Denis Vasilenko Publishes LENR Experiment Report

There’s an interesting document posted on the LENR-Forum by Denis Vasilenko reporting on the experiment he conducted on May 24, 2015 in which two reactors, one fueled and one without fuel were heated simultaneously.

The link to the experiment is here:

Denis writes in conclusion:

Operation of the reactor at the maximum heating continued for about 6 hours, and It stopped as a result of burnout of the electric heater of the reactor fuel. Severe destruction of cement in the central part of the tube with fuel and burnout cantal helix indicate highly significant excess of heat in comparison with empty reactor, where the spiral remained intact and visible only on small cracks cement surface, although the material, the dimensions of the tube and the electrical heating capacity of both reactors were identical. The pattern of destruction of the reactor fuel indicates that the temperature reaches at least 1300 ° C at an empty reactor about 1000 ° C.

There are some interesting detailed pictures which compare the burned-out fueled reactor with the unfueled reactor after the experiment concluded. I thought this was a well-done experiment which gave quite a good indication that there was some LENR activity going on.

I look forward to more experiments from Denis.

  • bachcole

    How long was the 1300 degrees C held vs the 1000 degrees C? In other words, was the amount of excess heat explainable via chemistry or was it so much more energy that only nuclear could explain it? I am not terribly impressed because what if the ingredients went chemical and created the “excess heat”.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      They Lady LENR was there bachole of that I am sure. Soon I hope you will be Too. Jim

  • Rene

    Usng an empty chamber for the control, is not a good control. It should be loaded with everything expect the Ni, or a substitute for Ni that would be considered a non-lenr-starter. The reason is that the control should experience hydrogen loading. If then the burnout still occurs then we’d know it was a chemical reaction. The purpose of knowing this is not to dispute lenr is taking place but to determine if the reactor vessel has a basic design flaw.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, I agree that makes sense.

    • Agaricus

      Iron dust of similar grade to the Ni might be a good choice for the ‘control’ reactor, as it will absorb H2 in the same way and has similar physical, chemical and magnetic properties, but AFAIK there is no evidence (yet?) that it supports LENR.

    • Omega Z


      I don’t believe Nickel to be the determining factor. If it were, the excess heat effect would have been discovered long ago. With that it mind, I would do the following.

      It would charge 2 reactors with the Nickel fuel & power both to 1000`C for a period of time. This would provide a good Dataset for comparison of an active run.

      After being powered down, I would then add the assumed LiAlH4 activator to 1 of the Reactors. This would be followed with an another powered run of both reactors. The results of which Both reactors being so identical including mass & the previously obtained Dataset would give a clear picture for analysis.

      If there is a substantial difference, this would provide everyone trying to replicate a clear path to follow. If this can be replicated by multiple players, they can then focus on improvements of fuel charge & different areas of RF, EMF, Frequencies, Resonances or whatever.

      One thing is certain. Without a confirmed process for obtaining excess heat, Everyone is just shooting blanks in the dark. There could be a Billion possibilities out there to test with only a few that works.

      • Agaricus

        Simply omitting the LiAlH4 is a much better idea than mine. I’m not sure that it would be possible to break the seals to add the hydride, but just building two otherwise identical cells with and without it should be good enough, at least initially.

        • Omega Z

          If I recall, Alan had a decent reactor that could be opened. Regardless, I liked his reactor as it was a clean design. It appeared that he could make many that would be quite identical. The only thing I didn’t like was that it contained both the active & dummy within the same device. For me, this created way to many if’s & what’s. Also the dummy load should have been Nickel.

          There is something to be said about a reusable reactor. For lack of a better word, Memory. Having already been heated once, It has created a memory of it’s expansion. Kind of like inflating a balloon the 1st time is hard & may explode. Additional inflation’s are easier & less likely to explode. At least for a while. Note when Parkhomov restarted his dog-bone & brought it to a high temp in a relatively short time.

