Songsheng Jiang Answers Questions on LENR Replication Report

I have sent a number of questions to Songsheng Jiang who recently submitted the report titled “New Result of Anomalous Heat Production in Hydrogen-loaded Metals at High Temperature”. Here are some comments and responses.

We thank E-Cat World for publishing our post. The post is published only as a news report, not a scientific paper. Thus, some of the details are not involved. We did not expect such a high temperature, exceeded 1300 0C in this experiment firstly.  We used K-type thermocouples, which normally works at  around 1000 0C for a long period, and, sometimes may work around 1300 0C for a short period . We quitely understand that the readers worried about T2: was it damaged? Accurately, we was also concerned about this question.
The experiment curves on the screen of the computer (Fig. 6) were measured in 4-7 May, 2015. The curves of T1(red), T2 (green), T3 (blue), power voltage (cyan) and pressure (yellow) display on the screen. In the beginnig, the reaction chamber and fuel cell was heated up, and  T1 temperature was higher than T2 and T3. The temperatures of T2 and T3 was very close. When T3 temperature  rose to  about 1100 0C, it was damaged, but T2 temperature still rose rapidly to  over 1300 0C. When lasted about 10 minutes, power was shut down. Safe sustaining time lasted about 20 minutes. On the screen you can see that the maximum excess heat production can be repeated. In the most time, we keep T2 lower than 1200 0C, but above T1. The excess heat production  lasted for about 3 days. T2 and T1 have a good correlation with  power votage. The curve of damaged T3 was moved irregularly.  After examining the whole process, we considered that T2  worked well in the experiment period.

1 – Can you provide information about nickel powder and LiAlH4 used? For example, the manufacturer, purity, particle size, surface morphology, etc.

The nickel powder and LiAlH4 was all commercial products, produced in Beijing and Tianjin respectively. The size of metal nickel powder is from a few microns to tens of microns. We not used carbonyl nickel powder in this experiment. The purity is higher than 99.9%. Surface morphology is unknown.

2 – Do you have any SEM (scanning electron microscope) images of the nickel, LiAlH4, the mixed fuel, and the ash or used fuel?

We not do any SEM images in this experiment. We don’t think it is important for judging excess heat production. The surface structure may have changes at high temperature and loading hydrogen into nickel, but it cannot give a direct evidence of excess heat production.

3 – How did you process the nickel and LiAlH4 before placing it in the reactor? Can you detail how the fuel was loaded into the nickel reactor cell? Was the powder tightly packed or loose?

Original LiAlH4 is in a sealed metal bag, and the bag is in a sealed metal can. When we prepare the fuel, open the can and bag, then take out a certain amount of LiAlH4 by small chemical  spoon and then weight nickel powder and LiAlH4separately. The both were mixed homogeneously by the spoon on a clear paper. Then the mixed powders was put into the fuel cell and compressed by spoon tightly. For safety, the person working at the nickel  and LiAlH4 powders was wearing masks and gloves

5 – Do you think having low pressure in the cell is important in producing excess heat? If so, why?

I do not think having low pressure in the cell is important in producing excess heat. After first hydrogen-loaded process, excess heat has no significant correlation with pressure in our experiment (see fig. 6, yellow line).

6 – How much free space was in the reactor chamber compared to the fuel volume?

The total space volume of the reactor chamber was about 220 ml and the fuel volume was less than 35 ml.

7 – A hydrogen tank is mentioned in the report. Did you add hydrogen to the reactor from the tank?

Yes, the hydrogen bottle was used for sometime, for example, increasing pressure as test

8 – The report states that the reactor operated in self sustain mode for 20 minutes. However, the graph on page 11 seems to show the voltage (blue line) did not go to zero until 10:50 which would make the period of self sustain only about 10 minutes. Can you explain this?

The report does not show how much self sustaining time around 10:50 on 8 May. The self sustain mode for 20 minutes is in the first self sustain period on 5 May. This self sustaining process is not shown in Fig. 7a and 7b.

9 – When you examined the nickel cell afterwards, what condition was it and the fuel in? Was the nickel cell melted?

After experiment, the fuels were melted in the cell, but nickel box was not melted, it was well.

10 – Can you provide the raw data from this experiment?

Fig.7a is an automatic plot of data logger (recorder), in other words, it was raw data. The excel data can be exported for making other figures. I do not think it is necessary to provide raw data information.

11 – Did you control the experiment manually, or did you use any kind of controller?

We control the experiment manually right now.

12 – T1 is always constant in Fig 7b, but it would seem that because of heat transfer from T2 to T1, the T1 cannot be constant. Could T1 be damaged?

T1 was not constant in the whole experiment (see Fig. 6, red  and green curves ). T1 temperature may change while tuning input power. The constant T1 temperature may be correlated with very low pressure (much lower than 1 atmospheric pressure in the chamber). In this case, thermal conductivity in the chamber was very low. Also, the heat capacity of fuel cell was much small than the reaction chamber. The low thermal conductivity and large different heat capacity between a small fuel cell and large reaction chamber may make heat transfer from core cell to the T1 very slowly and lose a lot in the way, no reason to doubt T1 damaged.

13. On the cooling down … T2 is far below T1. But they should go together to an equilibrium due to the setup of the experiment. If there is no added heat, delta T1-T2 must lead to 0. But T2 is below T1 at ~11:30. Could T2 be damaged?

T1 was near the heater, T2 was on the cell wall, both were separated by reaction chamber. When no excess heat source, the T2 temperature is lower than T1. If enough excess heat is produced, T2 may be higher than T1 ( also see Fig. 6, red and green curves).

14. What kind of calibration was done for this experiment?

We was used the method similar to Focardi et al work in 1998 to calibrate factor of W/0C, it is about 1.5-2.5.

16. – What are your plans for your next experiment?

We have not made final plan how to do the next experiment, hope to improve the temperature measurement.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting

    • Ivone

      Bob, the most important thing to take away from this is No. 3 – the nickel processing or rather – the lack of it. All you need to to use is a spoon to mix the Ni and the LiAlH4. You don’t need to process the powder at all.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Good point, so – we just keep doing what we have been doing.

        • Ivone

          Whoops – Bob. What is the best ratio of Ni to LiAlH4?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Jiang has provided Jed Rothwell with a plot of the data shown in figure six.

            The original report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded

            Figure 6 clarified: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Jiang%20DATA%202015-May-04%20to%20May-07.pdf

            Included in this is the time span, confirming in detail what had been written before. This was three days, ending about an hour before the time span of Figure 7a.

            This is the apparent color assignment:
            T1: red
            T2: green
            T3: dark blue
            T4: purple
            Input voltage? Power? light blue
            Pressure: orange

            There is a unexplained inconsistency between this and Figure 7a. The maximum temperature shown in 7a is 1372 C, which is the calibration limit in tables for K thermocouples. The maximum temperature shown in this new Figure 6 is 1300 C. I suspect that the new scale placed by Jiang is incorrect.

          • Obvious

            I looked at the 1300 limit earlier. I counted several times to convince myself.
            I wonder if the data trace flatlines when data goes beyond the top or bottom abscissa line, although that seems odd.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The most likely cause of the flatline is that his thermocouple voltages are translated to temperature through a calibration table, and that table maxes out at 1372 (the available tables do just that). However, that, then, does not explain the 1300 C plotted value, unless the scale is wrong.

          • Obvious

            The pressure flatlines also, but not quite at the line in this case.

          • Obvious

            I wonder also if the look up tables being used go below zero. When my TCs go open, the logger displays 9999, not zero. Otherwise an open and a zero degree C calibration look the same.

          • JedRothwell

            Here is the same document translated to English with the channels defined:

            http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/JiangSfigure6data.pdf

            I think the scale is generated automatically. I do not think it is incorrect, because all of the channels in us match up from the end of graph 1 to the beginning of graph 2.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Extremely unlikely that there was an actual different data value there. Unless he is filtering and translating values above a limit, to the limit.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Bob, is it possible that I didn’t see excess heat on my first run until 1200C+ because I was using INCO 255 with too small of particle size? The excess didn’t appear until the nickel had begun to partially sinter forming particles in the “correct” range. On subsequent runs the excess appeared before 1200C (around 700C) because the particles were already in the correct range.

    • Sanjeev

      He said -The purity is higher than 99.9%. Can be just any ordinary pure Ni with no special ingredients.

      • Axil Axil

        How the DC current is supplied might be importaant. If the current is applied smothly by adjusting its aplitude, then there is minimal EMF produced. But id the DC current is applied is a square wave that goes from 0 to maximum in milliseconds, then a large EMF pulse would be produced.

        Rossi used a square wave in the Lagano test.

        • builditnow

          Fuel container: I notice that Songsheng Jiang and Parkhomov load their fuel into a metal container before inserting into their reactor. Parkhomov used stainless steel and Jiang used nickle containers. I don’t know if MFMP is using a fuel container. Perhaps the proximity of active nickel particles helps stimulate other nickel particle to become active.

