MFMP Glowstick 3 Test — Was there Excess Heat? (Update: MFMP Provides Interim Analysis)

Thanks to Stephen Taylor for this suggestion:

@admin Frank, do you think it would be a good idea to start a GS3 summary thread? I am a little confused about what was learned and even uncertain what was observed. There were some measurement problems because of the coil bind or something and I’m not sure how to interpret the data at this point. Not sure where the discussion is happening. Any guidance will be appreciated.

I think Stephen’s idea is good — we’ve had lots of discussion, but now all the testing has finished I’m wondering if we are in a position to come to any firm conclusions. I have to confess that I am not sure what to think regarding the testing. There did seem to be some data that indicated that excess heat was measured in the test — but there has also been statements from members of the MFMP that cast doubt on that.

I don’t feel qualified to make an kind of firm evaluation on this test, so this thread is for you to put forward your best thinking on the topic. Thanks in advance!

UPDATE (June 13, 2015)

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project have posted the following analysis of their recent Glowstick 3 test on their Facebook page.

Did the *GlowStick* GS3 see excess heat?
[]=Project Dog Bone=[]
Alan has been analysing the data from the calibration, active and subsequent re-heat runs and whilst it appears at that some of the observed departure from calibration can be explained by wire binding and movement – not all can be.
See the attached adjusted graph published for discussion (GS3 Active Run 27 May 2015 – with correction for heater coil misalignment).
For all the data and Notes, block diagram, schematics, bill of materials for the experiment go here
https://goo.gl/9P85Gs

Jack Cole commented on the experiment also:

“The declining and increasing power above the Parkhomov zone make it less likely that moved or constricted coils are the explanation. The coil would have to be shifting about to create an effect like that.”
Then he compares the recent family of GS3 charts produced by followers Sanjeev, Ged and Ecco (see graph with blue arrows) that have a similar behaviour to one of his own experiments he suspected of producing excess heat (see attached graph)

“Here is a chart from an experiment I did that showed apparent excess heat.”
Notice the similarities…

It is too premature to call anything, a post tear-down calibration may help, the real clincher would be evidence of elemental or isotopic ratio changes in the ash. Here is what the plan is in that direction in Alan’s own words:

“I’ll be opening the GS3 reactor on Monday after checking the residual pressure. Then I’ll pump it down to vacuum and leave it for a while to de-load the hydrogen. After reinstalling the core thermocouple I’ll do a final calibration run. These steps will be done with the reactor in place on the test stand, without disturbing the thermocouples or heater coil.
As a final step I’ll remove the fuel and divide it into samples for isotopic analysis.”

Whatever the outcome, we have to thank Alan and Skip for a job well done.

As ever, to discuss this more fully, head over to our main site here

http://goo.gl/AS8CuL

mfmp1

mfmp1

mfmp3

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sorry – been ill past few days.

    There is on-going discussion on the main site experiment thread.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/477-glowstick#!Cal_710w_720C

    • Ged

      Get well quick, Bob!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks

  • Ged

    Well, we start with the basics.

    – Control 1: We have the control run, were the reactor was unfueled and just had the ceramic rod in it. This is the main baseline to measure against.

    – Run 1: Then we have the first fueled run, which showed a change in state behavior after sitting at 600 C for awhile. It’s important to note it was already at 600 C for some time before the change in behavior caused the crossover between null and active and the active diverging away.

    – Run 2: In this run, the reactor is brought to 600 C but no change in behavior occurs, no divergence away from the power to temperature relationship curve as seen in run 1.

    – Run 3: The input channels for the TCs are swapped to test the input board. It is confirmed that data acquisition is working correctly. This run shows weird behavior after a physical event moves the cemented on TC, where both active and null cells suddenly require a lot more power to heat than they did at first. Not much more is known about this run except it is advised not to use for comparisons due to the swap and whatever other events went on with it, and its complicated data acquisition in regards to the swap.

    – Run 4: Something is done to the coil before this run, so I have heard. Despite this, Run 4 tracks almost flawlessly with Run 2 when comparing temperature to power. No behavioral change occurs in this run as it did in Run 1.

    So, that’s all I have seen so far. We are looking forward to a bookend calibration, as well as any re-creation tests for suspected physical changes to quantify what if any affect they had so they can be normalized out of the Run 1 data.

    Run 1 remains the only clear sign of apparent excess heat, though what the cause of that is is still being investigated: it could be physical changes and measurement limitations, or it could be LENR or something else.

    • Ged

      And just so we have this on hand for easy reference:

      http://imageshack.com/a/img661/7306/c1gw1V.png

      Run 3 not included as advised not to use it for comparisons. Note how all but Run 1’s active cell converge to similar temps at high powers.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        What was the difference between Control-0 and Control-active? Alumina rod in tube 0 and air in tube 1?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I just notice that you mentioned it above, sorry. Then it seems clear that the filling has a significant influence.

          • Ged

            Indeed. I think the lack of anything is why the active is lower at mid level power than the null in the control (less thermal mass in this more conduction dominated temperature zone, so taking more apparent power to maintain heat relative to how it’s measured? Or maybe like, the coils on the opposite side of the TC are less “visible” to the TC as there isn’t as much conduction mass to move their heating from one side to the other?), though this disappears at high temperatures as one would expect. Nickel and the ceramic rod seem to have the same effect though as Run 4 shows, and at high powers/temps everything converges on the relationship curve, as it should if there is no reaction.

        • Ged

          I believe so given the parts and sizes. Have to verify with Alan.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Nothing run long or slow enough to get as much LENR power generated is my take as first GS3 test, No Ged? Seems with that base line control 1 real run generated even more power as I suspected. How is actual power vs temperature fitting into this thinking here Ged – that’s certainly independent more or less & shows the positive trend of LENRs presence, No? Isn’t green minus blue curve indicative of even more LENR power as I suspect from asymmetric power glow during original test, etc. I think LENR energy may be coming in at 200 C? What’s your thinking Ged?

        • Ged

          Well, I think whole device offsets can be ignored. That’s the beauty of an internal control (the null side), as if the entire thing gets offset by say breaking in the heater coils, that can be compensated for. The control 1 active cell I believe is a bit low due to being empty, so less conduction from the coils on the opposite side of the tube up to the TC at mid level powers (this goes away at high temps once radiation takes over), so really the control 1 null cell with its ceramic filler rod is the one to look at. To be fair, this is a very conservative way of looking at it, but I think it is also the most accurate given the current data we have.

          When the active cell breaks away from the null cell spontaneously in Run 1, that is where one can start measuring a signal, I believe. There is some cross talk from the hotter active cell to heat the cooler null, and Mike Henderson did some great calculations in the other thread using Run 4 as a calibration base for that Run 1 breakaway, to calculate the apparent excess seen and COP. That’s the best, conservative estimate I can think of.

  • ss dd

    It’s only been 5 days since the end of the main run and maybe 2 days since the last re-run. Alan still has to run another calibration run after removing the fuel. I think people are expecting immediate conclusions, but this takes a while. I think the MFMP said it would take a week to interpret results; it might be a bit longer because of the need to run more tests.

