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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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..

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 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

    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?)