          • Axil Axil

            DGT used nickel foam to hold their nickel particles. Such containers might provide an positively charged electrostatic bacjbone to enable all the microparticles to face the hydrogen gas on their negitivly charge sides.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I remember March 23, 1989 well. At that time, I had a job that was a few miles away from the tokomak (the center of the universe). I couldn’t even imagine what those hot fusion deities were thinking that day when some chemists (lower life forms) from Utah (the far end of the universe) announced that they had achieved fusion in a jar of heavy water. Perhaps pathologically jealous was a poor choice of words. On second thought, I think shell-shocked incontinence would be better.

            I think Prof. Robert T. Bush summed it up pretty well (after Nathan Lewis at 12:30 min.).

            P.S
            Apparently Caltech needs a better football team.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k

          • attaboy

            Yes, it was Nathan Lewis not Nathan Lee (apologies to the Nathan Lee’s of this world)

        • Omega Z

          Axil Axil

          Once upon a time(Very early on), Rossi responded to a post that DC voltage would work. At a latter time, his response changed & became DC voltage will not work. He has stood by that every since. Some think he is just being misleading, But I believe he has just gained a better understanding of LENR.

          LENR can be activated by heat, Thus, DC voltage or N-gas can be used. Even with Rossi’s proposed N-gas E-cat, Rossi still maintains AC voltage is necessary for control. Obviously, you can build a DC control panel. Perhaps when Rossi states AC voltage is necessary for control, He means just that as in to control & maintain SSM, AC voltage is necessary.

          So the question would be what is unique to AC verses DC voltage.
          Is it the simple dancing back & forth of the alternating electrons. Are the EMF’s different?

          And Obviously, you can use inverters & conditioners Etc to convert DC to AC, but the statement AC voltage is necessary for control would still be correct.. Even if a little misleading on Rossi’s part.

          • Axil Axil

            Parkhonov states that he needs current from a dirty triac to get LENR to work. What he does not tell us is what types of current that he has used that did not work.

    • Omega Z

      Note that Rossi has done tests without the ground connected. I believe either the 1st 3rd party test or the Lugano test stated that the ground was not connected. This was pointed out when some claimed Rossi may be secretly feeding power to the reactor with it. Obviously, not possible if not connected.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting, whilst they say it was NOT Carbonyl – they do not say what it was and have not shown verification of what it is visually. It is however in the same size domain as Parkhomov’s Ni.

    • Ivone

      Bob, the most important thing to take away from this is No. 3 – the nickel processing or rather – the lack of it. All you need to to use is a spoon to mix the Ni and the LiAlH4. You don’t need to process the powder at all.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Good point, so – we just keep doing what we have been doing.

        • Ivone

          Whoops – Bob. What is the best ratio of Ni to LiAlH4?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Bob, is it possible that I didn’t see excess heat on my first run until 1200C+ because I was using INCO 255 with too small of particle size? The excess didn’t appear until the nickel had begun to partially sinter forming particles in the “correct” range. On subsequent runs the excess appeared before 1200C (around 700C) because the particles were already in the correct range.

    • Robert Collins

      This is most likely their Lithium Hydride.

      http://tld0702.en.hisupplier.com/product-1484375-Lithium-hydride-LiAlH4-catalyst.html

      No idea on the Nickel.

    • Sanjeev

      He said -The purity is higher than 99.9%. Can be just any ordinary pure Ni with no special ingredients.

  • Thank you Frank.

    But another interesting question could have been to ask whether he (or his team) is planning to write a paper and publish it in a major journal 🙂
    And if this work was in order of the institute or just of private interest and only the facilities of the insitute where used.

    • mcloki

      Excess heat for three days pretty much should guarantee more funding of this effort.

      • We often thought this in the past…

        • mcloki

          So true.

  • Thank you Frank.

    But another interesting question could have been to ask whether he (or his team) is planning to write a paper about their work and publish it in a major journal 🙂

    And if this work was done by order of the institute or just by private interest and only the facilities of the insitute were used.

    • mcloki

      Excess heat for three days pretty much should guarantee more funding of this effort.

      • We often thought this in the past…

        • mcloki

          So true.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    More excellent information, especially the fact that they varied hydrogen pressure throughout the test and noticed no correlation between pressure and excess heat. This would imply that it is not necessary to boil the lithium to observe excess heat.

    • SG

      I wonder, however, that adding hydrogen directly compensates for any lack of boiling of the lithium. Not sure that we can draw conclusions from this test about lithium boiling being a factor or not.

  • bachcole

    Wonderful!!!! I will spread the word that there has been another replication. Hopefully this one didn’t need to copy and paste any data, or anything like that.

    • mwr1176

      Another replication not published in a peer reviewed journal though. I’m not sure if there’s a lack of urgency or if the journals won’t touch lenr or what. It would seem to me that there is enough evidence to prove that lenr is legitimate science, no?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        This has not been submitted to a journal. It’s a raw “report,” not a formal paper. It’s missing much we would want to see in a paper. I’d say that, so far, this is not ready to publish. It’s interesting, but not adequately explored.

        • Omega Z

          They appeared a little surprised by the results & high temp. Maybe this was just an attempt to see if there was any validity.
          Probably now they will revise their approach & perform in a manor that would provide enough info to try & publish.

  • Ivone

    The most important thing to take away from this is No. 3 – the nickel
    processing or rather – the lack of it. All you need to to use is a
    spoon to mix the Ni and the LiAlH4. You don’t need to process the
    powder at all.

  • Ivone

    The most important thing to take away from this is No. 3 – the nickel
    processing or rather – the lack of it. All you need to to use is a
    spoon to mix the Ni and the LiAlH4. You don’t need to process the
    powder at all.

  • Herb Gillis

    It might be of interest to approach LENR from the opposite direction. Instead of heating nickel powder with a precursor of lithium and hydrogen, why not form a molten alloy of nickel + lithium (under argon or helium) and then introduce hydrogen, subsequently allowing the temperature to fall slowly below the melting point of the alloy? Ideally; this would be done over an inert refractory solid material (powder) to increase the surface area. Its very interesting that the LENR reactions appear to occur near the melting point of nickel. The initiation of reaction may have something to do with the dynamics of the phase transition, and would therefore be expected to be optimal when both liquid and solid phases are present together.

    • Sanjeev

      Will the molten Ni absorb the H2 ?
      If the theory that H2 absorption into Ni lattice is a requirement for lenr is correct, then you may see no absorption and so no lenr.

      • Jouni

        How does the phase transition from solid to liquid in those dust-particles happen actually, could the collapsing of the Ni-lattice with H (perhaps H1) so near have some beculiar effects?

        • Sanjeev

          I have no idea.

        • Axil Axil

          See

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zurHSq4CB4

          for the thechology that produces nanoparticles. It transitions through a supercritical phase transition.

          • Obvious

            OK, found it on my pad, downloaded earlier. You have a good point. Why, do you think, the outside thermocouple drops like stone at the same time that the blue trace drops, before power is dropped?
            (My posts are in inverse time order, newest on top)

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Be careful. The blue trace in Figure 6 or in Figure 7a. In Figure 7a, the blue trace *is* the power. But I think Obvious is referring to Figure 6. The “outside thermocouple” is T4, the purple trace, It does, in fact, drop strongly at that point.

            This is fascinating, it led me to notice something else. T3 failed soon after hydrogen from the tank was introduced to the cell. The earlier hydrogen as was present at much lower temperatures. At that point, T4, which I would expect to be close to room temperature, which it is later, had reached about 150 C. That temperature rise was gradual, as would be expected. The insulation was heating up. The drop may be explained by cool hydrogen gas, but it seems sharper than I’d expect. The T4 rise, earlier, is not attributable to XP, this is from the heater, because in this period, T2/T3 remain below the T1 temperature.

            Now, the mystery. During the period when major XP is thought to be generated, T4 remains close to room temperature. At the end of the experiment, power off, it falls to 60 C., It had been running at about 75 C for days. 60 C is low for lab room temperature. I suppose they can wear sweaters.

            However, if the setup heated to roughly 150 C outside with only heater power, and if there was substantial XP, why didn’t T4 rise as before? The answer could be that there is major heat conduction out the end of the reactor, such that heat generated in the core is preferentially conducted out the end.

            However, in that first period, T2/T3 are only a little below T1. That difference represents heat conducted out the end. It’s not a lot.This doesn’t make sense to me. Something is not understood.

            One more point. In Figure 7a, The heater is turned up, then, immediately after, the hydrogen pressure is increased. The hydrogen pressure increase coincides with that last temperature rise in T1 and T2.

            Hydrogen pressure is not even during this experiment, it has deliberately been changed, so it’s a confounding variable. Basic principle of controlled experiment: reduce variables to a minimum, preferably a single variable.

          • Obvious

            I believe the traces are as they have been identified, now. I appologize to Mr. ( Dr..?) Jiang’s for my earlier comments.
            This is a good experiment. There is something funny with it, but it is funny in a good way.