    So far there have been open discussions and it can be confusing for those who haven’t been following this closely, because those are incremental discussions and not a report.

    My prediction? MFMP will be cautious with their result not reach a conclusion on whether this is LENR or experimental error. We need more experiments that show excess heat well outside of experimental error before we start getting too excited.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes it will clearly take time to see her, but she is with you. I enjoy your thorough look for the evidence.

  • Gerard McEk

    I would have thought that MFMP would make a proper summary of these tests with a conclusion. To me (from the side-line with only half of the required information) it looked as if there was some excess heat, looking to the temeratures allone. Also the power usage (based on the the voltage) may have given some indication that excess heat was produced (but I have no idea what the resistance did and if the voltmeter was able to capture the the voltage properly during the varying and unstable control movements). I leave it to MFMP to judge.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      It is there Gerard & Alan is right to be cautious. Time will show him her presence. Just too much energy to stay absolutely hidden for long. Jim

  • Ed Pell

    Before the internet science was done to a conclusion before publishing one definitive paper. Now we get immediate results. We have to learn it is a marathon not a sprint. Alan is one of the few to show level headed patience in the face of this new medium. It may take years to reach a conclusion. Enjoy the ride.

  • Asterix

    Here’s a thought-

    Instead of a blank run (no material) as the reference sample, why not make up a similar quantity of the hydride and a material with a nearly identical specific heat and division as the “dummy” charge? Iron would be a good candidate and would present more of an apples-to-apples test protocol. Sub-micron size (colloidal) iron is inexpensive and readily available.

    The alternative would be an isotopic form of nickel that was known to be unreactive–however, I suspect that would be cost-prohibitive.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I have thought before that another fuel not thought to be LENR-productive would be a good dummy.

  • Asterix

    Here’s a thought-

    Instead of a blank run (no material) as the reference sample, why not make up a similar quantity of the hydride and a material with a nearly identical specific heat and division as the “dummy” charge? Iron would be a good candidate and would present more of an apples-to-apples test protocol. Sub-micron size (colloidal) iron is inexpensive and readily available.

    The alternative would be an isotopic form of nickel that was known to be unreactive–however, I suspect that would be cost-prohibitive.

  • Stephen Taylor

    I read that Alan might be considering a small increase in the diameter of the reactor tube in a future test. Perhaps this means the fuel charge diameter is increased. Such an increase may improve performance. Also, a small increase in fuel mass, perhaps .8g or even 1g would be potential candidates for further study. Wish we could run hundreds of trials in the next few seconds or so. Seriously though, thought needs to be given to how we might access more and longer trials with less exhaustion of testers.

    • Bob Matulis

      Stephen, I agree more and longer trials would be helpful. I would have like to have seen the subsequent tests of the same duration as the original test.
      I am very grateful for all the time and effort being put forth to advance this science. This was the most encouraging test in a long time.

      • William D. Fleming

        I wonder if the fueled and unfueled cells should have more separation or thermal isolation.

        • Omega Z

          Two separate cells & equipment would be best.
          Money & equipment available often dictates how these tests are done. Also, many of these people have day jobs. Sadly, It is not the optimal way to do these tests.

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is time to add some form of calorimetry. Watching the reactors glow pulse is cool and hypnotizing, but personally I could live without it. Getting a good measurement on energy output I think is more important.

  • Stephen Taylor

    I read that Alan might be considering a small increase in the diameter of the reactor tube in a future test. Perhaps this means the fuel charge diameter is increased. Such an increase may improve performance. Also, a small increase in fuel mass, perhaps .8g or even 1g would be potential candidates for further study. Wish we could run hundreds of trials in the next few seconds or so. Seriously though, thought needs to be given to how we might access more and longer trials with less exhaustion of testers.

    • Bob Matulis

      Stephen, I agree more and longer trials would be helpful. I would have like to have seen the subsequent tests of the same duration as the original test.
      I am very grateful for all the time and effort being put forth to advance this science. This was the most encouraging test in a long time.

  • Bob Matulis

    Using a tube furnace for the test has been mentioned before in various comments. I think using one could simplify the reactors and reduce the potential variables that could compromise the data. Temperatures could be controlled in a very reliable and consistent fashion and energy input required would be relatively easy to quantify. No thermocouples to burn out! http://www.amazon.com/Lindberg-Blue-Furnace-Setpoint-Control/dp/B008P34F9Q

    • Stephen Taylor

      It sure would be worth a try if we can just get a handle on reliable excess heat. The furnace moves the electromagnetic stimulus further away from the fuel and distance reduces that input exponentially.

  • ss dd

    Some ideas for the next runs that I’ve seen around – feel free to add more:

    – running the calibrations with a dummy fuel rather than an empty chamber
    – using a higher quantity of fuel (maybe 1g or so)
    – longer trials
    – having the PID plugged into input power rather than temperature

    This last one probably implies that the MFMP purchases a $1700 (IIRC) piece of equipment to measure power.

    What else?

    • Mats002

      Measure the voltage at the middle of the coil to rule out offset (uneven) energy balance between the two sides of the coil.

      • ss dd

        If feasible this one seems like a “must do” to me.

      • magicsnd1

        Mats, It’s not necessary to measure each half separately. In fact, the main feature of this experimental design is that each side (ie. Active and Null) gets exactly the same amount of joule heating from the coil, which is precisely symmetrical and made as a single winding. Therefore any difference in temperature is from other factors, including physical deformation of the windings from thermal expansion, and differences in the core, like thermal conductivity and reactivity of the fuel.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Use a thin stainless steel fuel container per Parkhomov. This has several advantages. It adds iron to the fuel mix? It allows some control of the fuel charge geometry. It moderates local hot spots.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think the Power monitor is a must.

    • US_Citizen71

      I think it is time to add some form of calorimetry. Watching the reactors glow pulse is cool and hypnotizing, but personally I could live without it. Getting a good measurement on energy output I think is more important.

    • ss dd

      At this point it looks to me like we need to get clearly out of the “COP is within experimental error” zone. So either we:

      – optimize the system to improve COP, e.g. by adding more fuel
      or
      – improve measurement with e.g. a power monitor, measuring voltage in the middle of the core, calorimetry

      (or both)

  • Stephen Taylor

    Use a thin stainless steel fuel container per Parkhomov. This has several advantages. It adds iron to the fuel mix? It allows some control of the fuel charge geometry. It moderates local hot spots.

  • Daniel Maris

    Use the heat to produce electricity via possibly a small Stirling Engine. I wondered if that would provide more assurance that any anomalous heat was real and not an artefact.

    • Omega Z

      Stirling engines have 15% to 20% efficiency.
      You would need a COP>6 to loop it.

      • Daniel Maris

        I disagree. This is not about creating an overall energy gain, it is to see whether there is a DIFFERENCE between the null and the fuelled reactors.

        So, if the input is in both cases X Watt Hours, what you might see is the null reactor produced X minus 100 Whs whereas the fuelled reactor produce more e.g. X minus 50 Whs (if there is anomalous heat being produced in the fuelled reactor). If there is no reaction, the electricity produced should be roughly the same.

