MFMP to Run New Glowstick Test (Update, Aug 26th: Fueled Run Now Live Streaming)

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is preparing to start a new test of their latest reactor — the GlowStick GS4 — which is scheduled to begin on August 24th.

A description of the reactor is on their Facebook Page:

“The cell will use a Coorstek mullite tube in differential configuration like GS3: two zone heater coil, one side filled with an alumina rod and the other with fuel.”

“The instrumentation and power control will be like GS3: sine wave AC with variac and PID controller, temperature sensed from K-Type thermocouple. As Alan does not have a suitable power analyser, this is the method available that will yield meaningful power measurements.”

Here’s a diagram of the reactor:

GS4

Data will be made available live via the HUGNetLab when the test begins. This post will be updated when the test begins.

UPDATE: (Aug 26, 2015)

A live, fueled run has just begun. The video stream is below, and data can be followed also at http://data.hugnetlab.com/. Bob Greenyer has said that this setup has the “best calibration ever between “active” and null side”.

  • nietsnie

    Did MFMP ever publish data from the Padua re-heat? I’ve looked for it but haven’t found it.

      • nietsnie

        Thanks barty! And very nice of you to make that space available for MFMP!

        But, I’ve been looking through the available files there and I don’t see what I was hoping for. I see several .avi – those must be the video camera; several .ravi – those must be the thermal imager; and a bunch of .jpg – those must be snap shots. Then there are two very small .csv files that I think represent overlapping segments of Geiger counts for altogether 1 hour from the afternoon of August 4th. And finally two .rpn files – which I assume are sound recordings rather than bridge hands, although I don’t understand the relevance of either.

        What I was hoping for was something more along the line of the data that went into producing the live plot.ly graphs – plus one for Geiger counts for the duration. Something I could move into a database and operate on. Any possibility something like that is on the way?

        • As I heard from me356, he’s still uploading. Maybe the files you want will come the next hours.

          Feel free to ask me356 in our forum 🙂

  • Obvious

    Is that a voltage tap in the middle?

    • Andrey

      No coil gap there, but gap between thermocouples. One is fueled, the other one isn’t.
      This is great idea – so we can see the difference live with same input temperature and pressure.

      Great test design! :: crossing fingers ::

      • Obvious

        I am not at all convinced that an alumina plug is a suitable null for a metallic fuel. But it is their experiment. I do hope there is a tap at mid coil to compare voltages (and resistance, with power off) to help settle any ambiguous variation from side to side.

  • Obvious

    Is that a voltage tap in the middle?
    Is there actually a gap between coils?
    Best wishes for success.
    Edit: please check the tube dimensions in the diagram. There is no room for the coil using the specifications provided.

    • Andrey

      No coil gap there, but gap between thermocouples. One is fueled, the other one isn’t.
      This is great idea – so we can see the difference live with same input temperature and pressure.

      Great test design! :: crossing fingers ::

      • Obvious

        I am not at all convinced that an alumina plug is a suitable null for a metallic fuel. But it is their experiment. I do hope there is a tap at mid coil to compare voltages (and resistance, with power off) to help settle any ambiguous variation from side to side.

  • Bob

    Best wishes MFMP. I am starting to believe your work is our best (and possibly only current) hope of getting a cold fusion / LENR / what ever the name, confirmation and acceptance to the general scientific world. Which probably this confirmation and acceptance, we will not see any LENR products.
    I was so hoping that Rossi would finally deliver the goods when IH came on the scene. According to posts at the time, IH was taking the reigns and Rossi was the “chief scientific officer”, his words.
    Now that 6 months has went by, which is more than enough time to have 100% confirmed the eCat’s over unity, (I understand the desire to establish longevity results), it appears that the relationship between Rossi and IH has become murky at best and possibly broken at worst.
    While Darden does not have to make any statements, he did go public at the latest ICCF conference. I would think if things were as “perfect as ever” IH/Darden would at least publish a brief progress statement. “Things are progressing forward and we are committed to assist Dr. Rossi in this endeavor” or “Since the ICCF speech, we are encouraged by the progress and IH with Dr. Rossi are excited about the tests so far”. Their silence is deafening. Rossi’s recent posts about eCat X and the IH relationship makes me feel very troubled.
    The approach MFMP is taking is a breath of fresh air! While I acknowledge that some are in the LENR field as a business venture and have a need to protect investments and that there is a significant difference between business and science, MFMP is truly doing science as I think science should be.
    Keep of the good work!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Bob.

      These things are only made possible by the dedication of volunteers like Alan and Skip and your kind words helps make the darker moments worthwhile.

      It is great to have so many heads thinking on this, we seek the truth, and with the very many insights of the crowd and now a wide spectrum of replicators, ideas are coming thick and fast.

      This run re-engages the data with the crowd through HUGNetLab, something that helps everyone understand the experiment as it happens.

      • William D. Fleming

        Very exciting! Good luck.

    • Winebuff

      Can u say stardust!!

  • Jarea1

    I really hope you are successful MFMP. We need very much a reproducible experiment of the ecat. That would open the doors for many institutions and you will enter in history. It is discouraging that you have not achieved a reproducible experiment even with Parkhomov and Chinese indications.

    For me the real prove of LENR and ECAT will come from open science as you do. You do really really well. I know that Rossi is not interested in give the competition a hint for free but i think he will profit of the acceptance of LENR. If Russian and Chinese have already the formula what does he loose by helping MFMP? He is still ahead of competition.

    Besides, i would like to say again that Rossi has the moral obligation to deliver as soon as possible his invention. The Earth need it so much and we have so many people dying because of energy deficiency. If he has the revolution and he wants to ensure all the market share with a delay strategy, then i think it is unmoral. Does he want to be more than millionaire? billionaire? wtf

  • Jarea

    I really hope you are successful MFMP. We need very much a reproducible experiment of the ecat. That would open the doors for many institutions and you will enter in history. It is discouraging that you have not achieved a reproducible experiment even with Parkhomov and Chinese indications.

    For me the real prove of LENR and ECAT will come from open science as you do. You do really really well. I know that Rossi is not interested in give the competition a hint for free but i think he will profit of the acceptance of LENR. If Russian and Chinese have already the formula what does he loose by helping MFMP? He is still ahead of competition.

    Besides, i would like to say again that Rossi has the moral obligation to deliver as soon as possible his invention. The Earth need it so much and we have so many people dying because of energy deficiency. If he has the revolution and he wants to ensure all the market share with a delay strategy, then i think it is unmoral. Does he want to be more than millionaire? billionaire? wtf

  • Sanjeev

    Some data is coming now, but its not on yet.
    http://data.hugnetlab.com/
    Can Bob or someone from MFMP please tell us about schedule/times/protocols?

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is intended to be a long run.

      The plan is to get a good calibration set before the main run.

      It is just as well that the failure of the outer TC happened in calibration and it can be re-started.

  • Sanjeev

    Its on now. Alan just posted:
    GS4 first calibration is now running a 5 hr ramp from ambient to 900 C (Outside Heater). The relevant data for this calibration is outside heater temp vs. core temp. and input power.

    The pressure sensor is not installed on the cell. There is a dummy fuel load consisting of 1 g. of Chinese Ni power (unknown quality) mixed with ~0.1 g. of Al2O3 powder. The cell is not sealed.

    • Obvious

      That fuel should be interesting. So there is still an alumina plug in the dummy side also?

      • Sanjeev

        The drawing shows there is..

        • Obvious

          I would like to confirm both dummy fuel and a ceramic dummy-null in this calibration. I am thinking some excess temperature relative to the alumina rod will develop with this dummy fuel. How much extra will be enlightening.
          And I hope the dummy fuel container does not get stuck in the tube.

          • Sanjeev

            How will you know that its excess ?

          • Sanjeev

            I guess you mean a difference. Then you are right, there is already a difference of 60-70C.

          • Obvious

            If it is higher than the alumina rod. Then we might know if a metal dummy is a better dummy than an alumina dummy. Or maybe something else weird will happen.
            I, for one, would like to put the dummy characteristic heat signatures to the test. How much does the dummy have to resemble the fuel in order to be an effective dummy? A null is one thing to make, but a good baseline/standard for effective comparison is a bit more difficult.

          • Sanjeev

            Agree. After looking at all these experiments one can say that such comparisons are unreliable, its a tricky thing. That’s why one must also look for other evidences like decrease in power, HAD and proper calorimetry.