          I understand that they are trying to do this on a shoestring budget, but a double setup would answer a lot of question much faster. Of course you have the cost of double the equipment And that’s not cheap.

  • Axil Axil

    It is currently my sincere belief that the E-Cat goes through two phases on its way to stability and controllability as follows: a startup phase and a stable phase.

    During the startup phase, the powered reactor (mouse) is in danger of a blowout due to the appearance of a hot spot at some arbitrary position in the fuel load of the reactor. This hot spot will reach very high temperatures and melt through the core and release the hydrogen envelope.

    Most alumina shell reactors will be destroyed in the startup phase by a hot spot as the reactor struggles to enter the stable phase. This blowout has happened to the Denis Vasilenko experiment.

    Unless the shell of the reactor is strong enough to resist the power of this hot spot, the experiment will result in reactor destruction. Most alumina reactor tests will end in this way as the hot spot destroys the reactor.

    But sometimes by chance, the alumina reactor gets through this startup phase and enters the stable phase. During this phase, hot spots cease to be a problem. For the alumina reactor, this stable condition is rare and only happens by chance. Out of all the experiments that Parkhomov has performed, his experiments have only resulted in a stable reactor but a few times.

    In the stable phase, blowout does not occur. However, meltdown can occur if the temperature of the reactor is pushed to high. Meltdown is not a blowout because a Meltdown continues even after the shell of the reactor has been destroyed. A meltdown occurs as a global over heating event throughout the entire volume of the core.

    A meltdown will not occur during the startup phase because a phase transition into stability has not occurred. The goal of an alumina reactor experiment is to get through the startup phase and enter the stability phase. Because of the fragility of the alumina shell, the stability phase is seldom achieved.

    To aid in getting through the startup phase, I suggest using a more robust reactor shell to contain the power of the hot spot or somehow reinforce the alumina tube with metal containment.

    • psi2u2

      Very interesting theory. Thanks.

      • Axil Axil

        Let us really put some theory into this idea and try to explain it simply.

        When the reactor reaches a stable thermal condition after it has completely started up, all the dipoles vibrate together as driven by the isothermal(even) heat. This even heat causes the dipoles to move together in the same way. It is like a room full of dancers moving to the same tune. When this happens, a state of super radiance sets in.

        In quantum optics, superradiance is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of N emitters, such as excited atoms in a dipole motion, interact with a common light field. heat is a common light field. If the wavelength of the light is much greater than the separation of the emitters, then the emitters interact with the light in a collective and coherent fashion. The wavelength of infrared light is between 700 nm – 1 mm. The dipoles are spaced together closer than that. This causes the group to emit light as a high intensity pulse (with rate ∝ N2). This is a surprising result, drastically different from the expected exponential decay (with rate ∝ N) of a group of independent atoms (as in spontaneous emission). Superradiance has since been demonstrated in a wide variety of physical and chemical systems, such as quantum dot arrays and J-aggregates.[ The effect has recently been used to produce a polariton superradiant laser.

        To simplify all the dipoles acted like a single huge dipole. The input power that comes into the reactor feeds all the dipoles equally. All the nuclear energy that the dipoles produce is shared equally among all the dipoles. The dipoles release the same amount of heat like there was a single huge dipole instead of many individual dipoles performing the same dance step.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes, I think Denis now feels he should have backed down in temperature set point to develop more ash showing LENR process was there & controllable & stable until at least significant self sustaining mode (ssm) had developed which would take a time he could have also determined experimentally & give the theorist some more experimental information to work with. Lets hear from Denis I hope, will send him this note today. He can tell us his understanding of the situation for our information.

    • builditnow

      Axil Axil, to support your proposal, Parkhomov and the recent Chinese experiments contained the fuel in an inner container of stainless steel and nickle so that it was not in direct contact with the alumina container. This could keep an energy burst from damaging the alumina and allow the reactor to reach the stable phase.
      Rossi might prepare his fuel load so that is is past the first energy burst phase.
      He may have supplied fuel to the Lugano researchers so they don’t have to deal with the energy burst phase and allowing them to have 3 successful reactors.