          • Jouni

            Thanks, nice !

          • Jouni

            Wow, this was also nice info about supercritical fluids:
            https://youtu.be/yBRdBrnIlTQ

          • Axil Axil

            It is the cooling of the supercritical fluid that produces the nanoparticles. Applying constant heat to the reactor does not optemize nanoparticle production. A repeated cycle of heating and cooling is beat to maximuize nanoparticle production.

            In this test, the lithium hydride is the supercritical liquid.

  • Herb Gillis

    It might be of interest to approach LENR from the opposite direction. Instead of heating nickel powder with a precursor of lithium and hydrogen, why not form a molten alloy of nickel + lithium (under argon or helium) and then introduce hydrogen, subsequently allowing the temperature to fall slowly below the melting point of the alloy? Ideally; this would be done over an inert refractory solid material (powder) to increase the surface area. Its very interesting that the LENR reactions appear to occur near the melting point of nickel. The initiation of reaction may have something to do with the dynamics of the phase transition, and would therefore be expected to be optimal when both liquid and solid phases are present together.

    • Sanjeev

      Will the molten Ni absorb the H2 ?
      If the theory that H2 absorption into Ni lattice is a requirement for lenr is correct, then you may see no absorption and so no lenr.

      • Jouni Tuomela

        How does the phase transition from solid to liquid in those dust-particles happen actually, could the collapsing of the Ni-lattice with H (perhaps H1) so near have some beculiar effects?

        • Sanjeev

          I have no idea.

        • Axil Axil

          See

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zurHSq4CB4

          for the thechology that produces nanoparticles. Nanoparticle formation involves a transition through a supercritical phase transition.

          • Jouni Tuomela

            Thanks, nice !

          • Jouni Tuomela

            Wow, this was also nice info about supercritical fluids:
            https://youtu.be/yBRdBrnIlTQ

          • Axil Axil

            It is the cooling of the supercritical fluid that produces the nanoparticles. Applying constant heat to the reactor does not optemize nanoparticle production. A repeated cycle of heating and cooling is best to maximuize nanoparticle production.

            In this test, the lithium hydride is the supercritical liquid.

    • John Howard

      This Nickel Lithium alloy patent (c. 1965) is interesting but I’m not clear how much lithium he is able to get into the allow. It reads like .14% but I’m not sure. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3383204.pdf

    • clovis ray

      Hi Herb,i too think that, phase transition, is key

  • Sanjeev

    Excellent questions Frank, thanks for the interview. He considered ECW to release the news is a good indication that ECW has become an international hub for all lenr researchers and watchers.

    The answers provide some good clarifications and I can see why he believes in the results. Since the whole result hinges on whether T2 data is accurate or junk, it is strongly recommended to repeat the experiment with a type B thermocouple to eliminate all doubts for once and for all. It’d be even better to jump to calorimetry straight, as these guys seem to have no shortage of funds.(Guessing from the fine lab and equipment).

  • GiveADogABone

    Songsheng Jiang states that he used a ‘stabilised DC power supply’ but Parkhomov stated that a ‘dirty triac’ was needed. This needs resolving, as both seem to have achieved anomalous heat. We still do not know if it is the thermal heating, the AC harmonics or the RFI from the triac that matter, or quite possibly a combination for the purposes of stable operation over a longer period.

    I think we may need an experiment with separate systems for thermal (under PID control) and RFI (voltage/pulse width/frequency). It might be that you set the thermal control system target temperature and change reactor power levels with the RFI? What starts a new active nanosite, if no additional heating is required?

    http://www.electroschematics.com/4049/optimizing-the-triacs/
    Radio Frequency Interference (RFI)
    Unwanted [maybe highly desirable for us] RF generation is another major problem encountered in triac switching. Each time the triac is gated on its load, the load current switches sharply from zero to a high value depending on the load resistance and supply voltage. This switching action (in a few microseconds) generates a pulse of RF1. It is least when the triac is triggered close to 00 and 1800 zero crossing points but maximum in 90 0 wave form. This is because at 00 and 1800 zero crossing points, ‘switch on current’ is minimum.

    Switch on current is maximum at 900 producing very high RFI. The strength of RFI is proportional to the length of the wire connecting the load with the triac. The RFI is annoying particularly in lamp dimmer circuits and can be eliminated [or not for us] using a simple L-C- RFI suppression network.

    • Jouni Tuomela
      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        I find that discussion puzzling. The ground is “necessary for safety reasons.” But it was disconnected for that testing. What about during the month of the actual run? Did the ground remain disconnected? Rather than disconnecting it, current in the ground cable should have been measured. There should be very little. Normal GFI interrupters will shut down the circuit with significant ground current, which indicates a short.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I’m not convinced that Rossi ever said that a “dirty triac was needed.” What I’d expect him to have said was that it was enough, or that’s what he used. That triac noise creates a problem with instrumentation. So maybe that problem didn’t bite him. The Parkhomov reactors have a nice coil energized by that heater power, with a thermocouple such that the noise at the thermocouple noise may increase when the fuel sinters. Parkhomov had his famous data gaps because he was running his recording computer on battery. There is an obvious reason why he’d do that: to get away from the noise by allowing the whole system to float instead of being grounded. Dangerous, by the way. Quick and dirty.

      • Omega Z

        Note that Rossi has done tests without the ground connected. I believe either the 1st 3rd party test or the Lugano test stated that the ground was not connected. This was pointed out when some claimed Rossi may be secretly feeding power to the reactor with it. Obviously, not possible if not connected.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          The issue is not “ground,” per se, i.e., the building ground, though that’s a safety issue, the issue would be a common ground between the power supply and the control equipment, which includes the thermocouple inside the reactor. Parkhomov probably had a ground-referenced power supply, but pulled the ground for the recording computer to reduce noise.

    • Axil Axil

      How the DC current is supplied might be importaant. If the current is applied smothly by adjusting its aplitude, then there is minimal EMF produced. But id the DC current is applied is a square wave that goes from 0 to maximum in milliseconds, then a large EMF pulse would be produced.

      Rossi used a square wave in the Lagano test.

      • Omega Z

        Axil Axil

        Once upon a time(Very early on), Rossi responded to a post that DC voltage would work. At a latter time, his response changed & became DC voltage will not work. He has stood by that every since. Some think he is just being misleading, But I believe he has just gained a better understanding of LENR.

        LENR can be activated by heat, Thus, DC voltage or N-gas can be used. Even with Rossi’s proposed N-gas E-cat, Rossi still maintains AC voltage is necessary for control. Obviously, you can build a DC control panel. Perhaps when Rossi states AC voltage is necessary for control, He means just that as in to control & maintain SSM, AC voltage is necessary.

        So the question would be what is unique to AC verses DC voltage.
        Is it the simple dancing back & forth of the alternating electrons. Are the EMF’s different?

        And Obviously, you can use inverters & conditioners Etc to convert DC to AC, but the statement AC voltage is necessary for control would still be correct.. Even if a little misleading on Rossi’s part.

        • Axil Axil

          Parkhonov states that he needs current from a dirty triac to get LENR to work. What he does not tell us is what types of current that he has used that did not work.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It’s a bit frustrating to see “So-and-so stated,” when it’s not a quote. Parkhomov has not told us a lot. Googling “Parkhomov dirty triac” only finds this thread. However, “Parkhomov triac” turns up some posts. Parkhomov apparently uses triacs to control the power, no surprise. It’s the quickest and cheapest method. Looking for the idea that the triac was “necessary,” I find only a post by Axil Axil to the vortex-l mailing list. It’s common for Axil Axil to treat his own speculations as if they were fact.

            However, if Parkhomov says this somewhere, I’d love to see it. See, if the triac is necessary, the *most likely explanation* is that the triac noise is involved in creating a heat artifact. In Parkhomov’s more recent work, the fuel was inside a stainless steel cylinder, which would shield from electrical noise, perhaps. Magnetic fields remain a possibility, and it is magnetic fields that could be strongly affected by the core contents. The electrical noise can affect thermocouple readings (that could be a possible artifact.)

            Parkhomov did likely experience so much noise that he needed to unplug his recording computer, running it on battery. That is why he had gaps in the data that he filled in for appearance. Why did he do that? Some have written that he just wanted it to look good. I think he didn’t want to call attention to the noise problem. And he never did explain *why* he covered it up, so far.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Rossi never said that DC would not work for the heating. He said that his device — which would include the controller — was AC powered and that DC would not work for that. As has often happened with Rossi, people have taken accidental implications of his language, grab that ball, and run with it.

    • I don’t think from what I remember that parkhomov said dirty triac current was required…
      I think it was just speculation, not even his own…

      not having RF interference may close some artifact speculations with TC and power…

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    I cannot buy these results after the answer to the question 12. In this answer there is only a statement about a low thermal conductivity, but no any explanation how he could have this strange low thermal conductivity during at least 4 hours (from 2 till 6 hours time points in Fig.7b) in the stainless steel chamber surrounded by thermal insulation material in a such way that zero heat was transferred from T2 to T1. No trust to these results.