          • Obvious

            A decent reaction should show up fairly obviously. A ceramic plug in nickel tube would be a good idea at some point also in baseline tests. Small differences at low temps could be huge at high power if there is a power imbalance, but if it is a radiation-conduction-convection imbalance it might square law its way to insignificance at higher temperatures as radiative losses begin to dominate.

            Edit: the dummy fuel is a great idea, and I like the nickel tube idea very much also. Just to be clear…

          • Ged

            This should give us the proper baseline for the run. If the alumina side runs a little under the dummy metal is fine, as it is being quantitated now as a baseline blank, which can be subsequently subtracted from the active run.

            I am very glad they are doing this blank with a proper metal load, as it should really cut down on unknowns.

  • Sanjeev

    Alan : Calibration stopped at 20:51. The Outside Null thermocouple attachment failed. We’ll restart the full ramp after fixing that.

    • Ged

      Kickin out the bugs! Yeehah!

  • Skip

    Fixed and restarted

  • Skip

    Fixed and restarted

  • Bob Greenyer

    On related news – after weeks of delays due to labs being backed up, we are hopeful that both sets of randomly labelled samples at the independent testers of the GS3 ash will be tested this week and we will have some data to share in the next 2 weeks.

    • Rigel

      Thanks for the ash info. Are the other sample runs going to be tested? Would you perchance know if AP or anyone for that matter, has had the ash test results returned?
      I know you do not speak for AP but I assume that ANY ash info is on your radar. And while you guys are using scientific method, a wish of ‘good luck’ never hurts. Go break some eggs, or TC’s.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will publish our ash info – whatever it is – when we have it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Runs that look promising will – if we find something worth getting excited about, then we may not need to sample for a while, because we will know this is real

  • Obvious

    Is the internal temperature real? (measured, not calculated?)

    • magicsnd1

      Internal (core) temperature is a type k thermocouple mounted with a Swagelok pass-through on the active end of the tube. The junction is buried in the dummy fuel powder.

      • Obvious

        How is the TC protected from shorting through the nickel powder? It seems to be working fine, anyway.

  • Obvious

    Is the internal temperature real? (measured, not calculated?)

    • magicsnd1

      Internal (core) temperature is a type k thermocouple mounted with a Swagelok pass-through on the active end of the tube. The junction is buried in the dummy fuel powder.

      • Obvious

        How is the TC protected from shorting through the nickel powder? It seems to be working fine, anyway.

  • Ged

    Just some random fun with the dummy data, using the difference between Dummy Active/Null, and the rate of change of that difference graphed as a ten point moving average. Used the 30 second data. Units are degrees C for both y-axes.

    http://postimg.org/image/48g3aqhar/

    • Obvious

      Dummy fuel 330°C hotter than ceramic null…sigh…

      • Ged

        Now we can subtract this from the active run with nickel and hydrogen, as we’ve gotten a proper nickel without hydrogen blank.

        • Obvious

          Hmm. But the GS3 wasn’t this severely different. The nickel tube is reflecting heat big time, maybe? So what does that do to its inside temp? Where is that core temp probe?

          • Ged

            That is a good possibility, indeed. Also, a good question. Core vs Active isn’t diverging nearly as largely, so it’ll be interesting to know if the core sensor is on the active side or dummy side (my inclination is it’s on the active side).

          • Obvious

            It does look to be based on the hot side.

          • Mats002

            To be clear: above graph could easy be taken as proof of LENR but neither side has a Hydrogen source which is one of the common known ingredients needed for the phenomenon to occur.

            Linear (systematic) differences in temp or pressure is NOT LENR, therefore above signature is not LENR but some systematic error like failed TC. But be aware that also random differences can be explained by failed equipment.

            Ruling out false positives is an important part of this work.

          • Ged

            This is why we do controls 😉

      • magicsnd1

        It’s clear from the test data that the null side thermocouple is defective, confirmed by checks with the IR2200. We’ll replace that TC once the cell cools and do a spot recalibration first thing tomorrow, at steps of 100 C.

        The data we acquired for the inside core vs active side heater temps seems solid, and the new isolation transformer has solved the problem of leakage current from the heater to the TC’s.

        • Ged

          That explains a lot! Thank you for the update. Good thing we’re finding all this now.

        • Obvious

          OK. That makes sense of this strangeness. I was expecting a difference, but not this much.

        • Obvious

          Interesting to see all the TCs return to approximately the same temperature during the final cool-down stage. That was basically the argument for the TCs being OK after being over-temped in the Jiang Ni-Li-H experiment.

          • Mats002

            Noted.

          • Sanjeev

            Good point. This fault provides a good counter argument to Jiang’s claim.
            I was personally convinced that Jiang’s experiment is nothing more than a measurement error when he did not publish anything showing positive results with a good type B TC installed. It should have taken only a day to do that. I’m still hoping there will be a repeat.

            The Russian Lenz team also suffers from similar issue. Too close to failure zone.

          • Obvious

            It is easy to get a lower temperature with a TC, but it takes a special range of voltage to push the temperature reading higher in any non-obvious way.

          • Obvious

            This calibration (#3) looks great.

          • Obvious

            Hard to tell the two outside temperature traces apart, they are so close.

          • Ged

            It does look Very good. Best we have seen. Seems they stay within 10 C of eachother, getting farthest part during temperature ramps, but getting very close during steady state, which is fantastic. They are also closer together at higher temps it seems, though they are already so close it’s a minor difference of a few C. Exactly the behavior we should expect.

          • Ged

            It does look Very good. Best we have seen. Seems they stay within 10 C of eachother, getting farthest part during temperature ramps, but getting very close during steady state, which is fantastic. They are also closer together at higher temps it seems, though they are already so close it’s a minor difference of a few C. Exactly the behavior we should expect.

          • Ged

            It does look Very good. Best we have seen. Seems they stay within 10 C of eachother, getting farthest part during temperature ramps, but getting very close during steady state, which is fantastic. They are also closer together at higher temps it seems, though they are already so close it’s a minor difference of a few C. Exactly the behavior we should expect.

          • magicsnd1

            Here’s the calibration data from settled power steps. The raw data and spreadsheet are available at http://tinyurl.com/nu8dcrw

          • Bob Greenyer

            Really excellent Work Alan

          • artefact

            New stream (the real first one) to start soon:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRFO4YtX0TI

          • Bob Greenyer

            From Alan

            “We have a new GS4.2 reactor assembled from a fresh mullite tube and new heater coil, but using the same thermocouples as yesterday’s test. We installed a dummy fuel load of Ni+Al2O3 like the previous cell, and started the fixed step calibration at 18:00 UTC. The data stream is available at data.hugnetlab.com

            After calibration, we’ll install a fuel load of Parkhomov Ni 1.0 g and LiAlH4 0.15 g. This is 50% more of the hydride compared to the previous run.”

          • Ged

            Data is looking pretty tight, but not as much as last time, in this dummy run. About 50 C of divergence at max temperature–so not bad, definitely manageable. Alan’s thermal image seems to suggest it’s conduction down the null side away from the TC, so we can compensate for that.

          • Obvious

            Well, not the behavior I expected, which was an increasing divergence of the metal dummy from the ceramic null with increasing temperature (not as much as the last one, though).
            But experiment trumps theory, so I accept it.
            It will save me time doing experiments of that nature, anyways. (I’ll do a few just in case, though.)

          • Mats002

            If all equipment work as expected over the whole temp range, during the whole run time then signal-to-noice ratio are a few degrees C. But how to know?

      • tobalt

        Hmm dummy load contains Nickel right ?
        Nickel below several 100°C is ferromagnetic. Above its still rather strongly magnetically susceptible. Ie it will lead to a large inductivity of the coils wrapping around Nickel then that wrapping aroung a -say- alumina load.

        THIS causes the AC resistance of the nickel coil to be higher than the other coil even though the DC resistance is equal. at constant current, obviously the Nickel POWER is much higher than the alumina POWER, even though both windings have the same DC resistance..

        I dont know how strong the induvtive heating efect of nickel is, but fact is:

        All these effects could be determined by a fkin middle voltage tap.. that it is still not present, is – at this stage – not accetable if MFMP wants to be takin seriously in future.

        • Ged

          Inductive needs high frequencies, still uses more power(!), and all our research into the matter shows it is neligable at best, if even present. Always better to test than guess though.

          I completely agree with you that a middle tap would help. This is all one contiguous winding from my understanding, so it shouldn’t be easy to change part without changing all of it.