        • Omega Z

          Maybe I misunderstood.
          I thought you meant to loop the system so no external power would be need. If that were the case, you would need COP>6 to break even.

  • Mike Henderson

    Was something different in the Run 1? Clearly yes. Null and Active outside heater temperatures were different from each other above 400 deg C in ways that were not repeated in any subsequent runs. Above 600 deg C, the average amount of power required to hold a temperature was significantly lower in run 1 than it was in subsequent runs. My estimate is 200 to 250 Watts lower in that temperature regime.

    • Mats002

      Don’t like to take the opposite side but: What if the melted alloy of Al-Li get good electric and ferromagnetic properties at 600+ C while the null side still is in a Ni powder state. Then some induction heating effect start for the active side. The current is AC, and the chopping somehow adds to induction. The following runs do not get this effect because the alloy got solid and reheating the alloy do not give the pro-induction properties back again?

      • Ged

        The null side is just a ceramic filler rod, however. Induction heating still takes power, as heating is just one transformation of (electric) power to another type of (thermal) power. The whole law of conservation applies, so I don’t see how that could change things. Above these temps we’re past anyone’s Curie temperature, so it’d just be ions interacting with magnetic fields.

        Lithium gas is ferromagnetic, but only when cooled below 1 Kelvin as MIT accomplished in 2009–it is also the first demonstration of any gas being ferromagnetic. Otherwise, Al-Li alloys don’t seem to have any magnetism to them, and were even used as the final fuel tank iteration for the Space Shuttle due to their inert nature.

        I can’t find any evidence to support that induction idea, unfortunately.

        • Mats002

          Well, you can take away the ‘un’ from your last Word then 😉

          • Mats002

            I still want to see that voltage in the middle, it will help to strength the arguments for all questions to come from outside this community.

  • William D. Fleming

    I wonder if the fueled and unfueled cells should have more separation or thermal isolation.

    • Omega Z

      Two separate cells & equipment would be best.
      Money & equipment available often dictates how these tests are done. Also, many of these people have day jobs. Sadly, It is not the optimal way to do these tests.

  • bfast

    Little frustrated here! They designed a test, they ran a test, they got the hoped for result — so the question is asked but not answered of whether LENR happened. What will it take to get rid of the question marks? We need a conclusive public test.

    • Ged

      Analysis is a slow, steady process. Largely it is a process of elimination till only one plausibility remains. It takes time and effort and further experiments to cover all the bases.

    • Bob Matulis

      My take is there was a decent chance LENR happened. But it was akin to a spark instead of a flame. A 1.3ish COP is quite an accomplishment but a 2 to 3ish COP for an extended period are the type of results that will clearly demonstrate LENR and will provide adequate ash to analyse.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If the ash comes back with elemental or isotopic shifts – it will be very strong evidence of LENR.

      Until then, it will be a best guess on publicly available data.

      • timycelyn

        Bob, take care and get well soon!

        On elemental / isotopic analysis, it is my prediction that there will be an effect – but it will be so small as to not be statistically significant, and the result will be inconclusive.

        Sorry to be a Jeremiah – and I hope I am wrong – but the cell was not active for enough hours, I fear. We only really have live run 1 as one where things may have happened, with a maybe/maybe back up of live run three.

        I’m not arguing for or against doing the analysis, just doing a little expectation adjustment…..

        • John

          MFMP how is the status of this ”
          MFMP Announces Receipt of Original Palladium Wire Used By Fleischmann and Pons, Plan for Replication of F&P Experiment” ? Are you guys on the path to rebuild P&F experiment?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The original owner of the material was diagnosed with a long term acute condition. We are working to find a way to take this project thread forward.

  • bfast

    Little frustrated here! They designed a test, they ran a test, they got the hoped for result — so the question is asked but not answered of whether LENR happened. What will it take to get rid of the question marks? We need a conclusive public test.

    • Ged

      Analysis is a slow, steady process. Largely it is a process of elimination till only one plausibility remains. It takes time and effort and further experiments to cover all the bases.

    • Bob Matulis

      My take is there was a decent chance LENR happened. But it was akin to a spark instead of a flame. A 1.3ish COP is quite an accomplishment but a 2 to 3ish COP for an extended period are the type of results that will clearly demonstrate LENR and will provide adequate ash to analyse.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If the ash comes back with elemental or isotopic shifts – it will be very strong evidence of LENR.

      Until then, it will be a best guess on publicly available data.

      • timycelyn

        Bob, take care and get well soon!

        On elemental / isotopic analysis, it is my prediction that there will be an effect – but it will be so small as to not be statistically significant, and the result will be inconclusive.

        Sorry to be a Jeremiah – and I hope I am wrong – but the cell was not active for enough hours, I fear. We only really have live run 1 as one where things may have happened, with a maybe/maybe back up of live run three.

        I’m not arguing for or against doing the analysis, just doing a little expectation adjustment…..

  • snowvoardphil

    Did the team get the isotopic testing done yet with results ? I thought this was the major factor that could point to LENR ?

    • ss dd

      At this point they probably haven’t extracted the fuel yet.

      Some people predict that we won’t detect isotopic shifts because the presumed reaction didn’t go strong/long enough (compared to Lugano)

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        It will be interesting ss dd, Jim good points but we will be patient!

    • malkom700

      I think it belongs to the essence of open science that can achieve results only slowly so I consider rather that we have made a step forward or not. If we have made a step we have reached your goal. The isotope testing required a lot of time.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes that will take time – and only after the cell takedown.

        • Stephen Taylor

          On your comment 341 @ quantumheat.org that was intended to be a thumbs up. Sorry for the fat fingered down vote. Hope you are feeling better and thanks to all of you for your hard work and patience.

    • Allan Kiik

      I don’t think it is reasonable to search for isotopic change before long and high COP experiment is achieved. Right now, we don’t even know if the effect in first run was real thing or instrument/measurement error. It’s difficult and expensive test, why do this before strong effect have been observed for long enough for isotopic change accumulation?

  • Allan Kiik

    I don’t think it is reasonable to search for isotopic change before long and high COP experiment is achieved. Right now, we don’t even know if the effect in first run was real thing or instrument/measurement error. It’s difficult and expensive test, why do this before strong effect have been observed for long enough for isotopic change accumulation?

  • Bob Greenyer

    I think the Power monitor is a must.

  • Private Citizen

    Long, slow heating times limit the number of experiments that can be performed and tax the experimenters’ stamina. The reason for this slowness presumably is to allow time for hydrogen loading into metal lattice. But do we even have basic science on the hydrogen loading?

    Perhaps some testing with just hydrogen and nickle, monitoring pressure and temp, can determine the fastest way to achieve loading, then we can optimize the cooking time.

    Inversely, we could learn from studying hydrogen loading time that we are testing at substandard hydrogen loading levels, a criticism leveled at P&F replicators. Measure and study hydrogen loading.

    • Jouni Tuomela
    • Montague Withnail

      I really recommend watching Peter Haglestein’s brilliant MIT course (I watched the 2014 version), which is available on YouTube. It’s a big time commitment as it’s around 5 x 4 hours long, but he deals with most of the hydorgen loading stuff on the first couple of days.