    • Valeriy Tarasov

      And, one more interesting question :). I would like to know how he has heated at all the fuel (which is close to T3, T2) using the heater (which is close to the T1) if he had such low thermal conductivity between T2 and T1? The heat transfer should work in both directions.

      • Obvious

        In my opinion the thermocouples are mixed up, the numbering system is incorrect. The hot one that failed is sitting against the heater, IMO. Compare the time from heater power increase to the temperature increase in the recording. Otherwise the reactor core is psychic or is agitated by a field that penetrates the device to the core.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Nice try. However, look at Figure 6. This shows the first days of the experiment. The red trace is T1, it is always above, for the first third of that figure, the other two traces. This is the thermocouple next to the heater. The other two track each other, cooler. This is one on the inside of the nickel box, the other on the outside. They are showing the box temperature. Then one fails. He says it is the one inside the box. That’s reasonable, that is the one we’d expect to be most likely to fail, from contact with that witch’s brew. But it doesn’t matter. Those two are actually redundant. Notice that when the anomaly appears, T3 (inside) shows a tiny bit of rise, then fails. T2 then starts its rise.

          If they are working, T2 and T3 show the direction of heat flow. Because this was operating a thermocouple, for days, beyond the temperatures where these things easily fail, this work must be repeated with, say, B thermocouples, at least for T2. I’d leave out the interior thermocouple (T3), And I’d find a way to seal what is now T2 so that hydrogen can’t get to it. And I’d much more carefully raise the temperature.

          Even shut down the heat if the interior thermocouple shows XP, find the heat level that keeps it under control. And then let it sit there for days, if possible, or longer. Wtih a B thermocouple, maybe this can get hotter. The melting point of nickel is the crucial temperature, 1455 C. That’s not a lot more than the K thermocouple “cutoff” — the meaning of which is unclear. I’ve found very little information about it. Charts stop at 1372 C, but why they do is not explained.

          • Sanjeev

            The T1/T2 show good response initially and later T1 shows no response. Even if there is vacuum in there, there should be radiated heat. What is your opinion about this strange behavior?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            There is not a vacuum in there. There is a hydrogen atmosphere. The reactor was initially activated, then the LiAlH4 was “degassed,” i.e., heated above the temperature at which it decomposes. T1 is outside the reactor, both T2 and T3 are inside. T3 is inside the nickel box, T2 is outside it, both are in contact with it, so they can be seen to track each other closely until the point where anomalous behavior appears.

            T3 fails at this point, T2 rises rapidly. That is consistent with major XP in the nickel box, but the problem is that it could also be explained by T2 compromise, and hydrogen does this to thermocouples. If I’m correct, stainless steel (the thermocouple sheathing) is not stable in the presence of hot hydrogen. Jiang needs B thermocouples, which are noble metal, and, in addition, steps should be taken to protect the thermocouples from invasive chemistry.

            T1 shows reasonable response to heater power. I don’t know what Sanjeev is referring to in saying “later T1 shows no response.”

          • Sanjeev

            T1 does respond to heater power, no doubts. What I meant is that it does not pick up the huge heat from the core. Like Valeriy noticed above, it should pick up some of it via radiation etc.
            Anyhow better to repeat it with a good TC.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            But it does appear to pick up heat. Figure 6. For most of the right half of the display, the input power is at least roughly constant.From the left of that interval, until the power is lowered, T1 temperature rises roughly 150 C. I find that difficult to understand without XP.

            Perhaps it is expected that T1 would rise more in temperature than it does. Not necessarily. Consider the following:

            The heater is on the outside of a ceramic cylinder, which is also surrounded by insulation (MgO). Inside the ceramic is a stainless steel cylinder, the “reactor chamber.” T1 is on the outer surface of reactor chamber.

            T1 is in ambient air. The reactor chamber was evacuated, but then is filled with hydrogen gas at various pressures.

            Inside the stainless steel cylinder is a nickel fuel container, and T2 is held in contact with the outside of the nickel container. T3 was inside the nickel container. As nickel conducts heat well, T2 and T3 should track closely, and they did, until T3 apparently failed.

            Now, suppose the nickel box is now a heat source. It is along the centerline of the steel reactor, which has a much larger surface area than the surface area of the nickel box. A temperature rise of the nickel box will correspond, as to energy flow (heat flux), to a smaller temperature rise of the steel container.

            The glass surface of a light bulb gets hot, but not anywhere near as hot as the filament at the center.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            First of all Fig.6 is only a good source for a speculation, not more. Author himself has as reference, in his abstract, only the Fig.7a,b, but not Fig.6. I am just repeating again – on Fig.7b T1 is constant from 2.00 till 6.00
            hours time points, while at this interval T2 was growing above the threshold. Why ?
            OK, next, even if we look at Fig 6. We will see that T1 is slowly growing at the constant power supply. This should be like this, analogously at constant power the temperature of water in a water boiler is growing, no surprise for people drinking tee. More interesting in this Fig.6 is a fact that there is no correlation of T1 and T2 (which should be if there heat transfer in both direction, which should be, otherwise no way to heat the fuel) while T1 is constantly slowly growing, the T2 is going up or down, and only there is one sort of correlation exactly at time point when the input power has a spike, the same spike we can see for T1 and T2. Again conclusion, all these results have no meaning for LENR and can be only explained by some systematic failure in the experimental setup.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The entire report is a “good source for speculation, not more.” What is listed in the abstract is not the report, just a brief summary. Jiang refers, in his explanations, above, to Figure 6. It’s not quite as clean as Figures 7a and 7b, but actually reveals much more about the experiment, which was for a total of over 100 hours.

            The issue of T1 shifting is real, however, it’s unclear. T2 is in direct contact with an alleged heat source T1 is separated from that, but is close to the heater and insulation, which are both heat sinks as well as, for the latter, a heat source.

            The 800 lb gorilla here is T4, the external thermocouple (on top of the reactor, outside the insulation). With only electrical heat, T4 went to about 200 C. T4 starts to collapse at the same time as anomalies appear with T3 and T2. It falls to maybe 80 C. It stays there, approximately, for the rest of the experiment. Jiang has cut back on input power. There is no sign in T4 of extra heat in the reactor.

            If there is XP, it is leaking out of the reactor through the open side, through the apparatus. It is not apparently heating the entire apparatus, which is what T4 would show.

            There was no XP until the failure of T3, which happened when power was at max and hydrogen was added. I conclude that hot hydrogen fried both thermocouples. T1 was protected, not explosed to hydrogen. It worked.

            Jiang has been, I think, misled by the apparent ability of the thermocouples to recover some normal operation after failing. He sees the cool-down behavior and thinks this validates T2 as working. But he’s not looking at all the evidence. T3 also seems to recover.

          • Obvious

            The red trace lags the green trace when power is increased, the time when all TC traces agree there is heat, figure 7a.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            7a is the last few hours of the experiment. Be very careful about interpreting noisy data, it is easy to project our expectations onto it.

            T2 is noisy. The power is increased at 10:00:00. Below is a close-up. There is a spike in T2, the green trace. If you look at Figure 7a, you will see that there are many such glitches in the previous 2.5 hours.

            The spike also seems to match the timing of T1, the thermocouple that is on the inside of the ceramic tube over which the heater is wound. Tthe upturn (including the glitch) is simultaneous between T1 and T2. That may be a coincidence, but T2 returns, however, to a level apparently just below T1.

            T2 does not clearly rise above T1, setting aside that noise, for roughly 10 minutes. This is chemistry, XP, or thermocouple failure, my assessment, possibly some combination.

          • Obvious

            Sorry, missed your earlier reply. I’m at the airport where they the Internet won’t let me download the PDF. I’ll go over it a bit more thoroughly once I get to the destination.

          • Obvious

            OK, found it on my pad, downloaded earlier. You have a good point. Why, do you think, the outside thermocouple drops like stone at the same time that the blue trace drops, before power is dropped?
            (My posts are in inverse time order, newest on top)

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Be careful. The blue trace in Figure 6 or in Figure 7a. In Figure 7a, the blue trace *is* the power. But I think Obvious is referring to Figure 6. The “outside thermocouple” is T4, the purple trace, It does, in fact, drop strongly at that point.

            This is fascinating, it led me to notice something else. T3 failed soon after hydrogen from the tank was introduced to the cell. The earlier hydrogen as was present at much lower temperatures. At that point, T4, which I would expect to be close to room temperature, which it is later, had reached about 150 C. That temperature rise was gradual, as would be expected. The insulation was heating up. The drop may be explained by cool hydrogen gas, but it seems sharper than I’d expect. The T4 rise, earlier, is not attributable to XP, this is from the heater, because in this period, T2/T3 remain below the T1 temperature.