        • Obvious

          The ringing of my 12 ohm coil at 22 V is quite intense. I will insert a metal rod and see if I can move it with the coil.

  • Ged

    Just some random fun with the dummy data, using the difference between Dummy Active/Null, and the rate of change of that difference graphed as a ten point moving average. Used the 30 second data from the restart till ~21:21 EST. Units are degrees C for both y-axes.

    http://postimg.org/image/48g3aqhar/

    • Obvious

      Dummy fuel 330°C hotter than ceramic null…sigh…

      • Ged

        Now we can subtract this from the active run with nickel and hydrogen, as we’ve gotten a proper nickel without hydrogen blank.

        • Obvious

          Hmm. But the GS3 wasn’t this severely different. The nickel tube is reflecting heat big time, maybe? So what does that do to its inside temp? Where is that core temp probe?

          • Ged

            That is a good possibility, indeed. Also, a good question. Core vs Active isn’t diverging nearly as largely, so it’ll be interesting to know if the core sensor is on the active side or dummy side (my inclination is it’s on the active side).

          • Obvious

            It does look to be based on the hot side.
            (I should have turned off the Volts…)

          • Mats002

            To be clear: above graph could easy be taken as proof of LENR but neither side has a Hydrogen source which is one of the common known ingredients needed for the phenomenon to occur.

            Linear (systematic) differences in temp or pressure is NOT LENR, therefore above signature is not LENR but some systematic error like failed TC. But be aware that also random differences can be explained by failed equipment.

            Ruling out false positives is an important part of this work.

          • Ged

            This is why we do controls 😉

      • magicsnd1

        It’s clear from the test data that the null side thermocouple is defective, confirmed by checks with the IR2200. We’ll replace that TC once the cell cools and do a spot recalibration first thing tomorrow, at steps of 100 C.

        The data we acquired for the inside core vs active side heater temps seems solid, and the new isolation transformer has solved the problem of leakage current from the heater to the TC’s.

        One other conclusion from the IR measurements: the alumina filler rod on the null side conducts substantial amount of heat away from the heated part of the cell, which would explain a small part of the observed offset. But the ceramic chip covering the null TC measured hotter by IR than the TC output, confirming that the TC is defective.

        • Ged

          That explains a lot! Thank you for the update. Good thing we’re finding all this now.

        • Obvious

          OK. That makes sense of this strangeness. I was expecting a difference, but not this much.

        • Obvious

          Interesting to see all the TCs return to approximately the same temperature during the final cool-down stage. That was basically the argument for the TCs being OK after being over-temped in the Jiang Ni-Li-H experiment.

          • Mats002

            Noted.

          • Sanjeev

            Good point. This fault provides a good counter argument to Jiang’s claim.
            I was personally convinced that Jiang’s experiment is nothing more than a measurement error when he did not publish anything showing positive results with a good type B TC installed. It should have taken only a day to do that. I’m still hoping there will be a repeat.

            The Russian Lenz team also suffers from similar issue. Too close to failure zone.

          • Obvious

            It is easy to get a lower temperature with a TC, but it takes a special range of voltage to push the temperature reading higher in any non-obvious way.

      • tobalt

        Hmm dummy load contains Nickel right ?
        Nickel below several 100°C is ferromagnetic. Above its still rather strongly magnetically susceptible. Ie it will lead to a large inductivity of the coils wrapping around Nickel then that wrapping aroung a -say- alumina load.

        THIS causes the AC resistance of the nickel coil to be higher than the other coil even though the DC resistance is equal. at constant current, obviously the Nickel POWER is much higher than the alumina POWER, even though both windings have the same DC resistance..

        I dont know how strong the induvtive heating efect of nickel is, but fact is:

        All these effects could be determined by a fkin middle voltage tap.. that it is still not present, is – at this stage – not accetable if MFMP wants to be takin seriously in future.

        • Ged

          Inductive needs high frequencies, still uses more power(!), and all our research into the matter shows it is neligable at best, if even present. But, always better to test than guess, as you point out.

          I completely agree with you that a middle tap would help. This is all one contiguous winding from my understanding, so it shouldn’t be easy to change part without changing all of it.

        • Obvious

          The ringing of my 12 ohm coil at 22 V is quite intense. I will insert a metal rod and see if I can move it with the coil.

  • GreenWin

    Props to the MFMP team and their dedicated LENR work. I am like others here enthusiastic about their potential for success. But I am also, like Bob, disappointed that tax payer funded R&D e.g. USA national labs, NRL, Naval Postgraduate School, NASA, DARPA, DIA, DTRA, DOE, NNSA, etc etc… are not stepping up to help our team at MFMP.

    Let’s get honest folks, the US government has millions of tax dollars invested in LENR-related R&D (we have the DARPA budgets) – this is BTW the American people’s money paid as taxes to a government “of the people, by the people.” I’m going on record to request any U.S. government entity or agency active in the black or light LENR research to come forward and assist Bob Greenyer and his excellent MFMP team. These ABC agencies exist only because of tax payers – i.e. the American people – for whom they serve. How ’bout the people get their money’s worth for once?? Is this asking too much?? We think not.

    • GreenWin

      I am pleased to have learned the phrase, “Ask, and it is given.” Summa cum laude. And gratitude. 🙂

    • GreenWin

      I am pleased to have learned the phrase, “Ask, and it is given.” Summa cum laude. And gratitude. 🙂

  • Joseph Cameron

    All that needs to be done to get the US gov research is a foia, “Freedom of Information Request”.

    Now someone who knows what material to ask for and how would be someone here far more knowledgeable then I. They will either say yes and then you wait or no. If no then again someone in the know becomes persistent.

    Now I am not saying this would be easy . They the US giv may have some reason they may not want to share this information. The reason doesn’t even have to be related to LENR.

    That alone is sending some message that will be speculated to death here.

    Hoping AR delivers an LENR device to the public like he has committed.

    J

  • Joseph Cameron

    All that needs to be done to get the US gov research is a foia, “Freedom of Information Request”.

    Now someone who knows what material to ask for and how would be someone here far more knowledgeable then I. They will either say yes and then you wait or no. If no then again someone in the know becomes persistent.

    Now I am not saying this would be easy . They the US giv may have some reason they may not want to share this information. The reason doesn’t even have to be related to LENR.

    That alone is sending some message that will be speculated to death here.

    Hoping AR delivers an LENR device to the public like he has committed.

    J

  • LT

    Some thoughts about the use of thermocouples

    Thermocouples
    ——————

    I an retired now, but a part of my career I have spent in the semiconductor industry as an electronic/electrical engineer contributing to the design of diffusion ovens.
    Basically a diffusion oven resembles the design of an ECAT, You have tube with on the outside (Kantal) heating elements controlled by thermocouples and a process that happens inside the tube. What strikes me is that in all the ECAT experiments I see, K type thermocouples are used for the measurement and control of the temperatures. If the reaction in an experiment causes excessive heat, temperatures over 1000 degree C can easily happen (think about the HOT CAT). In diffusion ovens above 1000 degree C we did not uses K type thermocouples because of the associated problems with K type thermocouples above this temperature.
    This includes (see also http://www.gilsoneng.com/reference/tcinfo.pdf ) :

    – Cycling

    Cycling between temperatures above and beneath about 1000 degrees causes the K type thermocouple to have it’s reading error increased each time it cycles.

    – Crystalline forming

    At certain temperature ranges crystalline structures can be formed which causes additional thermocouple emf voltages resulting in extra reading errors.

    – Oxidation

    It is possible that under certain circumstances that one of the thermocouple wires of a K type thermocouple becomes oxidized, possibly leading to a thermocouple failure ( http://www.gayesco.com/pdf_files/GrainGrowth.pdf )

    For the above reasons we did not use K type thermocouples at elevated temperatures but used instead R or S type thermocouples. Using R or S type thermocouples has additional advantages. In the first place the maximum measurement errors at higher temperatures are much better for R and S thermocouples (.25% of measured temperature) then for K type thermocouples (.75 %). Thus at 1000 degree C a K type thermocouple may have an error of 7.5 degree C while for a R or S type thermocouple the error becomes 2.5 degree C.
    Better is it to buy thermocouples with a calibration table or approximation formula with derived constants. In that case a R or S thermocouple has a maximum measurement error of .1 % (1 degree at 1000 C) while a K type still can have an error of .4% or 4 degree C
    Despite the advantages of R and S thermocouples at elevated temperatures, there are also drawbacks. First of all, R and S thermocouples are made of Platinum, which makes them very expensive compared to K type thermocouples. A second disadvantage is that the EMF voltage of a R or S thermocouple is about 4 times lower then that of a K type thermocouple but that disadvantage can be overcome by accurate data acquisition electronics.