      The answer is yes there is loads of science. By the way, I also believe there has been a huge amount of R&D done on it by people trying to crack hydrogen storage for fuel cell cars.

  • Hi all

    I think you might find it useful for you all to find out what the COP of a Nuclear Power Station is?

    I leave that one in the capable hands of each of you along with your good friend Google. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ged

      Closest I can find is that nuclear power plants are around 33-37% efficient. The max for power plants in general is about 40% thermal efficiency (compare to a spark plug in a car which is about 20% efficient). There’s some calculations in this paper http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222238931_On_the_exergy_analysis_of_power_plants .

      • Mats002

        COP 1.4 then.

        • fact police

          No, 0.4 then. Where do you get the “1”?

      • Omega Z

        Ged
        Most Nuke plant turbines operate with about 300`C steam. Thus 30% is usually the average. No need to explain the need why Nuke plants operate at such low grade heat. Right. 🙂

      • fact police

        Right. This represents the output electrical power divided by the thermal power produced by the fuel, whether it is nuclear fuel or fossil fuel.

        If the thermal power produced by the fuel is taken as the input power, then the corresponding COP’s are 0.33 and 0.4, and could not be greater than unity without violating the conservation of energy.

        But in cold fusion, the thermal power produced by the fuel (in this case, nickel and hydrogen) is *not* counted. Only external thermal or electrical power is counted in that case. Then COP can exceed unity, because the energy comes from uncounted nuclear reactions.

        In a heat pump, COP can exceed unity because the energy comes from the environment, and is not counted as an input.

        If the thermal power from the fuel is not counted in fossil fueled or nuclear fueled plants, then the COP is infinite in both cases.

    • fact police

      Using the definition of COP applied to cold fusion, a nuclear fission reactor has an infinite COP. A fission reactor is entirely self-sustaining. Once the fuel is prepared, it doesn’t even need external energy to start it, apart from withdrawing the control rods.

      The energy is released when uranium atoms are split. If you count the energy stored in the nuclei as input energy, then you should also count the potential nuclear energy in cold fusion. If all sources of energy are counted, a COP > 1 would violate the conservation of energy. Even cold fusion advocates don’t claim that.

  • Hi all

    I think you might find it useful for you all to find out what the COP of a Nuclear Power Station is?

    I leave that one in the capable hands of each of you along with your good friend Google. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ged

      Closest I can find is that nuclear power plants are around 33-37% efficient. The max for power plants in general is about 40% thermal efficiency (compare to a spark plug in a car which is about 20% efficient). There’s some calculations in this paper http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222238931_On_the_exergy_analysis_of_power_plants .

      • Mats002

        COP 1.4 then.

        • fact police

          No, 0.4 then. Where do you get the “1”?

      • Omega Z

        Ged
        Most Nuke plant turbines operate with about 300`C steam. Thus 30% is usually the average. No need to explain the need why Nuke plants operate at such low grade heat. Right. 🙂

      • fact police

        Right. This represents the output electrical power divided by the thermal power produced by the fuel, whether it is nuclear fuel or fossil fuel.

        If the thermal power produced by the fuel is taken as the input power, then the corresponding COP’s are 0.33 and 0.4, and could not be greater than unity without violating the conservation of energy.

        But in cold fusion, the thermal power produced by the fuel (in this case, nickel and hydrogen) is *not* counted. Only external thermal or electrical power is counted in that case. Then COP can exceed unity, because the energy comes from uncounted nuclear reactions.

        In a heat pump, COP can exceed unity because the energy comes from the environment, and is not counted as an input.

        If the thermal power from the fuel is not counted in fossil fueled or nuclear fueled plants, then the COP is infinite in both cases.

    • ss dd

      If the COP is only around 1.4, how did they determine that they produce excess heat within experimental error?

      • Ged

        40% is actually huge, especially when working with 1000 MW 😉

      • Axil Axil

        I think tht Rossi gave us the “Mouse” to play with in the Lagano reaport. The large COP that was seen in the Lagano experiment was an error. The Lagano COP was that of the Mouse of about 1,4,

        • Omega Z

          Axil Axil

          The on/off mode was not implemented in the Lugano test nor was the Mouse drive. The prior was in the Lugano report & the later of no mouse involvement was supplied by Rossi on JONP. Probably because the 2 are interrelated. The Mouse only operates when the Cat is off.

          • Axil Axil

            The alternating Cat/Mouse cycle may be old technology that was replaced with a newer method where only the mouse is powered.

            If true, it stands to reason that Rossi gve the Lagno testers the Mouse to experiment with.

            Rossi sounds like he ws surprised and pleased in the way the Cat responded to the Mouse.

      • Mats002

        I think 1.4 is for electricity out, not heat out. If you loose 70% for heat-to-electricity conversion then the COP for heat out should be 4,66 before generating electricity, I know many here are experts on this subject, please correct if wrong.

        • fact police

          No, the thermal efficiency of a power plant is typically 33%. That means the output electrical power divided by the thermal power produced by the nuclear reaction is 0.33. If you count the nuclear power as input energy, then the COP is 0.33 or so. Not 1.33.

      • fact police

        There is no definition of COP that would give you 1.4

    • fact police

      Using the definition of COP applied to cold fusion, a nuclear fission reactor has an infinite COP. A fission reactor is entirely self-sustaining. Once the fuel is prepared, it doesn’t even need external energy to start it, apart from withdrawing the control rods.

      The energy is released when uranium atoms are split. If you count the energy stored in the nuclei as input energy, then you should also count the potential nuclear energy in cold fusion. If all sources of energy are counted, a COP > 1 would violate the conservation of energy. Even cold fusion advocates don’t claim that.

  • KL

    Hello, long time lurker here. I read somewhere that sodium stops the LENR reaction and it got me to thinking that perhaps the oxidation state of the nickel might play a huge role in the success or failure of the process. It might also explain why some nickel powders work and others do not. Could it be that the electron density at the surface either enhances or inhibits the high velocity hydrogen projectiles from embedding in the lattice of the nickel?

    The original P & F experiments were in a galvanic cell in which the palladium was used as an anode or a cathode (I don’t know which.). The Palladium was either losing electrons or gaining electrons. Might that be a vital factor?

    Perhaps some of the nickel powder in future experiments should be run as a cathode or anode in a galvanic cell first to fully oxidize or fully reduce the nickel powder, dried and then put in the reaction chamber.

    Just looking at some of the materials used in successful LENR experiments, there does seem to be a redox component to all of them. The Iwamura transmutation experiment used Palladium electroplated on a CaO layer. James Patterson’s power cell was a galvanic cell which involved thin film copper, nickel, and palladium in a lithium sulfate solution. Every successful LENR reaction seems to scream “REDOX”.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Alkali metals like lithium are strong reducing agents, or electron donors. This might be one of the reasons why they are useful in LENR experiments. Electric current is an even more effective ‘electron donor’, so maybe passing it directly through the fuel could be an option.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        See MPMP’s „Sparky Powder Cell“:

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/spark-powder-cell

        They might consider running this cell with a Ni-LiAlH4 fuel, instead of using only Ni.

