we’ll just be stuck debating hypotheticals. Too many variables in play while the fuel was presumed active and these events weren’t under direct intentional control.

          • Stephen Taylor

            I agree. Your input has been very helpful throughout.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I think that is an excellent idea. Need to think of the best way to coordinate it. At the moment we use BaseCamp at the back end, but am considering Slack (google both). If there are those that would like to join a controls team – then I could start another basecamp thread.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Think me356 had some of the Parkhomov & lugano isotope information in his spread sheet, if I get time today I’ll look it up. It’s my wife’s birthday today!

  • ss dd

    I don’t know if this has been pointed out, but for the main run (run 1), active and null, we can see on Ged’s chart that for some given temperatures, the average power varies by about 30W. We don’t see that on the other runs probably because they had a faster ramp up.

    My understanding is that this variation is representative of a portion of experimental error. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to be able to quantify it?

    My statistics are quite rusty, but maybe one could take the data from the Null and active sides for a given temperature set point and compute a 95% confidence interval for power. Based on the result we can deduce what kind of COP is within or without experimental error.

    We can also look at Active Power – Null Power and maybe give a confidence interval for the measured COP.

    Does that make any sense? Maybe someone who is actually a scientist can elaborate

    Chart: https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg661%2F7306%2Fc1gw1V.png&key=k8H4sHw3Khn-7vjHm-Nbsw&w=800&h=262

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      IMHO looking at recent run without fuel & comparing temperature & power input it is more obvious greater LENR power was present & on a fresh fuel element even started generation at about 200 C well below melting point of metals around 600 C. Not sure how much solidification & remelt of subsequent test had an effect on the Ladies presence but she was there & on subsequent runs no less. just think about the non fueled run compared to first long duration powered run temperature differences, No? Like to hear your opinions! Was that the normal E Cat what we saw on fresh elements start to power? You know, the one for home heating Andrea worked on for so long & I missed the home depot deployment promised! Those UL lab guys can be real hard to deal with. Think Rossi just got tired of working with them & moved on. IMHO Jim

  • Stephen

    It may have already been noted but I didn’t see it. One difference between the initial run and the subsequent runs is that most of the excess heating did not start until after the temperature was maintained at a fixed level for some time. Initially around 600 deg C. In the subsequent runs the tempeature was always on a ramp. Is it possible that a steady thermal state is required to initialise the LENR?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Stephen some of the Home Depot version of E-Cat presently comes in at 200 C if one looks closely at GS3 test 1 temperature ramp up. Holds there gave us a good look at the LENR Lady winking at us there of that I am now sure. Comes in with another bang at about 600 C, No Steve?

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    I just read your critic of the Lugano effort. Have you seen anything in the MFMP tests where TCs, watt input calculations during runs showing excess LENR. I am sure it is there just looking at data from Lugano, me356 & Denis Vasilenkos tests. Having retired 15 years ago after spending all of my career in nuclear , fossil, & petrochemical plant simulation, testing & control analysis & post dynamic test evaluation it’s presence is obvious to me.

    I liked the PCE 830 watt inputs to fuel elements, current pulses shape & freq spectrum of TRIAC signal in Lugano and was surprised seeing your calculation dispute their results with optical temperature reading errors?

    Has anything you have seen to date or calculated changed your valued opinion? I think me356 is curently preparing a test using TCs but also optical temp as controller feedback. Would you touch base with him with your concerns, he should be able to clear up discrepancies a bit?

    During the past GS3 test I think TC measurement was low because of asymmetric location of LENR in fuel element as clearly seen in glow offset of center during the test & comparing it to uniform glow of non fueled element. Sure MFMP further testing will show us the truth.

    Like the PCE 830 instruments recordings & equipment specs. Anxiously awaiting your thought on the most interesting subject & appreciate your calculation efforts incites.

    These last test on fueled & unfueld elements clearly show temp diffenece during testing as did Denis’ test.

    Now me356 should give us a much clearer picture, No?

    Jim

    PS Glad to see you back in the bleachers!

  • Stephen

    If the glow stick is still available and the pressure continued to decrease at the same rate about 20 psi per day, it should be close to 0 by now. I wonder if another post test can be run ? If so perhaps we could also keep a steady temperature above Li melting point say 250 or so degrees for an hour or so and at 650 degrees for a couple of hours or so to see if LENR kicks in at steady state.

  • Stephen

    If the glow stick is still available and the pressure continued to decrease at the same rate about 20 psi per day, it should be close to 0 by now. I wonder if another post test can be run ? If so perhaps we could also keep a steady temperature above Li melting point say 250 or so degrees for an hour or so and at 650 degrees for a couple of hours or so to see if LENR kicks in at steady state.