    Cold junction
    —————

    Since thermocouples are made of two different metals which needs to be connected to electronics equipment, at a certain point the thermocouple needs to be connected to standard copper wire.
    The place where the connection between the thermocouple and the copper wires is made, is called the “cold junction”. The EMF that the thermocouple generates is proportional to the temperature difference between the thermocouple and the cold junction and therefore you want to have the cold junction temperature at a low value (about room temperature) . Since thermocouple tables are based upon having the cold junction at zero degree C, having the cold junction at any other temperature means that we have to compensate for the cold junction temperature. Some methods used are :

    – Adding a compensating voltage

    This principle uses some temperature dependent device (for example ntc) in an electronic circuit located at the cold junction which adds to the thermocouple voltage an compensating voltage Since thermocouples have a non linear curve, the compensating action also needs to be non linear depending on the temperature.

    – Measuring the junction temperature

    It is also possible to measure the temperature at the cold junction ( for example with a PT100 device, NTC or other means) and the calculate from the thermocouple table what the compensation voltage needs to be. You can then compensate by hand calculating the right temperature or automate this process with a computer.

    – Keeping the cold junction at a fixed temperature

    You can have your cold junction inside a box in which te temperature is kept constant by means of a heating element, temperature sensor and control circuit. Such a device is called a cold junction box and the temperature inside the box is normally kept above the maximum expected surrounding temperature so that you have control room.

    Why is cold junction compensation so important ? Because if not done right it introduces extra errors into your temperature measurements. And here we have a problem, standard multi-meters with a K type thermocouple input or cheap handhold thermocouple measurement devices will not do always the job right.

    An additional problem
    ————————-

    There is another problem associated with measuring with thermocouples at high temperatures, the electrical resistance of ceramics/quartz at high temperatures. While at room temperatures Alumina has an electrical resistivity of about 2E11 Ohm-meter, this becomes 2000 Ohm-meter at 1000 degree C. And thus at high temperatures (in diffusion ovens we have seen the effect around 1300 degree C) there is a high Ohmic, but not discard able leakage path between the heating element and the thermocouple. This causes your heating element AC voltage to be partly superimposed on your thermocouple voltage. As a result depending when you measure the thermocouple with reference to the AC cycle, you will see different values. In combination with your PID control, this can result in erratic temperature control.
    Also if the total voltage is outside the input range of your data acquisition system, clamping can occur, which in turn result in a DC voltage superimposed on the thermocouple value. There are techniques to largely overcome this problem (filtering, averaging, proper grounding schemes etc), but these go beyond the introduction here.

    The message I wanted to give here is that one should not think lightly about measuring with thermocouples. It can be done properly, but simply using them without knowledge can result in faulty measurements which can then not be used to validate an ECAT experiment.

    LT

    • Ged

      Great amount of technical insight and detail. Thank you for taking the time to share.

      • magicsnd1

        Calibration #3 started at around 18:30 UTC. This will be fixed steps of
        10 volts rms, with settling time for the temperatures. The offset
        between the Active and Null sides is still there with a fresh TC. I also
        tried switching DAQ inputs, with no change in the observed offset. My
        current guess is that the greater thermal mass and conduction of the
        alumina core rod is keeping the Null side cooler.

        • Obvious

          I like the voltage ramps much better. Just easier to follow, and see the heat profile better.
          In case of reaction it may be more obvious, but harder to control, though.

      • Mats002

        I second that – awesome!

  • LT

    Some thoughts about the use of thermocouples

    Thermocouples
    ——————

    I am retired now, but a part of my career I have spent in the semiconductor industry as an electronic/electrical engineer contributing to the design of diffusion ovens.
    Basically a diffusion oven resembles the design of an ECAT, You have tube with on the outside (Kantal) heating elements controlled by thermocouples and a process that happens inside the tube. What strikes me is that in all the ECAT experiments I see, K type thermocouples are used for the measurement and control of the temperatures. If the reaction in an experiment causes excessive heat, temperatures over 1000 degree C can easily happen (think about the HOT CAT). In diffusion ovens above 1000 degree C we did not uses K type thermocouples because of the associated problems with K type thermocouples above this temperature.
    This includes (see also http://www.gilsoneng.com/reference/tcinfo.pdf ) :

    – Cycling

    Cycling between temperatures above and beneath about 1000 degrees causes the K type thermocouple to have it’s reading error increased each time it cycles.

    – Crystalline forming

    At certain temperature ranges crystalline structures can be formed which causes additional thermocouple emf voltages resulting in extra reading errors.

    – Oxidation

    It is possible that under certain circumstances that one of the thermocouple wires of a K type thermocouple becomes oxidized, possibly leading to a thermocouple failure ( http://www.gayesco.com/pdf_files/GrainGrowth.pdf )

    For the above reasons we did not use K type thermocouples at elevated temperatures but used instead R or S type thermocouples. Using R or S type thermocouples has additional advantages. In the first place the maximum measurement errors at higher temperatures are much better for R and S thermocouples (.25% of measured temperature) then for K type thermocouples (.75 %). Thus at 1000 degree C a K type thermocouple may have an error of 7.5 degree C while for a R or S type thermocouple the error becomes 2.5 degree C.
    Better is it to buy thermocouples with a calibration table or approximation formula with derived constants. In that case a R or S thermocouple has a maximum measurement error of .1 % (1 degree at 1000 C) while a K type still can have an error of .4% or 4 degree C
    Despite the advantages of R and S thermocouples at elevated temperatures, there are also drawbacks. First of all, R and S thermocouples are made of Platinum, which makes them very expensive compared to K type thermocouples. A second disadvantage is that the EMF voltage of a R or S thermocouple is about 4 times lower then that of a K type thermocouple but that disadvantage can be overcome by accurate data acquisition electronics.

    Cold junction
    —————

    Since thermocouples are made of two different metals which needs to be connected to electronics equipment, at a certain point the thermocouple needs to be connected to standard copper wire.
    The place where the connection between the thermocouple and the copper wires is made, is called the “cold junction”. The EMF that the thermocouple generates is proportional to the temperature difference between the thermocouple and the cold junction and therefore you want to have the cold junction temperature at a low value (about room temperature) . Since thermocouple tables are based upon having the cold junction at zero degree C, having the cold junction at any other temperature means that we have to compensate for the cold junction temperature. Some methods used are :

    – Adding a compensating voltage

    This principle uses some temperature dependent device (for example ntc) in an electronic circuit located at the cold junction which adds to the thermocouple voltage an compensating voltage Since thermocouples have a non linear curve, the compensating action also needs to be non linear depending on the temperature.

    – Measuring the junction temperature

    It is also possible to measure the temperature at the cold junction ( for example with a PT100 device, NTC or other means) and the calculate from the thermocouple table what the compensation voltage needs to be. You can then compensate by hand calculating the right temperature or automate this process with a computer.

    – Keeping the cold junction at a fixed temperature

    You can have your cold junction inside a box in which te temperature is kept constant by means of a heating element, temperature sensor and control circuit. Such a device is called a cold junction box and the temperature inside the box is normally kept above the maximum expected surrounding temperature so that you have control room.

    Why is cold junction compensation so important ? Because if not done right it introduces extra errors into your temperature measurements. And here we have a problem, standard multi-meters with a K type thermocouple input or cheap handhold thermocouple measurement devices will not do always the job right.

    An additional problem
    ————————-

    There is another problem associated with measuring with thermocouples at high temperatures, the electrical resistance of ceramics/quartz at high temperatures. While at room temperatures Alumina has an electrical resistivity of about 2E11 Ohm-meter, this becomes 20000 Ohm-meter at 1000 degree C. And thus at high temperatures (in diffusion ovens we have seen the effect around 1300 degree C) there is a high Ohmic, but not discard able leakage path between the heating element and the thermocouple. This causes your heating element AC voltage to be partly superimposed on your thermocouple voltage. As a result depending when you measure the thermocouple with reference to the AC cycle, you will see different values. In combination with your PID control, this can result in erratic temperature control.
    Also if the total voltage is outside the input range of your data acquisition system, clamping can occur, which in turn result in a DC voltage superimposed on the thermocouple value. There are techniques to largely overcome this problem (filtering, averaging, proper grounding schemes etc), but these go beyond the introduction here.