      • Axil Axil

        Also, Parkhomov’s advice to bring the reactor temperature up slowly in the extreme, might be a way to give the temperature of the reactor the best chance to reach thermal stablity. Bringing the temperture of the reactor up fast may be asking for trouble.

        • Omega Z

          Yep, If you reline a furnace with new fire brick & fire it up as usual, you will find yourself relining it again. Usually it blows up.

          Some of this has to do with moisture, but you will find a similar effect in other materials including high strength steel. You heat it up slowly the 1st time so it can build a stress line pattern.

          Think of a stress line that comes to a “Y” point. Heated up fast and it goes both ways & explodes. Heated up slowly, it will usually go left or right. It builds a memory path. Additional heat ups can take place faster.
          Note : Parkhomov’s heater device burn out. The next day when he had a replacement, he was able to bring it back to high temp in a relatively short time.

          NOTE: Tho some power plant gas turbines are designed for fast start up in urgent situations, they tend to start them up over many hours. Even when designed for it, they can still fail in this manner.

      • Axil Axil

        The Replicators of Parkhomov are following his one success out of ten tries strategy. To put up will all that failure takes a special kind of person. The Replications do not want to change the dogbone build formula. If they would just strengthen the reactor shell, more test reactors would get through the startup phase. At least the Replications are running multi-day tests in which the temperature of the reactor is increased very slowly. If someone would breakout of the Replications mind set and use a more blowout resistant reactor shell, the percentage of successful test would increase substantially.

        “Parkhomov and the recent Chinese experiments contained the fuel in an inner container of stainless steel and nickle so that it was not in direct contact with the alumina container. This could keep an energy burst from damaging the alumina and allow the reactor to reach the stable phase.”

        Why hasn’t MFMP picked up on this fine point of reactor construction. The Replications are working in a state of “malsolution”. How can we help them out of the effects of this mind lock problem?

        No one has tried to replicate the Chinese experiment. I do not understand this.

        I would like to see someone run a test of a Mouse stimulating a half dozen Cats. But that might be asking for too much at this early juncture.

  • Mats002

    I think in term of control, different algoritm are needed at different stages of the process, given that our speculations are correct, I see several stages:
    a) startup to break LiAlH4 and start loading H into Ni
    b) optimize loading without start of codeposition of nanoparticles
    c) very careful (slow) start codeposition, make LENR go without runaway
    d) hold balance in this position until resonance effect begin
    e) drop input heat, let ssm do it’s job
    f) when ssm loose balance, go to c) and iterate

    What signals do we need to act on?

  • Mats002

    Yes I agree that a computer program is needed to control this process, see suggested process description below, the obsticle is not in the algoritm but in what signals to act on. Is IR camera fast and accurate enough? Some real time image processing might be needed to distinguish single microburst events, averages will not do.

  • Axil Axil

    Something happened at 16:30 at the end of the test where the temperature rose radidly and the pressure rose from a minimum level. The light variations did not corespont to temperature change in the data, but this might be due to a slow sensor responce time.

    • Mats002

      And this paper might give some ideas how to measure an ignition sequence:

      The LENR field suffer badly from the problem of measure heat. Heat measures seems to be questionable to infinity, much because of averages which therefore should be avoided as ‘evidence’. Measure microbursts is another thing, it is distinct and shows a behavior at high resolution in both space and time.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The Vasilenko report confirms that poor design leads to failure. If there is evidence of XE in this experiment, it’s not visible.

    This is the evidence *against* XE: The temperature record shows a difference in temperature that is roughly proportional to temperature. This difference shows up uniformly across the entire temperature record of the experiment, it is quite visible below 300 C. So if this temperature difference is due to XE, the reaction must be taking place uniformly at relatively low temperatures.