            Now, the mystery. During the period when major XP is thought to be generated, T4 remains close to room temperature. At the end of the experiment, power off, it falls to 60 C., It had been running at about 75 C for days. 60 C is low for lab room temperature. I suppose they can wear sweaters.

            However, if the setup heated to roughly 150 C outside with only heater power, and if there was substantial XP, why didn’t T4 rise as before? The answer could be that there is major heat conduction out the end of the reactor, such that heat generated in the core is preferentially conducted out the end.

            However, in that first period, T2/T3 are only a little below T1. That difference represents heat conducted out the end. It’s not a lot.This doesn’t make sense to me. Something is not understood.

            One more point. In Figure 7a, The heater is turned up, then, immediately after, the hydrogen pressure is increased. The hydrogen pressure increase coincides with that last temperature rise in T1 and T2.

            Hydrogen pressure is not even during this experiment, it has deliberately been changed, so it’s a confounding variable. Basic principle of controlled experiment: reduce variables to a minimum, preferably a single variable.

          • Obvious

            I believe the traces are as they have been identified, now. I appologize to Mr. ( Dr..?) Jiang for my earlier comments.
            This is a good experiment. There is something funny with it, but it is funny in a good way.

          • uDevil

            Type K thermocouple leads are nickel alloys, chromel and alumel. The melting point of chromel seems to be in the range of 1400-1430 C.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            K thermocouples are calibrated to 1372 C. I have found no data on what happens above that temperature, and it’s hard to find operating limits, which I find weird. One may assume they operate at 1372 C., but not for how long. Thermocouples fail when operated long at high temperatures, even within the calibration range.

          • uDevil

            There are operating limit suggestions and reasons given on page 9 of this document: http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/sp250-35.pdf
            The recommendations are considerably below the upper end of the calibrated range. We seem to be on our own between 1372 C and the melting point, but I doubt anything drastic happens on exceeding 1372 C. The clipping of the traces at that temperature is probably due to the software used to convert thermocouple voltage to temperature and if the voltage data is retained, it could be extrapolated to higher temperatures. Of course, it would be better to use an more appropriate thermocouple type.

  • wonderboy

    I wonder if Rossie was aware of Songsheng’s replication efforts.

    Has any one been able to verify if Songsheng organization is a government run entity?

    • bachcole

      Aren’t they all government run entities?

      • JedRothwell

        Dr. Jiang sent me a better copy of the data shown in Fig. 6. Here is a copy translated into English, with the legend colors defined, and some notes added to the first graph. Two “printer friendly” versions of the slides are also included with the black background color removed.

        http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/JiangSfigure6data.pdf

  • wonderboy

    I wonder if Rossie was aware of Songsheng’s replication efforts.

    Has any one been able to verify if Songsheng organization is a government run entity?

    • bachcole

      Aren’t they all government run entities?

  • Ivone

    Lithium aluminium (British spelling) hydride is not a safe substance. It reacts even with the humidity in the lab, so you’ll need to dry out the room. Moreover it is a lattice, as is the Nickel. Commercial products may be contaminated, so you may need to be particular about your sourcing. It seems that 10 micron diameter pellets of Ni could be best, so try for a supplier who can give an accurate assay..

  • Ivone

    Lithium aluminium (British spelling) hydride is not a safe substance. It reacts even with the humidity in the lab, so you’ll need to dry out the room. Moreover it is a lattice, as is the Nickel. Commercial products may be contaminated, so you may need to be particular about your sourcing. It seems that 10 micron diameter pellets of Ni could be best, so try for a supplier who can give an accurate assay..

    • e-dog

      A possible substitute could be Titanium Hydride.. it starts releasing H2 at around 300C, Not exactly sure on that but I know its much safer to handle.. i put it on my cornflakes.
      What Im starting to get curious about is whether H2 gas can penetrate into the Nickel lattice or if H1 (atomic Hydrogen) is much better to start the LENR?
      Also, how important are the other ingredients the Lithium and Aluminium(Australian spelling) in helping the reaction? could they be catalysts or just so you dont have to use a hydrogen gas bottle? Could it release more H1 to react with the Nickel than say Titanium Hydride? I wonder if there was a H1 permeable membrane separating the Nickel and the hydride inside the reactor or something like that? I just think its strange if there is liquid metals flowing around our little nano Nickel crystals at 1300C … could that be putting out the fire?

  • Ivone
  • e-dog

    Thanks for the follow up Frank, also thanks to Dr Songsheng for the experiment and sharing it with us all. I hope you and your team are reading this! Please please keep up the great work, I hope you have more success you can share with us in the very near future, the world needs it!

    I have my fingers crossed that many more of the Open Science community start to see bigger and longer unexplained heat gains in their experiments, and I hope the ECW crew keeps the ideas coming about whats going on in these LENRs. Once again well done to everyone!

  • bachcole

    Amazing. I deleted all of my history, and now I can log into Disqus. (:->)

    • Bob Greenyer

      good to have you back

      • bachcole

        Funny thing is that I knew about this technique, but I guess either I forgot or I didn’t erase my history far enough back or both.

      • R101

        Yip, We missed that fine moustache 😉

        • bachcole

          I was almost out of business with my leaving comments in energy news articles.

    • attaboy

      I often find that getting on here to post is a real nuisance with all the hoops they make you jump thru and without giving a ready explanation as to how to post. At times I wonder if its worth it.

      • bachcole

        Yeah, when Disqus works well, it works well. When it gets fouled up, it can be very discouraging. And trying to get any help from the company is pointless.

  • Jouni
  • attaboy

    Oh great _ because of our foot dragging, China will beat us to commerciality.

    • Omega Z

      I don’t know…
      Do the Chinese have a 1Mw pilot plant in operation?

      It doesn’t matter who is working on this. There are certain steps & processes that have to follow. In case some haven’t noticed, China is fast becoming a regulated society. Their people are becoming sensitive to pollution & contaminates. The days of just throwing it out there and damn the consequences are ending.

      Note also that those involved, Such as Tom Darden, Michael McKubre along with others have stated that this technology will not be monopolized. It will be shared with the World. Even shared, It will take decades to transition all our Fossil Energy systems. It will require 10’s of Billions of such E-cat reactors & that doesn’t include all the necessities to make use of them. The E-cat being the much smaller portion.

      • TomR

        Omega Z, I think attaboy is talking about the domestic unit.

      • attaboy

        In any event, the USA should have had this commercialized a long time ago and be way ahead of the rest of the world. Those steps and processes you speak of should have been prioritized to happen very quickly. Sorry, but as a career R&D industrial chemist I know how these things should work.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, and we’ll never hear about this on the mainstream noise machine because our dysfunctional technocrats are too pathologically jealous to admit that they set LENR back a quarter of a century.

    • attaboy

      I still think that the fossil fuel bloc of blood sucking power brokers has managed to get control of the pace at which lenr will be brought to commerciality so as to give them time to eventually control this important new source of energy.

  • attaboy

    Oh great _ because of our foot dragging, China will beat us to commerciality.

    • Omega Z

      I don’t know…
      Do the Chinese have a 1Mw pilot plant in operation?

      It doesn’t matter who is working on this. There are certain steps & processes that have to follow. In case some haven’t noticed, China is fast becoming a regulated society. Their people are becoming sensitive to pollution & contaminates. The days of just throwing it out there and damn the consequences are ending.

      Note also that those involved, Such as Tom Darden, Michael McKubre along with others have stated that this technology will not be monopolized. It will be shared with the World. Even shared, It will take decades to transition all our Fossil Energy systems. It will require 10’s of Billions of such E-cat reactors & that doesn’t include all the necessities to make use of them. The E-cat being the much smaller portion.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Do we have a 1 MW plant in operation? I don’t. Do you? Darden has said little, by the way, he avoided the topic. “This technology” in his reference would be LENR in general.

      • TomR

        Omega Z, I think attaboy is talking about the domestic unit.

      • attaboy

        In any event, the USA should have had this commercialized a long time ago and be way ahead of the rest of the world. Those steps and processes you speak of should have been prioritized to happen very quickly. Sorry, but as a career R&D industrial chemist I know how these things should work.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, and we’ll never hear about this on the mainstream noise machine because our dysfunctional technocrats are too pathologically jealous to admit that they set LENR back a quarter of a century.

      • bachcole

        I doubt that 99% of them have even heard about it. If they don’t know about it, they can’t believe it. If they don’t believe it, they can’t be jealous of it. I think that you and a bunch of others here are getting ahead of reality when it comes to social cues and conspiracies.

        Scientists tell the news media that it is not real and silly. The news media tell everyone, including scientists that it is not real and silly. It is a vicious circle.