    The message I wanted to give here is that one should not think lightly about measuring with thermocouples. It can be done properly, but simply using them without knowledge can result in faulty measurements which can then not be used to validate an ECAT experiment.

    LT

    • Ged

      Great amount of technical insight and detail. Thank you for taking the time to share.

      • Mats002

        I second that – awesome!

    • Asterix

      LT, thank you for shedding some light on this issue. Perhaps this will get the experimenters to re-examine their equipment. My experience in the steel industry follows what you say. Type S thermocouples are used extensively in that industry where steel is near its melting point (around 1500C). These are not hobby devices–they must penetrate the wall of a furnace, and so are about 36-48″ in length and are strung on ceramic beads, enclosed in a ceramic tube, which is, in turn enclosed in an outer silicon carbide tube. Very, very expensive, but very accurate and not suffering the effects of “aging”. In prior times, they served as a calibration standard.

      If hydrogen is part of the equation in these experiments, one thing you don’t want to use is type K (chromel-alumel) T/Cs. They suffer from something called “green rot”, where the hydrogen diffuses into the chromel and can upset temperature readings.

  • mcloki
  • mcloki
  • Skip

    Worlds first LENR powered aircraft. Brought to you by MFMP and AR..

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is GREAT Skip!

  • Skip

    Worlds first LENR powered aircraft. Brought to you by MFMP and AR..

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is GREAT Skip!

  • magicsnd1

    Calibration #3 started at around 18:30 UTC. This will be fixed steps of
    10 volts rms, with settling time for the temperatures. The offset
    between the Active and Null sides is still there with a fresh TC. I also
    tried switching DAQ inputs, with no change in the observed offset. My
    current guess is that the greater thermal mass and conduction of the
    alumina core rod is keeping the Null side cooler.

    • Obvious

      I like the voltage ramps much better. Just easier to follow, and see the heat profile better.
      In case of reaction it may be more obvious, but harder to control, though.

  • Obvious

    This calibration (#3) looks great.

    • Obvious

      Hard to tell the two outside temperature traces apart, they are so close.

      • Ged

        Thanks to some sort of Disqus API update (or so the message said when I tried to post), my post was replicated 3 times. Whoops!

        Three times for Calibration 3?

      • Ged

        It does look Very good. Best we have seen. Seems they stay within 10 C of eachother, getting farthest part during temperature ramps, but getting very close during steady state, which is fantastic. They are also closer together at higher temps it seems, though they are already so close it’s a minor difference of a few C. Exactly the behavior we should expect.

        • Obvious

          Well, not the behavior I expected, which was an increasing divergence of the metal dummy from the ceramic null with increasing temperature (not as much as the last one, though).
          But experiment trumps theory, so I accept it.
          It will save me time doing experiments of that nature, anyways. (I’ll do a few just in case, though.)

        • Mats002

          If all equipment work as expected over the whole temp range, during the whole run time then signal-to-noice ratio are a few degrees C. But how to know?

  • magicsnd1

    Here’s the calibration data from settled power steps. The raw data and spreadsheet are available at http://tinyurl.com/nu8dcrw

    • Bob Greenyer

      Really excellent Work Alan

  • Lars Lindberg

    How is your fuel mix compared to Rossis in the patent as Hank wrote about?

  • Skip

    We intend to start a fuelled run in the next couple of hours…
    The fuel mix wil be a la Parkhomov

    • So without additional pure lithium?
      Good luck!

    • Skip

      BTW we did bake the Parkhomov supplied nickel at 200 degrees for 2 hours…

    • Do you use also the LiAlH4 from Parkhomov? Or is it only the nickle?

      • Skip

        Both are from Parkhomov

  • Skip

    We intend to start a fuelled run in the next couple of hours…
    The fuel mix wil be a la Parkhomov

    • So without additional pure lithium?
      Good luck!

    • Lars Lindberg

      Does that mean 640 mg Ni + 60 mg LiAlH4 ?

      • Skip

        The actual amount of fuel will be determined at the time of loading, according to the volume of the nickel tube. We will report…

    • Lars Lindberg

      Do you preheat the Nickel as Hank wrote about?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Parkhomov told us and we followed his recommendation.

    • Skip

      BTW we did bake the Parkhomov supplied nickel at 200 degrees for 2 hours…

      • Stephen Taylor

        Looking forward to this solid Parkhomov replication attempt. Good luck!

    • Do you use also the LiAlH4 from Parkhomov? Or is it only the nickle?

      • Skip

        Both are from Parkhomov

  • Skip

    Minor delay due to issues in the pressure sensor plumbing. Details later…

  • Skip

    Minor delay due to issues in the pressure sensor plumbing. Details later…

  • artefact

    .. and action .. Good luck!

  • artefact

    .. and action .. Good luck!

  • artefact

    New stream (the real first one) to start soon:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRFO4YtX0TI

  • Robert Ellefson

    Good luck, Alan and Skip!

    BTW, I found some interesting information about a form of LIthium powder which has been “stabilized” with a dry chemical coating, called “SLMP” and manufactured by FMC Lithium. The composition of this coating is listed on page 22 of the slide deck at the following URL. Many of the elements listed appeared in the Lugano mass spec analysis, and there may be some correlation.

    http://fmclithium.com/Portals/FMCLithium/Content/Docs/SLMP%20Handling%20guide.pdf

    • Bob Greenyer

      Good find Robert, thanks

    • Robert Ellefson

      More reading about SLMP lithium from the US government in 2013 researching application for Li batteries:
      http://web.ornl.gov/sci/manufacturing/docs/reports/web_FMC_Lithium_MDF-UP-Report.pdf

    • Nigel Appleton

      Yeah. I think you’ll find that SLMP is a fluorinated lithium powder (not actually that difficult to make) and it will contain c 2% fluorine.
      The trace metals described are just that – traces introduced during processing (IMHO)

      AND DON’T EVER FORGET – THE FINER THE LITHIUM POWDER, THE MORE DANGEROUS IT IS!

  • Mats002

    HUGnet looking good, different scales for voltage, pressure and temps and a nice legend. Is pressure calibrated to 0 psi at 1 atm?

    • Stephen Taylor

      Is “inside core” still 22 degrees?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The inside core on HugNet was only for calibration

    • Mats002

      Pressure decrease when LiAlH4 decompose as expected at 100 – 200 C, a bit early at 130 C?

  • Mats002

    HUGnet looking good, different scales for voltage, pressure and temps and a nice legend. Is pressure calibrated to 0 psi at 1 atm?

  • Stephen Taylor

    Is “inside core” still 22 degrees?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The inside core on HugNet was only for calibration

  • Mats002

    I think that thermocouple show wrong temp below about 200 C or so. They will activate presentation later on as I recall earlier runs.

    • Bob Greenyer

      From Alan

      “The Swagelok seal on the active end of the tube is leaking, so I stopped the test. No point in continuing without fixing the problem. Once it cools, I’ll remove the fitting for inspection. It’s possible the mullite isn’t strong enough to accept the required swaging pressure even with aluminum ferrules.

      If it’s fixable, we need to decide whether to retest with the current fuel load. It saw a peak of about 200 C in the core, so at least some of the hydrogen will have been lost.

      I have enough AP ingredients for one more attempt if we decide to not re-heat the current batch.”

      • Ged

        Dang. Hoping for a speedy and effective repair! If the hydrogen was lost, it’s done and new fuel needed; but we know the process is much larger at the second decomposition and not instaneous.

        At the least, this fuel should be used still to test the fixed seal and not risk the remaining batch.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Repair done – game on

      • artefact

        maybe just add a littleLIALH4 to compensate the lost H. It will be a little more Li left over which should be good.

        • Ged

          Good idea. That would address the issue, and we know the patent has high Li to Ni ratio, so it is not a big deal. Just need to ew grind with the pestal and mortor I guess.

      • Andrew

        I would start over. Not that far into it and you have some good reassurance from the calibration. Trying to publish a paper continuing would be more tricky as well.

        • Bob Greenyer

          He is going to see if this one has H2 – if so run it. If not, swap in a another fuel cartridge.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Is the power going down right now with the active at same temp – or am I imagining that?

      on a 15 min average we are now at under 82V, there was a 15 minute average of over 82.5V on the previous power step when the temp was 49ºC cooler.

      • SG

        If I’m interpreting the the Cal2 v Run2: Power v Outer Temp graph correctly that was just posted below by Ged, then the active run is requiring about 200 W less power to maintain same temperature as calibration run at just under 1000 C.