      • KL

        I like the idea of the electric current. If the purpose of the lithium (in successful LENR events) is to function as an electron donor, then reagents like LiAlH4 won’t help that much since the Lithium and Aluminum have already lost their electrons to the hydrogen (in other words, already oxidized).

        Using pure Li or Al metal (in its fully reduced state) might be an interesting experiment since bare metals would have a lot more electrons to donate. Electroplating the inside of the reaction chamber with Aluminum might be another route.

  • Mats002

    Thanks to Alan, Skip and MFMP: “Answers to many of the questions posed can be found in the complete documentation of the experiment, available at:

    tinyurl.com/o8kuxxc

    I’ve included a system block diagram showing the control and power components, a drawing of the cell and all the data files.

    The decision to use sine wave power was made to ensure that thermocouple data was free of RFI problems. PID control was employed to permit automation of the desired complex temperature rise profile, with uninterrupted, detailed data collection over an experiment lasting several days.”

  • Mats002

    Thanks to Alan, Skip and MFMP: “Answers to many of the questions posed can be found in the complete documentation of the experiment, available at:

    tinyurl.com/o8kuxxc

    I’ve included a system block diagram showing the control and power components, a drawing of the cell and all the data files.

    The decision to use sine wave power was made to ensure that thermocouple data was free of RFI problems. PID control was employed to permit automation of the desired complex temperature rise profile, with uninterrupted, detailed data collection over an experiment lasting several days.”

  • Stephen

    In Sanjeev’s plot of temperature versus heater power for the first run we have an initial knee at about 200 deg C. Is this the about the temperature the cold e-cat works? If so perhaps the 600 deg C in the hot cat is only required to provide the Hydrogen in the LAH case.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      i think you are right on Stephen, hit me right between the eyes when i saw the 200 C event – home heater E-Cat! 600 C also! Jim

  • Stephen

    In Sanjeev’s plot of temperature versus heater power for the first run we have an initial knee at about 200 deg C. Is this the about the temperature the cold e-cat works? If so perhaps the 600 deg C in the hot cat is only required to provide the free Lithium and Hydrogen in the LAH case.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      i think you are right on Stephen, hit me right between the eyes when i saw the 200 C event – home heater E-Cat! 600 C also! Jim

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    The Lady LENR did visit Frank of that I am sure & await the test teams conformation shortly or later! I have waited so long for the advent of clean isotope formation based so called fusion energy that a littler longer for others cautious confirmation bothers me not at all. They must be certain themselves, No?

  • ss dd

    I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Just donated $100 for MFMP to get a power monitor. This should make monitoring experiments a bit easier and watching them more entertaining and interesting! Maybe some others can follow me so they can get this $1700 piece of equipment.

    • Sanjeev

      They have PCE 830 a very good power analyzer.

      • ss dd

        Not sure what the whole story is. Maybe it’s not with Alan?

        • Bob Greenyer

          In Europe. It basically costs 25% of its value to ship across the pond and risk of damage etc – so plan is to get one for stateside.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is true, I flew with it to US for the Jan/Feb tests.

        When it was time for it to be used in Padua, it was sent on a “Guaranteed” delivery service to Mathieu in France – which owing to French customs strikes, it got delayed – arriving after he had departed for the conference. Then, it was sent again by his work – but got delayed again – never reaching Padua and causing all manner of nightmares for us (including $100s dollars extra accommodation and transport costs so we could run the experiment). It got bounced back to France and then got sent onto me, arriving after I had my first slot of time to re-heat the Padua cell. One thing we learnt about “guaranteed” services – they count for nothing, when you ask for a change of destination if they fail to meet their guarantee – they offer two options, return to start with refund or wait until it gets delivered.

        The whole shipping nightmare cost around many $100s, which is unfortunate and a waste – but more importantly, it missed being in the right place at the right time. Where it is now, it can be utilised for EU teams as and when they are ready, I nearly have everything in place (just need time). Could loan out to me356 – to improve his data and possibly also to the Open Power Association who lent us their unit – which is not as good – currently we are assisting them to do a full replication and they are progressing nicely.

        The asset is still on the books and has good retained value as it was secured at a deep discount. I feel it is better that we have another unit state-side for teams there to maximise the value of the volunteer research time.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          PCE 830 Great machine to insight on EM present; use two on Rossi 32 day test! Nice picture in final report of screen during test as it shows shape of current pulse & their system freqency spectrum! Gerard is electrical controls guy with design of power source to explore EM freq content effects on dog bone fuel element in future! Jim

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            PCE 839 from Lugano report – picture is worth a thousand words. Note current pulse trace on left & harmonic analysis on right sometime during 32 day power test of Hot E-Cat see report for a few more details.

            http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thankyou for your generosity – I will try to secure a similar discount on another unit as I did the first, one that could stay stateside. I may be able to save $500 off this.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Take a look at Vessela Nikolova’s blog to get a handle on EM worth in starting & maintaining these reaction ss dd.
      I tried to write to her today, but the site guardian called my comment spam & couldn’t get thru, oh well, maybe another day. Really liked the yellow book Hot Cat 2.0 she co authored available on Amazon.com

      Jim

      http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/fast-fuel-test-heat-after-death

      I know Alan likes to refer to heat after death (HAD) in his discussions.

  • Sanjeev

    They have PCE 830 a very good power analyzer.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is true, I flew with it to US for the Jan/Feb tests.

      When it was time for it to be used in Padua, it was sent on a “Guaranteed” delivery service to Mathieu in France – which owing to French customs strikes, it got delayed – arriving after he had departed for the conference. Then, it was sent again by his work – but got delayed again – never reaching Padua and causing all manner of nightmares for us (including $100s dollars extra accommodation and transport costs so we could run the experiment). It got bounced back to France and then got sent onto me, arriving after I had my first slot of time to re-heat the Padua cell. One thing we learnt about “guaranteed” services – they count for nothing, when you ask for a change of destination if they fail to meet their guarantee – they offer two options, return to start with refund or wait until it gets delivered.

      The whole shipping nightmare cost around many $100s, which is unfortunate and a waste – but more importantly, it missed being in the right place at the right time. Where it is now, it can be utilised for EU teams as and when they are ready, I nearly have everything in place (just need time). Could loan out to me356 – to improve his data and possibly also to the Open Power Association who lent us their unit – which is not as good – currently we are assisting them to do a full replication and they are progressing nicely.

      The asset is still on the books and has good retained value as it was secured at a deep discount. I feel it is better that we have another unit state-side for teams there to maximise the value of the volunteer research time.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Alkali metals like lithium are strong reducing agents, or electron donors. This might be one of the reasons why they are useful in LENR experiments. Electric current is an even more effective ‘electron donor’, so maybe passing it directly through the fuel could be an option.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      See MPMP’s „Sparky Powder Cell“:

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/spark-powder-cell

      They might consider running this cell with a Ni-LiAlH4 fuel, instead of using only Ni.

    • KL

      I like the idea of the electric current. If the purpose of the lithium (in successful LENR events) is to function as an electron donor, then reagents like LiAlH4 won’t help that much since the Lithium and Aluminum have already lost their electrons to the hydrogen (in other words, already oxidized).