      • attaboy

        Good comment Alan, but those dysfunctional technocrats are a lot worse than jealous. And its good to see someone mention the 25 year period of dysfunction much of which is allowed to persist right up to the present.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah, there’s nothing more vicious than an upstaged prima donna scientist. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews

          • attaboy

            It seems, then, Alan, that you are aware of the vicious activity of Nathan Lee and his cronies back in 1989. I think that many of the commenters on here now in 2015, are not aware of the events that occurred at that time which set the stage for lenr (called cold fusion back then) being labeled junk science and relegated to the garbage bin.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I remember March 23, 1989 well. At that time, I had a job that was a few miles away from the tokomak (the center of the universe). I couldn’t even imagine what those hot fusion deities were thinking that day when some chemists (lower life forms) from Utah (the far end of the universe) announced that they had achieved fusion in a jar of heavy water. Perhaps pathologically jealous was a poor choice of words. On second thought, I think shell-shocked incontinence would be better.

            I think Prof. Robert T. Bush summed it up pretty well (after Nathan Lewis at 12:30 min.).

            P.S
            Apparently Caltech needs a better football team.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k

          • attaboy

            Yes, it was Nathan Lewis not Nathan Lee (apologies to the Nathan Lee’s of this world)

    • attaboy

      I still think that the fossil fuel bloc of blood sucking power brokers has managed to get control of the pace at which lenr will be brought to commerciality so as to give them time to eventually control this important new source of energy.

  • Sanjeev

    The T1/T2 show good response initially and later T1 shows no response. Even if there is vacuum in there, there should be radiation heat. What is your opinion about this strange behavior?

  • Axil Axil

    The Chinese reactor looks capable of holding the LENR reaction under control without blowout. Hydrogen leakage is controled with a feed from a hydrogen tank (like in the early days of Rossi’s reactors).

    https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/53tax4qtds4hx06f/images/5-28b63a0793.jpg

    • Sanjeev

      Little OT:
      Why was the blog post “Parkhomov Slides from Presentation on ICCF19 Show Lugano Team’s Work” deleted ?
      Was it on request or someone hacked into ecw and removed it ?

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev

        The whole thread is gone. In the follow thread I made a reference to the now missing thread.

        Referenced here near the bottom of the posts.
        “New Result of Anomalous Heat Production in Hydrogen-loaded Metals at High Temperature” New Report by Songsheng Jiang of the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE)

        Missing thread-
        “www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/29/parkhomov-slides-from-presentation-on-iccf19-show-lugano-teams-work/”
        Says- Whoops! page not found… 404 error

        I had pointed out a comparison- “Compare the Ni-H reactor in figure 5 of Songsheng Jiang’s report to what would be slide 12 from the Parkhomov Slides.(Slide 13 is the open chamber)”

        Perhaps Frank can enlighten us. Was he hacked or asked to remove it.

    • uDevil

      Those appear to be high vacuum components and flanges (stainless steel, expensive).They aren’t intended to be used at internal pressures above atmospheric. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t do it, of course. I would expect the electrical feedthrough to be the weak point.

  • Axil Axil

    The Chinese reactor looks capable of holding the LENR reaction under control without blowout. Hydrogen leakage is controled with a feed from a hydrogen tank (like in the early days of Rossi’s reactors).

    https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/53tax4qtds4hx06f/images/5-28b63a0793.jpg

    • uDevil

      Those appear to be high vacuum components and flanges (stainless steel, expensive).They aren’t intended to be used at internal pressures above atmospheric. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t do it, of course. I would expect the electrical feedthrough to be the weak point.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      That doesn’t control leakage, it replaces lost hydrogen. There is hydrogen lost, the system is leaky. As to blowout, Jiang is using twenty times as much fuel as Parkhomov. However, they are monitoring pressure, and pressure is not high. The problem of heater burnout is greatly lessened by the design, the heater is outside of an ceramic tube, everything else is inside that. So T1 is protected from hydrogen, and if there is XP, will not get so hot.

  • builditnow

    Fuel container: I notice that Songsheng Jiang and Parkhomov load their fuel into a metal container before inserting into their reactor. Parkhomov used stainless steel and Jiang used nickle containers. I don’t know if MFMP is using a fuel container. Perhaps the proximity of active nickel particles helps stimulate other nickel particle to become active.

    • Axil Axil

      DGT used nickel foam to hold their nickel particles. Such containers might provide an positively charged electrostatic bacjbone to enable all the microparticles to face the hydrogen gas on their negitivly charge sides.

      • clovis ray

        Agreed, i too have held that opinion, not exactly by using foam, but if surface area was one of the main objectives, then yes, this is why i dismissed the pressing of the NI into pellets, i was thinking more like wafers loosely configured in some way, so H2 could have access from directions, and by being very careful the fuel ingredients,one could reduce the likelihood, of hot spots, Axil, you said they used foam, i was thinking more like fog, or mist, vapor pushed into the reactor, like a fuel injector, on a car,

  • kdk

    …the things that happen with more open minds and data. Reincarnation and resurrection could be next, but ufos might be a lot easier to figure out.

    • Omega Z

      I don’t believe in Reincarnation.
      Way to many people claim to have been Julius Caesar and similar characters.
      Perhaps a shared Cosmic Consciousness?

      Not to keen on resurrection’s either. Sooner or later one has to sleep & those zombies want to eat your brain.

      • Andy Kumar

        Oz,
        A billion Hindus believe in reincarnation. I personally know a kid who remembered his previous life as a military officer, describing things that a three year old kid could not know or understand. As he grew older, his memory of previous life faded.
        I strongly believe that we all have memories of previous life as infants. We lose them as we begin to acquire language. Just like LENR, existence of reincarnation is hard to prove. Only once in a while, a kid retains the memories of previous life after he begins to speak.

      • kdk

        Are the circumstances of one’s life impossible to recreate such that they become essentially the same person, or quite close genetically and in environment, at least to the essence of who they are/were? Surely, since our body’s have created our experience and nature has created us, there is a way to recreate that… all of the neurons in your brain are physically there and doing things. With the same neuronal patterns, would a clone not be you in every way but without the same atoms? The people piloting craft pulling ridiculous g-forces (0-200k+ in a fraction of a second) in the sky know about this stuff. 2k+ years of jerking us around, or maybe there’s something to it?

        Memories can also be recreated physically and the neuronal firings that are that experience, in the same or similar pattern, in another body, if one has a map. One might go to sleep and simply wake up in an atomically different body. There are a lot more implications regarding how one experiences their own existence. Every day you die and are born again, in one sense anyway.

        • Jarea

          Does it make sense a growing population for the re incarnation idea? where all these new souls come from?. And if the population decrease why all these souls dissapears? are these souls reincarnated in insects? why? is there any karma there?. For me it makes no sense. Besides, what is the point if you can´t remember? A dead man is the man who can´t remember (Alzeihmer). So what is the point to be Julius Caesar and don´t remember every detail.

          • bachcole

            Jarea1, you are assuming that most souls are incarnate. What if the overwhelming majority of souls are discarnate, and the increase in our population is the result of many souls incarnating because something special is happening now.

            BTW, our population will be plateauing out at about 10 billion, and with LENR this should not be a problem.

          • kdk

            I’m talking about a form of reincarnation in which we or other beings take a more active role. To me, a soul is more like the accumulated experiences a person has, the continuation of their series of selves through time, moment to moment, day to day. In a very literal way, you won’t be the same person you are when you are old as when you are young… replaced cells, dead neurons etc. A life of remembering things every moment would be, to me, unpleasant. The idea of reincarnation is comforting to me because it means that, somewhere, there’s somebody having fun, and I don’t limit that to my, ie genetically same (at birth), reincarnation. You’d get reincarnated as an insect if all the thoughts/experiences you’ve had amount to that of an insect’s… ie, nobody… Dolly got reincarnated while her twin was alive. *important* A reincarnation might do more or less than the original. Reincarnation doesn’t necessarily mean resurrection. Given a long enough time span and similar starting conditions, I’d bet that reincarnations sometimes amount to resurrections, and do happen naturally. I’m talking about billions of years. Follow the line of cause-and-effect back far enough, and you get the “woah” experience.

            This is all beside my main point though which was: this isn’t pie in the sky stuff that happens all by itself, depending on your referential point/perspective, but it is truly technically feasible. See point about objects in sky doing incredible things, and reread your religious texts… maybe they’re not the far fetched hallucinations of madmen. Everything happens for a reason, so: why and how?

            Case in point: cold fusion, air planes, em-fields, electricity, etc.

            Karma would be your place on the waiting list, if/when there is one. Humans aren’t the only highly sentient beings that have been here. All of this crazy data of madmen building pyramids all over the world and seeing wheels of fire in the sky, talking to burning bushes, makes more sense through a different monocle. Occam’s Razor says: space aliens.