        • Mats002

          Swedish moms (tax on things you buy) is 25%.
          The signal-to-noice ratio in the equipment (assuming not malfunctional) should be much less than that.

      • Obvious

        I was just looking at the 15 min average V vs 30 second average V vs steady V at the 700 degree step. I am wondering if the average V from the PID can be relied on. You can see a big drop where the PID takes over from steady volts.

        • Obvious

          15 min avg (smooth), then 30 second avg (bumpy PID V)

        • Sanjeev

          I think, only History data is reliable for power calculations.

      • Sanjeev

        Sometimes it does look like that Power goes down. This happened in last hour for 15 mins. See attached graph. I’m not sure how accurate this is, perhaps Ged can confirm.

  • Mats002

    I think that thermocouple show wrong temp below about 200 C or so. They will activate presentation later on as I recall earlier runs.

  • Mats002

    Pressure decrease when LiAlH4 decompose as expected at 100 – 200 C, a bit early at 130 C?

  • Bob Greenyer

    From Alan

    “The Swagelok seal on the active end of the tube is leaking, so I stopped the test. No point in continuing without fixing the problem. Once it cools, I’ll remove the fitting for inspection. It’s possible the mullite isn’t strong enough to accept the required swaging pressure even with aluminum ferrules.

    If it’s fixable, we need to decide whether to retest with the current fuel load. It saw a peak of about 200 C in the core, so at least some of the hydrogen will have been lost.

    I have enough AP ingredients for one more attempt if we decide to not re-heat the current batch.”

    • Ged

      Dang. Hoping for a speedy and effective repair! If the hydrogen was lost, it’s done and new fuel needed; but we know the process is much larger at the second decomposition and not instaneous.

      At the least, this fuel should be used still to test the fixed seal and not risk the remaining batch.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Repair done – game on

    • artefact

      maybe just add a littleLIALH4 to compensate the lost H. It will be a little more Li left over which should be good.

      • Ged

        Good idea. That would address the issue, and we know the patent has high Li to Ni ratio, so it is not a big deal. Just need to ew grind with the pestal and mortor I guess.

    • Andrew

      I would start over. Not that far into it and you have some good reassurance from the calibration. Trying to publish a paper continuing would be more tricky as well.

      • Bob Greenyer

        He is going to see if this one has H2 – if so run it. If not, swap in a another fuel cartridge.

  • Robert Ellefson

    More reading about SLMP lithium from the US government in 2013 researching application for Li batteries:
    http://web.ornl.gov/sci/manufacturing/docs/reports/web_FMC_Lithium_MDF-UP-Report.pdf

  • Nigel Appleton

    Yeah. I think you’ll find that SLMP is a fluorinated lithium powder (not actually that difficult to make) and it will contain c 2% fluorine.
    The trace metals described are just that – traces introduced during processing (IMHO)

  • Bob Greenyer

    Parkhomov told us and we followed his recommendation.

  • Nigel Appleton

    Ummm
    97% Li

    0.5% LiCO2

    The rest of the rhubarb adds up to 0.19% max

    Total 97.69%

    What’s the rest, I wonder?

    Also see

    http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7588623

  • Lars Lindberg

    Thank you MFMP for all your good effort, you will get there and then you know the stuff from inside out and will be able to replicate and understand why and how. Thanks for the open source science.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And everyone will also have the how to!

      Thanks to the followers that inspire us and enable it all to happen.

  • Lars Lindberg

    Thank you MFMP for all your good effort, you will get there and then you know the stuff from inside out and will be able to replicate and understand why and how. Thanks for the open source science.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And everyone will also have the how to!

      Thanks to the followers that inspire us and enable it all to happen.

  • Bob Greenyer

    From Alan

    “I found the mullite cell tube had cracked cleanly at the swagelok connection point. I replaced the fitting with a fresh ferrule set, and tightened just two flats rather than three as used on the alumina tube. The test was restarted at 21:30 UTC. If there’s enough hydrogen left in the LiAlH4, we’ll run the full test. If no pressure rise is seen, I’ll pull the fuel cartridge out and replace with a fresh one, which may delay things until tomorrow. Either way, I’m not giving up on this run.”

    • Ged

      Go guys go!

      Edit: Looks like pressure is rising fine, so the fuel should still be good.

  • Sanjeev

    Pressure is going down. No way to tell if its normal absorption or a leak.
    Everything else is perfect.

    • Ged

      At least it normally absorbs and goes down around this point, but… we’ll see if we get that second decomp, that’ll really tell us if the device is holding and fuel’s hydrogen store intact.

      • Sanjeev

        The rate is very slow, 1.5 psi per hour, so I guess its not a leak.
        We will also know if it goes below 0.

    • Stephen

      Is the test still running? Seems to be there on Hugnet but could not find it on YouTube. I hope all is well over there and all the best for the rest of the test.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Still Runnig. I will try to bounce the stream but google have changed the way it works – I will try to get alan to input the stream code from our account (new way of working) from Many cam so we can stream cleanly as the temperature goes to more critical points.

      • Obvious

        It would be helpful to put a multimeter on the coil power leads and capture the falling coil resistance when power gets cut off (at the end). The first few 0.1 ohm drops will happen very quickly, from experience. Might want to film that, with ohms and temperature both in view, to get a good handle on the data points. The power will need to be disconnected cleanly in order to get good numbers. I’m not sure if the SSR will cause any problems with resistance measurements or not.

      • Alain Samoun

        Looking at differences between your latest test and the Parkhomov system,it seems that he has his fuel in a steel container and yours is in a nickel container. If you look at some kind of induction heating, steel (or better iron) is a lot more efficient than nickel. That may make a difference in the temperature inside the container. Just a though

        • Ged

          Here by popular demand, and assuming a 9.8 ohm resistance:

          http://s4.postimg.org/yf1xnygkt/150830_0048_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp.png

          • Mats002

            I cant vote up by a simple click, so: I vote up!
            Time is 4 in the morning, so I guess I am hooked on this run….

          • Bob Greenyer

            4 here too.

            Mats, will you be in Stockholm Tuesday?

          • Mats002

            My plan is to be in Örebro, not passing Stockholm, but I can change that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – I’ll be there Monday late till Thursday early.

          • Mats002

            I will mail you tomorrow sunday (actually later this day), that will be fun!

          • builditnow

            The power analyzer will allow Alan to run tests unattended
            His current system requires human supervision while running.

            The power analyzer enables the use a triac style power regulator and being able to accurately measure power. At the moment, in order to measure power accurately, Allan has an on / off power controller with zero voltage switching coupled with a variable transformer. This switches on an off every few seconds. His currently system enables easy calculation of power, accurately, using his current RMS meters, but has the down side that it requires manual intervention to adjust the power.

            With a triac power supply, full control of the power can be completely automated, so, tests can proceed while Alan is asleep etc. enabling a lot more tests to be run. This type of power analyzer is required for the output of triac power supplies because of the rather extreme spiky choppy wave forms produced that cause cheaper meters to be inaccurate.

            The bottom line: Lots more tests more frequently from Alan.
            Having seen his setup, my opinion is that it is accurate and robust enough to run tests on a continuous basis. The cost of each run could be somewhere between $50 and $100 for the parts, volunteers could be found for the labor component. You could fund your experiments with the fuel mix and parameters you think might work.

          • Sanjeev

            Great!
            It will look better with power on x-axis and a poly trendline.

          • Ged

            You read my mind ;). I want to grab the latest data first. Been an explosion of comments here, hah. Let me get this whipped up.

          • SG

            Should the legend refer to “Moving Average Power” rather than “Moving Average Voltage”? The y axis shows power in W.

          • Ged

            Nice catch. I hadn’t fixed that yet from when I did volts.

          • Mats002

            With assuming resistance 9.8 ohm over the whole temp range (which is a simplification), it should be “Moving Average Power”. Trend would be the same for “Moving Avarage Voltage”, Ged – please correct if wrong.

          • Ged

            Yep, it’s pretty much the same for both ;). Just different scale and exponential equation, but same relative trend differences between the two.

    • Allan Kiik

      Inside core temperature has been around 29 degrees, all the time.

      • Stephen Taylor

        It was only used during the calibration. Not in place for the fueled run.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Lovely SEM images from University of Missouri of Parkhomov Ni and Parkhomov LiAlH4.

          Also, images and EDX of 3 random samples sent to them by MFMP. I believe that there is GS3 Ash and Fuel in there.

          https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1029567343740631

          All samples at various parties are undergoing isotopic analysis now.

