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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Obvious

    Specular 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 [email protected]

    • 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…

  • 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/[email protected]/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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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

  • 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

    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
    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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 :/

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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. 🙂

  • 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.

  • Ged
  • 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

    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

  • 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.

  • 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

    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.

  • 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?

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • ss dd

    Looks like the data for the 4th rerun is here http://tinyurl.com/ngxez2l

    • Ged

      Analyzing. Will post up the graph soon.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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

    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.