      Using pure Li or Al metal (in its fully reduced state) might be an interesting experiment since bare metals would have a lot more electrons to donate. Electroplating the inside of the reaction chamber with Aluminum might be another route.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thankyou for your generosity – I will try to secure a similar discount on another unit as I did the first, one that could stay stateside.

  • Bob Greenyer

    In Europe. It basically costs 25% of its value to ship across the pond and risk of damage etc – so plan is to get one for stateside.

  • John

    MFMP how is the status of this ”
    MFMP Announces Receipt of Original Palladium Wire Used By Fleischmann and Pons, Plan for Replication of F&P Experiment” ? Are you guys on the path to rebuild P&F experiment?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The original owner of the material was diagnosed with a long term acute condition. We are working to find a way to take this project thread forward.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have posted an interim analysis for discussion pending final post-experiment calibration and ash analysis.

    FaceBook
    https://goo.gl/eMyhtD

    Quantum Heat
    http://goo.gl/AS8CuL

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Bob, do take a close look at UnifiedGravities patent application – theory & actual test data. They really hit the ball out of the stadium on Li path to clean abundant low energy reactions to generated nuclear isotope path power release. Just love your evolving spread sheet of history of LENR replications etc & so does Stephen!

      Best Regards
      Jim

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, we published that on our FB quite some time ago and have discussed it internally and externally. It is a very important development.

        I even forwarded it directly at the time to Piantelli, the Open Power Association, Celani and Parkhomov and several have commented on it. Piantelli cites Li as the key secondary element in his patent extension – to receive proton projectiles from the Nickel. Open Power Association ran an article in the “importance of lithium” series of documents. Etc.

        I think that Lithium is a key element in LENR – as we said just after the Lugano report when we showed a picture of a lithium salt container that we received from Martin Fleischmann’s chemical stock. P&F were using it way back at the start of this story – could cavitation in the presence of a Lithium salt been part of their story?

  • magicsnd1

    For context, here’s an excerpt from my Notes file (in the archive):
    This test [reheat#2] was meant to detect a gross failure of the DAQ as the cause of the active temperature jump seen in run#1 (the long one) at around 600 C. I think this jump may have resulted from a physical behavior of the heater coil. It was seen to be constrained from proper expansion, and an adjustment was made to it at the end of the test run. The TC offset immediately dropped, suggesting this to be a contributing cause.

    Following this discovery, I did an additional calibration [reheat#3] to measure the amount of error resulting from the stuck heater coil. The chart shows the effect of correcting this error.

    • Ged

      Interesting thing is that didn’t change, compared to re-heat 1, the power to temperature curve. Only the original run apparently breaks that P to T relationship, and dramatically.

      Awesome graph and work on correcting for the coil bias!

      • Mats002

        Ged, exactly where is that awesome graph, link please.

        • Ged

          That graph is posted right above :P. But here’s a direct link too https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11537711_989978344366198_4708609175111513833_n.jpg?oh=c6520fde9a18cb84411e9ec7b0f569a3&oe=55ECACA2

          I believe it is far too conservative and probably inaccurately too large a shift (based on the behavior), but even with such a “correction”, the excess effect is not removed.

          • Mats002

            So, it is still (after another iteration of corrections) Excess heat??? :;;;;-)

          • Ged

            Seems so! Looking at temp versus power in particular shows it most starkly. As Jack Cole illustrated above, there are also the power down blips that happen only for the first run, and not for any subsequent runs nor calibration. It’s similar to what he saw when producing potential excess heat as well.

            We need calorimetry though at this point now.

          • Mars002

            Let’s shift our attention to Brian and Jack then, both advancing to calometry.
            DIY – Pro Labs 2 – 0
            I love that score!!!

          • Mats002

            Parkhomov and Songsheng and Rossi himself will be 2 – 3 but where is the thin line of PROof?

          • Mats002

            I just realized a social reality: I trust MFMP (west) more than Russia (language barrier) and China (culture and language barrier) and Rossi (Italian associated to maffia). So: trust is an actionable parameter for LENR (and any other subject), Peter Gluck: what is your analysis?

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Good eye GED – even more LENR was there, No?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Also happen to be where one would expect Li plasma to occur & LI to start contibuting to release of nuclear energy Alan. see my comment above to Bachcole about the new player unifiedGravity on the block – just read their patent which kept me up till 4 AM last night & shed a lot of light on conversion of Li for me that I have tried to understand for a long time. Think Stephen will enjoy that patent application also.

      Jim

      PS Again great Job Alan enjoyed talking to you during the test although I did not know who you were till one of the viewers pointed that out to me. I wondered how Magicsnd1 new so much. Note time constants you got with fuzzy logic controller may be influenced by its detunning PID settings as one approaches set point to minimize undershoot/overshoot of target setpoint!

  • magicsnd1

    For context, here’s an excerpt from my Notes file (in the archive):
    This test [reheat#2] was meant to detect a gross failure of the DAQ as the cause of the active temperature jump seen in run#1 (the long one) at around 600 C. I think this jump may have resulted from a physical behavior of the heater coil. It was seen to be constrained from proper expansion, and an adjustment was made to it at the end of the test run. The TC offset immediately dropped, suggesting this to be a contributing cause.

    Following this discovery, I did an additional calibration [reheat#3] to measure the amount of error resulting from the stuck heater coil. The chart shows the effect of correcting this error.

    • Ged

      Interesting thing is that didn’t change, compared to re-heat 1, the power to temperature curve. Only the original run apparently breaks that P to T relationship, and dramatically.

      Awesome graph and work on correcting for the coil bias!

      • Mats002

        Ged, exactly where is that awesome graph, link please.

        • Ged

          That graph is posted right above :P. But here’s a direct link too https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11537711_989978344366198_4708609175111513833_n.jpg?oh=c6520fde9a18cb84411e9ec7b0f569a3&oe=55ECACA2

          I believe it is far too conservative a shift (based on the behavior), but even with such a “correction”, the excess effect is not removed.

          • Mats002

            So, it is still (after another iteration of corrections) Excess heat??? :;;;;-)

          • Ged

            Seems so! Looking at temp versus power in particular shows it most starkly. As Jack Cole illustrated above, there are also the power down blips that happen only for the first run, and not for any subsequent runs nor calibration. It’s similar to what he saw when producing potential excess heat as well.

            We need calorimetry though at this point now.

          • Mars002

            Let’s shift our attention to Brian and Jack then, both advancing to calometry.
            DIY – Pro Labs 2 – 0
            I love that score!!!

          • Mats002

            Parkhomov and Songsheng and Rossi himself will be 2 – 3 but where is the thin line of PROof?

          • Mats002

            I just realized a social reality: I trust MFMP (west) more than Russia (language barrier) and China (culture and language barrier) and Rossi (Italian associated to maffia). So: trust is an actionable parameter for LENR (and any other subject), Peter Gluck: what is your analysis?