    There is some increase visible in what may be the last measurement. One of the flaws in the experiment is that temperature was not recorded continuously (it would be normal to record temperature at one-minute intervals; for this work, where heat bursts are being suspected, more frequent recording should be done.)

    The most likely explanation for the temperature difference is a difference in cooling rate between the fueled reactor and the unfueled one. While the effect of fuel on cooling rate would be unclear, there was also another difference between the two reactors, and it’s difficult for me to understand why Vasilenko did it this way: the fueled reactor is supported at the ends, and the unfueled reactor is supported by twisted copper wire, which would function as a heat sink and which might easily explain the temperature difference.

    The Vasilenko experiment replicated construction techniques from Parkhomov, who experienced similar reactor failures. In this case, we have a beautiful image of the reactor shortly before failure. In that image, we can see the cracks in the alumina cement that covered the heater coils. We can see that, inside these cracks, the temperature is higher, white-hot vs yellow-hot. And we can see that the thermocouple is at a lower temperature than the general alumina surface, not terribly surprising either.

    The temperature of the heating coils, buried in alumina cement, will be much higher than that of the thermocouple. This is a poor design.

    There are two problems with the “confined” heating coils. First of all, even though they were Kanthal, they may have approached the melting point. Secondly, cracking was caused, probably from differing coefficients of expansion, even a little difference could cause that. This would cause stress on the heating element. If the element starts to fail, the temperature at the point of failure could rise dramatically, as the resistance there increases — depending on how the power is being controlled.

    Vasilenko’s method of controlling input power was not clearly stated. Maybe it is on MFMP pages that I haven’t seen, but it is not only input power that must be controlled, but also cooling rate.

    An approach far more likely to be probative would be a tube furnace, with a single heater winding, and large enough for two fuel tubes to be symmetrically arranged in the furnace, and tested to show that the heating is uniform. The tubes should be identical except for a single variable. Fuel/No fuel is actually two variables: the amount of nickel and the amount of Lithal.

    (If a single control is desired, I’d make it a baked cell, where the hydrogen has left. Otherwise identical. Otherwise, with a uniform set-up, many combinations should be tested. As well, cells should be examined for leakage of hydrogen, if it leaks out, there should be a measurable weight loss.)

    For calorimetry, I’d suggest that the fuel tubes be surrounded by an alumina cylinder that is there to conduct any leaked hydrogen away from the thermocouples. There would then be a PtRh thermocouple on the outside of that tube, another cylinder over it, with another PtRh thermocouple on the outside. Each of the fuel tubes has this envelope. The envelope geometry should be controlled so that results from experiment to experiment may be compared. An independent thermocouple would be used to monitor the general internal temperature of the tube furnace and control heating, which, of course, would be recorded.

    The heating is controlled by thermostatic regulation to a target temperature that is, over the course of the experiment, raised (and perhaps lowered). Major XP would require the input power be reduced to maintain constant temperature.

    If runaway appears under these conditions, it should show in the temperature records.

    Under these conditions, if there is no XE, the four test thermocouples should approach the same temperature as the oven thermocouple.. (In the Jiang experiment, the design was vastly complicated by the existence of a major heat sink in the stainless steel reactor body, conducting heat out the end, instead of the heat travelling through the layers of thermometry.) Properly designed, the internal thermocouples should approach oven temperature, closely.

    Elevation of the inmost thermocouple temperature, over the outermost, will indicate generation of energy in the fuel tube. Properly done, this setup should indicate the generation of chemical energy where that takes place. Chemical energy, however, will not persist at major levels..

    The amount of energy released may be measured through calibrations, using a dummy reactor with a heating element installed inside. It could also be tested through chemical charges with known heat release.

    The experimental focus should shift from attempting to “replicate” other work, to studying the response of fuel to temperature. To do that, the setup must be carefully studied and calibrated.

    The current approach is generating a pile of anecdotes, with no clear reproducible behavior. It convinces only believers and gives fuel to pseudoskeptics, confusing the genuine skeptics.