          • Obvious

            Cool pressure trace.

          • Obvious

            I just put the cube as my screensaver.

          • artefact

            11.5C difference at 19:38:00

          • Ged

            Last time, with GS3, cool things only happens med after it sat a long while. So far not much in steady state, but our sensitivity is high so we’ll see.

          • Sanjeev

            With null side higher, unfortunately.

          • artefact

            Thanks for telling 🙂 I did not realize that. I think last time it was the same until at one point the lines crossed…

          • Sanjeev

            Lines crossed many hours ago and since then the null is higher. But its not significantly higher. We need ~50C-100C difference. And with active higher obviously 😉

          • Jonas Matuzas

            pressure stop rising and voltage is falling. But voltage is common for both termocouplers?

          • Alain Samoun

            Too bad I can’t get the streaming working,any advice?

          • artefact

            No streaming is done at the moment (bad internet connection). Only Hugnetlab data stream is available.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The data is on HUGNet

            http://data.hugnetlab.com/

            We are just about to push it as high as it can go.

            I’ll create a bounce stream from the hangout.

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Alain Samoun

            Got it but I’m not sure what I’m looking at: There is a graph with a blue background but it seems the temp is about 200C

          • Bob Greenyer

            This reactor is a dud. will be building another in short order with the learning from this.

          • Ged

            Guess the early crack problems were too much for the poor beasty.

          • Zack Iszard

            What is revealed when applying the ideal gas equation? It works best at high temp and (relatively) low pressure, under a half dozen atm and well above RT it predicts quite well, and is easy to calculate. Of course, you would need to know the free volume in the chamber and the mass of hydrogen in the sample (assuming complete dissociation at high temps), but that should resolve a maximum peak pressure. for the system. Adsorption/lattice “infusion” would bring the peak pressure down, as has been observed by Parkhomov, as would the obvious imperfect seal.

          • Ged

            Looks like we’ve got good pressure this time! Only passing 100 C external and already nearly 60 PSI–way better than the 24ish PSI max the leaked fuel gave.

            Justaguy’s re-relaying of the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0gJr8DCyo

          • tobalt

            This was a good experiment. The instrumentation seems now robust. Now take all the learnt together and make a better reactor improving on the glowstick. Most importantly add more monitoring interfaces. More voltage taps. More TCs. This mfmp is now slowly transforming into a setup which CAN produce trustworthy outcomes. All the prior tests were too ambiguous.

            it is good that you refrained from making any statement out of the prior tests as that would have greatly impacted the image of mfmp. Instead these tests serve as data to build on forthe construction of the upcoming reliable test setup.

            and yes: isotopoc analysis will also be a great hint but clear struck electric signals are very solid evidence if preformed well and makes you more independent of the time of others.

          • Ged

            New update, because we’ve officially crossed passed the calibration for the dT of active-null vs the active’s outside temperature. This, while not even taking into account the huge ramp from the lower start earlier (three different slope regions in the active run graph, while one slope region in the calibration), is interesting.

            http://s9.postimg.org/oa5x75ilr/150830_0048_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_4.png

          • Mats002

            61 C diff. The Null side have a plug filling the space, the Active side have powder.
            Null side is more conductive discipating away it’s heat more effective than Active side but again at those high temps radiation is overtaking heat flow, so – in theory – higher temps would make Null side more the same as Active side in the game of get rid of heat.

            61 C diff. Can be due to heater coil failure, the Null side part of coil is melting and/or oxidize so that resistance change in favour for the Active side.

            61 C diff. Temp is not enough to tell, let’s look at voltage (power in): Hard to tell energy input because voltage is fluctuating and need to be integrated and calculated which is not possible without getting all the data after the test, I want an answer in real time 🙁

            61 C diff. Voltage trend going down, that is a good sign, but how to calculate yield?

          • Ged

            The first idea seems to not be the case, as the active side was much closer in temp to the null than in the calibration for the majority of the temperature domain. Changes only began around 750 C.

            Heater coil failure would show up across the whole thing, since it is one contiguous heater coil, not two separate pieces, so that doesn’t seem too likely–it also can’t explain the larger divergence during the calibration at lower temps, which was highly linear.

            Indeed, it is suggestive, but not definitive a difference yet. We can look at the voltage, as the average integrates it. The problem is… converting that to Watts which is the real measure we want. Voltage is just half the equation, and can’t tell us the whole story. The voltage also suggests that the coil is fine though, which strikes out the second possibility. If the coil was oxidizing, I believe the voltage would be forced upwards to maintain watts due to the greater resistance.

            We just need the resistance to find the “yield”, i.e. power, by comparing the power in for the calibration against the active run. We can use the previous leaked run too as a comparison, giving us a larger N.

          • Mats002

            The reference run has power in (W) vs temp out (C) see comments below 21 hours ago, plot from Alan.

            How would the same plot compare to this run?

          • Sanjeev

            Resistance is 9.8 ohm. If you wish to see only the trend of power then exact value is not needed.

          • magicsnd1

            I increased the set point to 1020 °C, to see if it was right on the edge of kicking in. the result was no change, Tdiff continued at 66-68 degrees.

            I can push it a bit higher, but at 1350 watts, the coil will likely be degraded within a few hours. Or I can shut it down and call it “flat line 2”. Let’s have a show of virtual hands.

          • SG

            I think Tdiff will continue to be about the same even if you had significant excess heat. (See below for my reasoning.)

            Edit: I second Ged’s suggestion of letting it run. . . Parkhomov style.

          • Ged

            I vote to let it sit as is and keep running, and see how it develops over the night. Then we can come back to it in the morning and see what we think we should do. Aka, sleep on it ;).

            Edit: After all, dT seems to increase with time while at steady state, not so much after a ramp.

          • builditnow

            I vote to let it run at this temperature for some hours. There may be some longer time effect. Do you have some volunteers to watch over things?

          • Obvious

            If you are leery of running it real hot all night (I would be), then maybe 750 all night instead?
            I wouldn’t run an experiment at full power in my sleep. But half power is a nice glow and fairly harmless.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – one was put in for testing on Tuesday – the other forwarded to the lab yesterday at another party.

            Hoping to have at least one data set next week – but obviously no guarantees what we may see – this is just facts.

            As a bare minimum, we will have a data set that confirms Parkhomov’s fuel elemental analysis.

          • Mats002

            Sorry to say, but this run was ‘dead’, no Cat in there.
            Did the H escape, the vessel unable to contain it?

            Anyhow a good test of the stability of the device and as a calibration run.
            Signal-to-noice seams to be low in this setup, so if/when the Cat is awaked that would be obvious – assuming no false positives from equipment malfunctions.

          • magicsnd1

            We’re about ready for the jump to 900 C. It will be a fast ramp to
            thermal shock the cell. Here’s where it might get interesting.

          • Ged

            Looking forward to it!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Sorry – New Youtube streaming is not so easy to get going and Alan has limited bandwidth.

            ahhh – get what you mean now!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Ecco’s latest chart

          http://i.imgur.com/3djbImP.png

          the PID is maintaining a very steady temp on the active TC –

          But the question is is the active TC reading right because eccos graph does suggest the average power is going down to maintain temp and the null temp is going up – could the active side TC be de-coupling?

          • Sanjeev

            It does look interesting, not totally flatline anymore, especially after 20:15.
            I thought the same thing that you thought. There seems to be about 100W dip in input power (eyeballed trendline).

          • Ged

            The null side going up is odd. We need more time to see what the power is doing, as the current down turn isn’t long enough compared to the cycles.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like the H2 escaped very early almost completely and whatever pressure we saw was mostly air etc with a little H2. Anyway nothing melted or failed even at 1300C inner temperature, so the construction is good.
            I actually do not understand the use of Ni capsule with Mullite, since the capsule will isolate the fuel from Mullite and they will not interact. I guess we switched to Mullite because of its suspected role in the reaction, so its isolation makes no sense. May be I misunderstood the design?
            Perhaps it needs a good sealant, may be alumina cement or just throw some mullite powder in the fuel and use proper alumina tubes, which should have same effect.

          • Ged

            I’m right there with you on all points. We have a very nice blank run now, however, with all components except hydrogen in the “active” side–a fantastic blank to compare against!

          • Obvious

            Hmm. I wonder if divergence is the norm and synchronized T is a fluke. Do you ( Alan, MFMP) use matched TCs? I got a set of 5 from Omega, reasonably priced.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Pressure should be the same, Protium is about as small as things get molecular wise.