          • Andy Kumar

            “Does it make sense a growing population for the re incarnation idea? where all these new souls come from?. And if the population decrease why all these souls dissapears?”
            Just like virtual particles are created out of thin air. The new souls emerge from the “supreme soul” (commonly called God). They disappear by merging into the supreme soul. Supreme soul is essentially an ocean and we are rain drops!
            I think Rossi has tapped into the very fabric of space-time. By unwinding the coiled fabric a little, you can extract energy without radiation. Just freethinking speculations…

          • jousterusa

            The form your reincarnation takes, whether a human being or perhaps a cockroach, depends on the condition of your soul. If you have murdered someone, you won’t come back as a human, but if you have been kind most of the time, sought to be generous and tried to be good, you will come back as a human – a much different one than the one that died. If you know a person who died who qualifies, one day you may actually see that person in the eyes of another. I have seen my brother in a 3-year-old and an elderly friend of great humanity and generosity in the eyes of a 40-ish woman. I am not sure I’ll make it, as far many more people have been good to me than I have been good to; I have also mostly wasted great opportunities and gifts. Maybe I can come back as a deer! – I loved to run and jump.

      • nightcreature3

        Shared cosmic consciousness is an idea that resonates with many people. The experiences in our memories may be privately stored, but our minds could all be accessing a one-of-a-kind Consciousness Engine at some higher plane of existance.

        As for re-incarnation, there are sometimes repetitive patterns in the way a family tree develops. And childhood memories that appear to come from a previous life are hard to disregard, as are the very rare occurrences of psychic dreams later on in life. Sadly however, having strong evidence about re-incarnation isn’t very useful if you can’t access those many precious years of living experience. The only remaining value would be to give us some reassurance that our consciousness will survive our death, even it won’t learn anything new in the process.

  • Obvious

    Sorry, missed your earlier reply. I’m at the airport where they the Internet won’t let me download the PDF. I’ll go over it a bit more thoroughly once I get to the destination.

  • Sanjeev

    Little OT:
    Why was the blog post “Parkhomov Slides from Presentation on ICCF19 Show Lugano Team’s Work” deleted ?
    Was it on request or someone hacked into ecw and removed it ?

    • Omega Z

      Sanjeev

      The whole thread is gone. In the follow thread I made a reference to the now missing thread.

      Referenced here near the bottom of the posts.
      “New Result of Anomalous Heat Production in Hydrogen-loaded Metals at High Temperature” New Report by Songsheng Jiang of the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE)

      Missing thread-
      “www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/29/parkhomov-slides-from-presentation-on-iccf19-show-lugano-teams-work/”
      Says- Whoops! page not found… 404 error

      I had pointed out a comparison- “Compare the Ni-H reactor in figure 5 of Songsheng Jiang’s report to what would be slide 12 from the Parkhomov Slides.(Slide 13 is the open chamber)”

      Perhaps Frank can enlighten us. Was he hacked or asked to remove it.

  • Aphantee

    For any bilingual reader wants more information of Mr. Jiang, his name in Chinese is:

    蒋崧生

    • Alain Samoun
      • blanco69

        Has anyone else noticed that we tend only to hear about replication attempts now? In the past we’d get the odd update from Rossi but we’d also get some chat from what others are doing. I know that Sterling has ‘gone dark’ but even guys like Brillouin, Mark Dansie, Ruby Carat, Magnus Holm & the Hydrofusion team, Stremmenos, Ugo Abundo and the kids from the Lab, even Hadjichristos. Have these guys all stopped what they’re doing and are patiently waiting for the positive or negative warm results from the cheap water heater?
        There’s been a gradual errosion over the past year where the promise of a new age seems to be getting wattered down to headlines like “I might have spotted some excess heat somewhere”
        My question is “Have all these other players given up and is the possibilty of a new era of limitless energy not on the table at all?”

        • oceans

          Blanco you managed to miss the entire point of the efforts here and for your information Rossi already has it.

        • vokzzi V

          I think this is the calm before the storm. It is quiet from Lugano team too, but I do not think they sit and do nothing

          • Omega Z

            The Lugano team has went quiet as they have their own device in the works. We may here something from them by years end…

  • Aphantee

    For any bilingual reader wants more information of Mr. Jiang, his name in Chinese is:

    蒋崧生

  • I don’t think from what I remember that parkhomov said dirty triac current was required…
    I think it was just speculation, not even his own…

    not having RF interference may close some artifact speculations with TC and power…

  • Mariusz .

    Hi ECAT World Team
    Is it possible that You ask Mr Songsheng Jiang to make a very simple experiment based on prof. Bolotov from Russia works? Or is there someone that wants to do this himself? It’s about reducing radioactivity. A little sample of radioactiv element(with log beta decay) is neccessary and a strong neodim magnet. You close magnet to a sample for 24 hours and measure radioactivity again. There should be a 2 – 3 % drop in rad. level which is far more then normal decay. That would be an evidence that there is something wrong with standard atomic model 🙂

  • blanco69

    Has anyone else noticed that we tend only to hear about replication attempts now? In the past we’d get the odd update from Rossi but we’d also get some chat from what others are doing. I know that Sterling has ‘gone dark’ but even guys like Brillouin, Mark Dansie, Ruby Carat, Magnus Holm & the Hydrofusion team, Stremmenos, Ugo Abundo and the kids from the Lab, even Hadjichristos. Have these guys all stopped what they’re doing and are patiently waiting for the positive or negative warm results from the cheap water heater?
    There’s been a gradual errosion over the past year where the promise of a new age seems to be getting wattered down to headlines like “I might have spotted some excess heat somewhere”
    My question is “Have all these other players given up and is the possibilty of a new era of limitless energy not on the table at all?”

    • vokzzi V

      I think this is the calm before the storm. It is quiet from Lugano team too, but I do not think they sit and do nothing

      • Omega Z

        The Lugano team has went quiet as they have their own device in the works. We may here something from them by years end…

  • Sanjeev

    T1 does respond to heater power, no doubts. What I meant is that it does not pick up the huge heat from the core. Like Valeriy noticed above, it should pick up some of it via radiation etc.
    Anyhow better to repeat it with a good TC.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    First of all Fig.6 is only a good source for a speculation, not more. Author himself has as reference, in his abstract, only the Fig.7a,b, but not Fig.6. I am just repeating again – on Fig.7b T1 is constant from 2.00 till 6.00
    hours time points, while at this interval T2 was growing above the threshold. Why ?
    OK, next, even if we look at Fig 6. We will see that T1 is slowly growing at the constant power supply. This should be like this, analogously at constant power the temperature of water in a water boiler is growing, no surprise for people drinking tee. More interesting in this Fig.6 is a fact that there is no correlation of T1 and T2 (which should be if there heat transfer in both direction, which should be, otherwise no way to heat the fuel) while T1 is constantly slowly growing, the T2 is going up or down, and only there is one sort of correlation exactly at time point when the input power has a spike, the same spike we can see for T1 and T2. Again conclusion, all these results have no meaning for LENR and can be only explained by some systematic failure in the experimental setup.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, there’s nothing more vicious than an upstaged prima donna scientist. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews

  • jousterusa

    I feel this was a responsive and substantive set of replies to some excellent questions. But of much greater significance is the fact that the Chinese are taking LENR so very seriously and have produced a replication that the science establishment cannot easily ignore. It adds a great deal of substance to your earlier reports of a new industrial park near Beijing where the E-Cat will be manufactured. In light of the combination of Industrial Heat with several other firms (“Report: Italian Technology Company TSEM to Collaborate with MIT, Texas Tech University and Industrial Heat in the US”) the whole thing takes on the air of an impending energy revolution wrought by Andrea Rossi that will explode in a a global way quite soon. It’s ironic that MIT, which falsely denounced the first Pons-Fleischmann work, is now exploiting those very ideas. Let’s hope Hagelstein and Schwartz are at the forefront of the MIT role.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This is naive. First of all, “the Chinese” have long taken LENR seriously. Chinese researchers always show up at conferences on LENR.

      Secondly, this report was quickly issued without review. Jiang saw some results that appeared promising to him. The work is not ready for serious review, he has not explored, experimentally or analytically, a number of major issues. He is clearly a competent scientist, so I personally expect him to do this. His answers here appear straightforward and forthright to me. But he wasn’t asked the necessary questions. That happens all the time.

      The report about TSEM, MIT, etc., is the kind of sketchy report that we have been seeing much of in recent years, with the Rossi affair. It is based on a single sentence in an interview where it was not the major focus. It is about plans. There may or may not be an actual agreement in place. It’s very unlikely that “MIT” would be a part of a cold fusion consortium. Peter Hagelstein may be involved, that’s *very* reasonable.

      By the way, for a decent interpretation of this experiment, the raw data is necessary. The compressed time scale of the plots may be creating misleading appearances. For example, T2 appears to be varying wildly, but how quickly are those shifts taking place? Raw data would show. It is very difficult to see the changes in input power, because of how they are plotted, confined to a bottom strip of the figures. Again, raw data would show that.

      Artifact in cold fusion experiments has a habit of hiding in the evidence we don’t look at first, because nobody thinks it is important . This work deserves serious *study*, not just enthusiastic “It’s all over now, the skeptics will hid in shame.”