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Mats002 both Russia & Italy have given us many great men, no less. I think Rossi & Parkhomov should be respected for their tenacious work ethic & willingness to share. Where it not for the Lugano fuel/ash analysis we would not be here I am sure & commercialization would have another set back. I have circled the sun 15 more times than Rossi & worked with many great men who I learned to admire & both these are at the top of my list to admire. I’m sure Peter will agree as well as Axil Axil

          • Mats002

            It is not my intension to discredit anyone, all those people are great men doing fantastic things. My point is that most people – including myself – tend to trust some sources of information more than other. Soft and even hard evidence will be valued differently by people depending on their relation to the source of information.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Good eye GED – even more LENR was there, No?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Also happen to be where one would expect Li plasma to occur & LI to start contibuting to release of nuclear energy Alan. see my comment above to Bachcole about the new player unifiedGravity on the block – just read their patent which kept me up till 4 AM last night & shed a lot of light on conversion of Li for me that I have tried to understand for a long time. Think Stephen will enjoy that patent application also.

      Jim

      PS Again great Job Alan enjoyed talking to you during the test although I did not know who you were till one of the viewers pointed that out to me. I wondered how Magicsnd1 new so much. Note time constants you got with fuzzy logic controller may be influenced by its detunning PID settings as one approaches set point to minimize undershoot/overshoot of target setpoint!

  • bachcole

    I will wait until “Was there Excess Heat?” becomes “There was Excess Heat!”.

    • Mats002

      So – that is the thin line between no evidence and soft evidence?

      • Andre Blum

        no, the thin line between soft evidence and hard evidence.

        • bachcole

          (:->) I trust the people who post here to inform me of real developments. I would not have said that in the world at large. Frank and Greenwin and TomR and so many others here think just like me when it comes to evidence. I trust them (and am emotionally involved with them slightly). I allow them to do the heavy epistemological lifting for me while I do other things like raise my son and putter around with making hibiscus tea (which has more antioxidants than any other beverage known).

          Soft or social evidence is not as simple as hard evidence. This is why skeptopaths shy away from it or don’t understand it or think that everyone is stupid. It is sort of an art to be able to know who and what one can trust. If someone here says that they were visited by little green-men and the little green-men said that Andre Blum was a silly goose, I might believe the silly goose part but I would need more evidence about the little green-men. But if someone said that the Glowstick got excess heat, I would believe that, probably. I certainly don’t believe that we got excess heat if Frank is still asking “Did we get excess heat?”

          • ss dd

            I think we’re dealing with hard evidence here. We all saw what happened live on video.

            Soft evidence would be for example Rossi’s claims about long SSM periods with his 1MW plant.

            Now, evidence isn’t proof, and at this point I would think the conclusion is “hmmm interesting, let’s see if we can get more of this phenomenon in an improved experiment”

            Do you ferment your hibiscus tea?

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Its there Baccole of that I am certain but see what the ash says, No? Only hope there is enough to measure well for we did not run as long as Lugano! That test by Rossi cued every experimenter on what to put in his fuel element on many guesses as to why by them. take a look at following tweet for uncontestable evidence by a new player in field about LENR energies truth both in theory & experimental evidence at least in the case of converting Li isotopes up the chain to get their useful power to warm us eventual,

            https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/609856971206991872

          • Bob Greenyer

            I agree that this patent is profound, we reported on it some time ago and it really opens the door to Lithium derived energy with very low projectile energy.

            What is incredible about this patent is the scores of well conducted experiments.

          • Ted-X

            OFF-TOPIC: The hibiscus tea may cause loss of hair.

          • bachcole

            Source(s) please?

          • bachcole

            I think that Ted-X was putting me on:

            https://www.pinterest.com/Sandust1/teas-for-hair/

            “In Ayurveda, Hibiscus (Jaswand) is known for healthy hair. Hibiscus
            promotes hair growth, stops hairfall, and delays premature graying.”

            My wife will want to know about this.

    • Ged

      Look at the data and see what you think :). No amount of trying to remove the excess from the data has succeeded, it’s still there. But it will never be declared such until further replications and particularly calorimetry is done; due to everyone being so conservative about it as there are so many unknowns with a thermometry methodology like this.

      • bachcole

        Please tell Andre Blum that I will be looking into it. (:->) Thank you for a report. This could be more interesting than a “yes” or a “no”. A “maybe” is an opportunity for my curiosity to be engaged.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Right on Ged you are a great thinker in my book I have to tell you that with all due considerations.
        Jim
        Your friend & admirer

    • pg

      i will wait until ” MIT is claiming they have discovered a new form of energy that is clean, cheap and abundant, in collaboration with GE, Lockheed Martin and Exxon Renewables”

      • bachcole

        I presume that you are joking.

        • James Andrew Rovnak

          I don’t joke lightly, do a lot of dreaming & reflections base on my past life experiences as a Nuclear Engineer who left to work in fossil & petrochemical plants for a while because no one wanted to build inherently safe reactors, then back to nuclear. I was born & raised in a small Pennsylvania coal town & remember as a kid seeing grown men coming out of the mines with white circles around their eyes & coal black faces & tried unsuccessfully to do something about their plight with my career. Many I knew died of black lung disease, no less, unfortunately for them & their families & I did nothing to help of that I am deeply sorry!
          Jim

          • bachcole

            James, I was responding to pg.

            Did you do anything for those suffering men?

        • pg

          was it too subtle?

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Nice Idea but they are very slow & super conservative group who killed LENR for a long while, No?
        Jim
        PS We should be heating our homes with clean LENR energy right now if it weren’t for their oversights failures around 1989! I live in New England where we have to poison ourselves & our children with effluents of burning fossil fuels because of MIT’s short comings, no less! They are a great institution of learning however & I love & use their open course program with great appreciation.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Good show Bachcole enjoy your comment thoroughly & eternal optimism

      Jim.

  • Ged

    Look at the data and see what you think :). No amount of trying to remove the excess from the data has succeeded, it’s still there. But it will never be declared such until further replications and particularly calorimetry is done; due to everyone being so conservative about it as there are so many unknowns with a thermometry methodology like this.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Right on Ged you are a great thinker in my book I have to tell you that with all due considerations.
      Jim
      Your friend & admirer

  • pg

    i will wait until ” MIT is claiming they have discovered a new form of energy that is clean, cheap and abundant, in collaboration with GE, Lockheed Martin and Exxon Renewables”

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice Idea but they are very slow & super conservative group who killed LENR for a long while, No?
      Jim
      PS We should be heating our homes with clean LENR energy right now if it weren’t for their oversights failures around 1989! I live in New England where we have to poison ourselves & our children with effluents of burning fossil fuels because of MIT’s short comings, no less! They are a great institution of learning however & I love & use their open course program with great appreciation.

  • magicsnd1

    Regarding a question asked by Mats002 about measuring the voltage at the center of the coil, it’s not necessary to measure each half separately. In fact, the main feature of this experimental design is that each side (ie. Active and Null) gets exactly the same amount of joule heating from the coil, which is precisely symmetrical and made as a single winding.