      That hasn’t worked for 25 years, why would we think it would start to work now? Okay, new faces, people who have no long experience with cold fusion and all the ups and downs of it. Huizenga called cold fusion the “Scientific Fiasco of the Century,” and that was an understatement. There have been drastic errors on all sides.

      It is time to get rigorous, to do what should have been done 25 years ago, basic research that nails down the effects. We do know what to do, and I’ll be travelling the US this month and the yes to meet with researchers. We will get it done.

      This is science, not rumor.

  • jousterusa

    I feel this was a responsive and substantive set of replies to some excellent questions. But of much greater significance is the fact that the Chinese are taking LENR so very seriously and have produced a replication that the science establishment cannot easily ignore. It adds a great deal of substance to your earlier reports of a new industrial park near Beijing where the E-Cat will be manufactured. In light of the combination of Industrial Heat with several other firms (“Report: Italian Technology Company TSEM to Collaborate with MIT, Texas Tech University and Industrial Heat in the US”) the whole thing takes on the air of an impending energy revolution wrought by Andrea Rossi that will explode in a a global way quite soon. It’s ironic that MIT, which falsely denounced the first Pons-Fleischmann work, is now exploiting those very ideas. Let’s hope Hagelstein and Schwartz are at the forefront of the MIT role.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This is naive. First of all, “the Chinese” have long taken LENR seriously. Chinese researchers always show up at conferences on LENR.

      Secondly, this report was quickly issued without review. Jiang saw some results that appeared promising to him. The work is not ready for serious review, he has not explored, experimentally or analytically, a number of major issues. He is clearly a competent scientist, so I personally expect him to do this. His answers here appear straightforward and forthright to me. But he wasn’t asked the necessary questions. That happens all the time.

      The report about TSEM, MIT, etc., is the kind of sketchy report that we have been seeing much of in recent years, with the Rossi affair. It is based on a single sentence in an interview where it was not the major focus. It is about plans. There may or may not be an actual agreement in place. It’s very unlikely that “MIT” would be a part of a cold fusion consortium. Peter Hagelstein may be involved, that’s *very* reasonable.

      By the way, for a decent interpretation of this experiment, the raw data is necessary. The compressed time scale of the plots may be creating misleading appearances. For example, T2 appears to be varying wildly, but how quickly are those shifts taking place? Raw data would show. It is very difficult to see the changes in input power, because of how they are plotted, confined to a bottom strip of the figures. Again, raw data would show that.

      Artifact in cold fusion experiments has a habit of hiding in the evidence we don’t look at first, because nobody thinks it is important . This work deserves serious *study*, not just enthusiastic “It’s all over now, the skeptics will hid in shame.”

      That hasn’t worked for 25 years, why would we think it would start to work now? Okay, new faces, people who have no long experience with cold fusion and all the ups and downs of it. Huizenga called cold fusion the “Scientific Fiasco of the Century,” and that was an understatement. There have been drastic errors on all sides.

      It is time to get rigorous, to do what should have been done 25 years ago, basic research that nails down the effects. We do know what to do, and I’ll be travelling the US this month and the yes to meet with researchers. We will get it done.

      This is science, not rumor.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jiang has provided Jed Rothwell with a plot of the data shown in figure six.

    The original report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded

    Figure 6 clarified: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Jiang%20DATA%202015-May-04%20to%20May-07.pdf

    Included in this is the time span, confirming in detail what had been written before. This was three days, ending about an hour before the time span of Figure 7a.

    [edit: Figure 7a is now also shown and the gap is now about 31 minutes.)

    This is the apparent color assignment:
    T1: red
    T2: green
    T3: dark blue
    T4: purple
    Input voltage? Power? light blue
    Pressure: orange [pink on the second chart]

    There is a unexplained inconsistency between this and Figure 7a. The maximum temperature shown in 7a is 1372 C, which is the calibration limit in tables for K thermocouples. The maximum temperature shown in this new Figure 6 is 1300 C. I suspect that the new scale placed by Jiang is incorrect.

    • Obvious

      I looked at the 1300 limit earlier. I counted several times to convince myself.
      I wonder if the data trace flatlines when data goes beyond the top or bottom abscissa line, although that seems odd.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The most likely cause of the flatline is that his thermocouple voltages are translated to temperature through a calibration table, and that table maxes out at 1372 (the available tables do just that). However, that, then, does not explain the 1300 C plotted value, unless the scale is wrong.

        • Obvious

          The pressure flatlines also, but not quite at the line in this case.

        • Obvious

          I wonder also if the look up tables being used go below zero. When my TCs go open, the logger displays 9999, not zero. Otherwise an open and a zero degree C calibration look the same.

    • JedRothwell

      Here is the same document translated to English with the channels defined:

      http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/JiangSfigure6data.pdf

      I think the scale is generated automatically. I do not think it is incorrect, because all of the channels in use match up from the end of graph 1 to the beginning of graph 2.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Extremely unlikely that there was an actual different data value there. Unless he is filtering and translating values above a limit, to the limit. In figure 7b of the report, he is explicit: “T2 over 1372 C. (Upper limit of the K-type thermcouple T2).”

  • quax

    Refreshingly candid and straightforward in answering the questions. Let’s hope there will be a follow up experiment with instrumentation suitable for the high temperature over the full length of the experiment. Would be nice if things would finally converge to a point where we get a clear experimental protocol for replication.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    And today Jed Rothwell reported that Jiang turned on a fan to cool the assembly. That is the fall in temperature seen in T4. In other words, the heat balance changed during the experiment. So with irregular introduction of hydrogen, variations in input power up and down, thermocouple failure (one or both that were exposed to hydrogen, when the hydrogen was introduced at high temperature), and a shift in heat flow, this thing is a mess.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    And today Jed Rothwell reported that Jiang turned on a fan to cool the assembly. That is the fall in temperature seen in T4. In other words, the heat balance changed during the experiment. So with irregular introduction of hydrogen, variations in input power up and down, thermocouple failure (one or both that were exposed to hydrogen, when the hydrogen was introduced at high temperature), and a shift in heat flow, this thing is a mess.

  • Dave

    This is not a very precise experiment but the structure does exhibit interesting possibilities. One thing to note is that the inner core contained within the nickel rectangle will experience a fairly large thermal resistance for any heat energy generated there as it travels toward the ambient. This is an ideal situation if you wish to increase the magnitude of the positive thermal feedback within the system.

    In that case, heat power released by the expected LENR reaction will cause a large increase to the internal temperature of the core for a modest amount of heat flux. The TC located on the surface of the fuel rectangle is tighly coupled to the core due to the conductivity of the nickel container and should show any elevated core temperature.

    A relatively large increase in core temperature will generate a correspondingly large increase in the amount of LENR, and hence heat flux produced. The net result is that substantial positive feedback will be demonstrated by the design. Most of the replications seen so far are not constructed in such a manner so as to enhance the thermal resistance from core to ambient and consequently suffer from a low magnitude of positive feedback. This difference between the designs could explain why this particular one seems to be so active by comparison.

    Once the magnitude of the positive feedback exceeds a critical amount, it takes control and the temperature increases rapidly. Why this device does not continue to thermally self destruct is a good question. We must assume that another process must be present to prevent that from occurring. Could this be electromagnetic?

  • JedRothwell

    Dr. Jiang sent me a better copy of the data shown in Fig. 6. Here is a copy translated into English, with the legend colors defined, and some notes added to the first graph. Two “printer friendly” versions of the slides are also included with the black background color removed.

    http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/JiangSfigure6data.pdf

  • oarmas
  • Dave

    I have read just about everything available concerning the structure of the device and I have not seen a reference as to whether or not the nickel fuel container is closed and air tight. My belief is that hydrogen generated within the nickel holder is free to escape into the larger reactor chamber.

    Does anyone know the answer to this question?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      It is obviously not closed to the reactor chamber. When it is heated to the breakdown temperature for LiAlH4, the pressure in the reactor chamber rises dramatically.Then it goes down, either from leakage or absorption by the nickel. Then Jiang adds more hydrogen. It would be useless to add hydrogen to the reactor if it did not reach the nickel.

      That hydrogen atmosphere is a problem. Hot hydrogen is murder on K thermocouples. T2 and T3 were exposed to it.

      • Does PtRh (type B?) thermocouple resist better to Hydrogen ?
        what should be used instead ?

        is there solution to protect TC from hydrogen (shielding? chemistry?)

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    It is obviously not closed to the reactor chamber. When it is heated to the breakdown temperature for LiAlH4, the pressure in the reactor chamber rises dramatically.Then it goes down, either from leakage or absorption by the nickel. Then Jiang adds more hydrogen. It would be useless to add hydrogen to the reactor if it did not reach the nickel.

    That hydrogen atmosphere is a problem. Hot hydrogen is murder on K thermocouples. T2 and T3 were exposed to it.

    • Does PtRh (type B?) thermocouple resist better to Hydrogen ?
      what should be used instead ?

      is there solution to protect TC from hydrogen (shielding? chemistry?)