    Therefore any difference in temperature is from other factors, including physical deformation of the windings from thermal expansion, and differences in the core, like thermal conductivity and chemical reactivity of the fuel. Only after analyzing and systematically eliminating these variables can the presence of LENR excess heat be claimed.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes and the Lady LENR did visit Alan. Great test Jim! Respectfully awaiting your eventual confirmation of LENR. Hope test was long enough to get sufficient fuel ash for absolute confirmation of LENR energies presence Alan. Very nice test & really like your thorough review of physical system to rule out problems in that area which I am sure you will eventually conclude. Again great job Alan. Jim

    • Mats002

      Agree but one factor you did not mension now is electrical influences because of different core materials at the two sides. From discussions here at ECW that possibility is ruled out as far I can understand, so I make a deep bow for what you have acomplished.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      What think you of this new test. Do you recognize power supply & simple power input calculation. Not sure of source coil efficiency handling! Does it look like solid state switches giving him large pulses or power for measured temperature upsets? Jim

      https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/613859651537350656

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    There was excess heat of that I am sure & some indications of controllability problems with negative thermal resistance showing up in TC versus power input plots ie different powers for same TC temperature readings very difficult for fuzzy logic PID controllers to contend with, period!
    Visibly seen in 2 to 4 oscillation in glow of fuel element during testing.
    Jim

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Good show Bachcole enjoy your comment thoroughly & eternal optimism

    Jim.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Its there Baccole of that I am certain but see what the ash says, No? Only hope there is enough to measure well for we did not run as long as Lugano! That test by Rossi cued every experimenter on what to put in his fuel element on many guesses as to why by them. take a look at following tweet for uncontestable evidence by a new player in field about LENR energies truth both in theory & experimental evidence at least in the case of converting Li isotopes up the chain to get their useful power to warm us eventual,

    https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/609856971206991872

    • Bob Greenyer

      I agree that this patent is profound, we reported on it some time ago and it really opens the door to Lithium derived energy with very low projectile energy.

      What is incredible about this patent is the scores of well conducted experiments.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    I don’t joke lightly, do a lot of dreaming & reflections base on my past life experiences as a Nuclear Engineer who left to work in fossil & petrochemical plants for a while because no one wanted to build inherently safe reactors, then back to nuclear. I was born & raised in a small Pennsylvania coal town & remember as a kid seeing grown men coming out of the mines with white circles around their eyes & coal black faces & tried unsuccessfully to do something about their plight with my career. Many I knew died of black lung disease, no less, unfortunately for them & their families & I did nothing to help of that I am deeply sorry!
    Jim

  • Mats002

    It is not my intension to discredit anyone, all those people are great men doing fantastic things. My point is that most people – including myself – tend to trust some sources of information more than other. Soft and even hard evidence will be valued differently by people depending on their relation to the source of information.

  • Curbina

    Hello, I’ve been unable (time wise) to post comments for a while but have kept reading the new posts and respective comments. About the ongoing analysis of the GS3 results I’d like to ask Alan Goldwater and Bob Greenyer about their personal opinion on the analysis. I think the revised and adjusted input power vs temp plot is clear to show that at least in a range of temps there was “excess heat”. The results are at least encouraging.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Firstly, the test that Alan and Skip performed was brilliantly executed and I doff my hat to them.

      My personal opinion is that this is annoying – in the same way that the Mathieu’s Dec 12 2012 test with Celani wire that apparently produced 12.5% excess was annoying. It is annoying because it is not so huge that it cannot be dismissed, but it is tantalising and a good motivator for everyone to plough onwards.

      For me, thermometry is a good screening approach because it is relatively cheap and can show things that may have promise – but conclusive at this level – no. Well understood calorimetry like Parkhomov’s original approach is much easier to debate.

      In the end, it is all in the ash – this test is sufficiently interesting to warrant asking those that have offerred to analyse ash for us, to do so. If the ash shows elemental or isotopic changes in line with those claimed by others and which would be expected to yield excess heat – then we’d be in a better position to call it.

      • Curbina

        Thanks for your comment Bob. I hope something valuable is revealed by the ash analysis.

        • Ged

          The temperature versus time chart is up there too, above in this article, so I do not understand your objection as written.

          The power versus temperature chart I made is a double moving average across 12 or so minutes, so fast, transitory events such as thermal inertia are not visible.

  • Curbina

    Hello, I’ve been unable (time wise) to post comments for a while but have kept reading the new posts and respective comments. About the ongoing analysis of the GS3 results I’d like to ask Alan Goldwater and Bob Greenyer about their personal opinion on the analysis. I think the revised and adjusted input power vs temp plot is clear to show that at least in a range of temps there was “excess heat”. The results are at least encouraging.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Firstly, the test that Alan and Skip performed was brilliantly executed and I doff my hat to them.

      My personal opinion is that this is annoying – in the same way that the Mathieu’s Dec 12 2012 test with Celani wire that apparently produced 12.5% excess was annoying. It is annoying because it is not so huge that it cannot be dismissed, but it is tantalising and a good motivator for everyone to plough onwards.

      For me, thermometry is a good screening approach because it is relatively cheap and can show things that may have promise – but conclusive at this level – no. Well understood calorimetry like Parkhomov’s original approach is much easier to debate.

      In the end, it is all in the ash – this test is sufficiently interesting to warrant asking those that have offerred to analyse ash for us, to do so. If the ash shows elemental or isotopic changes in line with those claimed by others and which would be expected to yield excess heat – then we’d be in a better position to call it.

      • Curbina

        Thanks for your comment Bob. I hope something valuable is revealed by the ash analysis.

  • pg

    was it too subtle?

  • brian ahern

    There is no temporal data. The chart shows the temperature increasing while the power is reduced from 80 watts to 50watt.
    However, the system may have substantial thermal inertia.
    Brian Ahern

    • Curbina

      Well Mr. Ahern, certainly the power vs temperature plot leaves out the time at which the temperature was held at certain power. And therefore the thermal inertia can indeed account for the observation. I wonder if with the data available the time can be added as another variable in the chart, and if that chart could reveal something about the thermal inertia.

    • Ged

      Edit: Nevermind, just noticed you were talking about Jack Cole’s chart, not the MFMP one (which has temporal data).

  • Ted-X

    OFF-TOPIC: The hibiscus tea may cause loss of hair.

    • bachcole

      I think that Ted-X was putting me on:

      https://www.pinterest.com/Sandust1/teas-for-hair/

      “In Ayurveda, Hibiscus (Jaswand) is known for healthy hair. Hibiscus
      promotes hair growth, stops hairfall, and delays premature graying.”

      My wife will want to know about this.

  • ss dd

    Has the MFMP considered measuring magnetic fields during their experiments? Is that something that would make some sense?

    On another thread: “The most obvious source of electrical power could be the magnetic field of the fast moving alpha particles.”.

    Wouldn’t it make sense to try to detect this field?

    • Allan Kiik

      It makes sense indeed – there are hypotheses about spin-glass forming in the reactor and claims of enormous magnetic fields registered during operation. Why not do some easy and cheap measurements to confirm or put down these claims.
      Besides, if true and strong fields are there, this signal could provide faster feedback loop for controlling the reaction and avoiding meltdown.

  • fact police

    There is no definition of COP that would give you 1.4