            The filler rod is more tightly coupled in 4.2 and so there is conduction losses.

          • Ged
          • Mats002

            So: Assuming no equipment failure, the Rossi effect kicks in at 700 C (outside)
            Please correct me if I misunderstand the situation.

          • Ged

            That was about 900 C internal, as is suggested to be expected as a minimum temp. But, never saw the last decomp of LiH, so it must have done so earlier than I thought.

          • Mats002

            Well, the Californian gues were lucky then, because the headroom for 110 Volts is almost nothing at 900 C (outside) 😉

          • Mats002

            Should be guys and (inside)

          • Bob,
            There is almost certainly a problem with the thermocouples (either the active or null) OR the heater coil has pulled together beneath the null TC causing a hotter zone.

          • magicsnd1

            Here’s the calibration chart for GS4.2

            It’s now at just over 14 atm, still holding at 114 °C outside, which would be around 180 °C in the core.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am really amazed at how close and stable everything is between active and control

      Ecco published a chart on our main site for the last 4 hours and it is sweet – if this cell shows something – it will be very obvious.

      • Ged

        Alan out did himself; she may have been fiesty but she is built very well. The double pressure hump and behavior is also seems more like Parkhomov’s mullite devices than the alumina ones, so it may be an important distinction. We’ll see, if this run works.

        • At which temperature we can expect interesting things?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – 1360ºC internal – this is around 1200ºC internal.

      • Sanjeev

        I saw Ecco’s graph. We should call this reactor __Flatline__ 😀

        • Ged

          So far it seems to be staying a flatline. Blast!

          • Bob Greenyer

            But it is a good flatline

            still – only around 1200ºC internal

          • Ged

            True, and shows the apparatus is stable with no spurious results–a very good thing for data interpretation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If it does show something – it’ll be pretty obvious

          • Sanjeev

            Can I suggest temperature cycling? Heating and cooling alternately.
            This is based on some claims that thermal shocks, or pressure shocks or EM changes are needed to kickstart the lenr.
            (I think it was from the Lenz group)

          • Sanjeev

            This is Ecco’s graph. I’m linking here for all to see:
            http://i.imgur.com/Vng7K0I.png

          • Ged

            This chart may be more intuitive: http://postimg.org/image/wwocd81nb/

            10 point moving averages for the difference between active and null, and the delta, or rate of change in that difference.

            The delta stays oscillating near zero, thought slightly more negative of course as the divergence between sides grows; but there is no acceleration in the rate of difference as of yet except a growing magnitude in the rate of change fluctuations.

          • Zack Iszard

            The graphs and charts in the comments here are totally phenom. I’m not sure who Ecco is, but mad props. The data setup here looks really, really rich, and probably quite accurate. Precision is apparently very good, too. MFMP, you guys never fail to impress!

          • Zack Iszard

            setup diagram is gorgeous too. Have you guys matched thermal expansion coeffs with the cap and body material? (probably asking too much for metal and ceramics)

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks for the chart. Its flatline for sure.

          • magicsnd1

            @Sanjeev I used a Nickel capsule to enable loading the fuel after calibration without disturbing the cell assembly. The capsule is just a roll of 0.1 mm foil with the lap joint open. When we removed it from the first GS4 reactor we saw that the liquid LiAl metal had flowed out and coated the outside of the foil and presumably the inside of the mullite tube as well. We haven’t opened the capsule yet, which came out of the core intact. Using Ni foil instead of steel tubing also avoids possible issues of contamination and adds almost 1 g of potentially reactive metal to the core.

          • Ged

            Here’s the latest calibration run dynamics between sides, from 8/28 at 18:06 to 22:10 when temps peak at 985 C. Same 10 point moving averages as before. We’ll see if the new run diverges from this, in particular if there is a spike in the delta difference that may indicate a reaction kicking off if the device is sensitive enough. http://s14.postimg.org/iuurcdb1d/150828_1806_Active_vs_Null.png

          • lars

            maybe it is better to have the two tubes totally independent so you can be sure there are no interference

          • Ged

            Probably not, in this case. Interference (which we saw no evidence of last active run attempt after the leak when temps between sides were extremely equal) will be a Much smaller error than the heater coil differences that two different devices will have. The data here is far more reliable than if the two devices were separate, just for that reason alone.

          • builditnow

            Back from visiting with Alan and Skip and Mark,

            Sweet setup and Alan, Skip and Mark are great people.

            3 of us locals showed up, one from the University of Berkeley with access to testing facilities. Alan handed over 2 test samples, single blind, in that he did not say which contained the before and after samples.

            For those who want to view the experimental data in real time, Go to hugnetlab.com and select the bottom entry, GS4.

            The “Inside Core” temperature is not in use in the live run and is monitoring the temperature of the radiation monitor which needs to stay below 30C.

            Be aware that the inactive side of the test runs at a lower temperature than the active side, Alan thinks this could be that the alumina plug in the inactive side is conducting some heat away on that side.

            This means that the result we all are hoping for is when the active side goes higher than it did on the calibration run. The graphs Ged posted below show the deviation from the calibration run. Alan considers that if the active side goes higher than the inactive side by 100C, we have indications of excess heat. This would mean that the active side is about 50C higher than during the calibration run.

          • SG

            Thanks for the update. Temperature difference alone does not tell the whole story. Relative power difference between cal2 and run2 at a given temperature tells the story.

          • Sanjeev

            Alan, thanks for clearing it. So there is a possibility of Mullite to participate in the reaction. The new run looks fantastic.

          • builditnow

            How can we help Alan run a lot more experiments?
            I asked Alan what we could do to help and he
            said, “get me one of these, then I (Alan) can completely automate the
            tests so they can run unattended.”

            http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektro
            Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer $2149.00

            This would enable a production line of tests to be run, one after the other.
            4 people have signed up to send Alan a donation, 2 donations already sent in.

            You can send you donations securely via paypal to Alan’s email at magicsound3@aol.com
            Alan told me that he will keep track of the donations and if there is insufficient he will return them. He also said he would match the donations, this means our target is about $1200.
            We might be at about $400 if everyone puts in $100.
            Anyone else in?

            Incremental tests could be in the range of $50 to $100, so, you can fund your own test.
            I’m of the opinion that Alan’s setup will sensitively detect excess heat. This could be verified by adding a small heater inside the test side during a calibration run.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – the most important thing right now is a power analyser. It would make it much easier to see what is going on.

  • Sanjeev

    Pressure is going down. No way to tell if its normal absorption or a leak.
    Everything else is perfect.

    • Ged

      At least it normally absorbs and goes down around this point, but… we’ll see if we get that second decomp, that’ll really tell us if the device is holding and fuel’s hydrogen store intact.

      • Sanjeev

        The rate is very slow, 1.5 psi per hour, so I guess its not a leak.
        We will also know if it goes below 0.

    • Allan Kiik

      Inside core temperature has been around 29 degrees, all the time.

      • Stephen Taylor

        It was only used during the calibration. Not in place for the fueled run.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am really amazed at how close and stable everything is between active and control

      Ecco published a chart on our main site for the last 4 hours and it is sweet – if this cell shows something – it will be very obvious.

      • Ged

        Alan out did himself; she may have been fiesty but she is built very well. The double pressure hump and behavior also seems more like Parkhomov’s mullite devices than the alumina ones, so it may be an important distinction. We’ll see, if this run works.

      • Sanjeev

        I saw Ecco’s graph. We should call this reactor __Flatline__ 😀

        • Ged

          So far it seems to be staying a flatline. Blast!

          • Bob Greenyer

            But it is a good flatline

            still – only around 1200ºC internal

          • Ged

            True, and shows the apparatus is stable with no spurious results–a very good thing for data interpretation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If it does show something – it’ll be pretty obvious

          • Sanjeev

            Can I suggest temperature cycling? Heating and cooling alternately.
            This is based on some claims that thermal shocks, or pressure shocks or EM changes are needed to kickstart the lenr.
            (I think it was from the Lenz group)

  • Stephen

    Is the test still running? Seems to be there on Hugnet but could not find it on YouTube. I hope all is well over there and all the best for the rest of the test.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Still Runnig. I will try to bounce the stream but google have changed the way it works – I will try to get alan to input the stream code from our account (new way of working) from Many cam so we can stream cleanly as the temperature goes to more critical points.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Lovely SEM images from University of Missouri of Parkhomov Ni and Parkhomov LiAlH4.

    Also, images and EDX of 3 random samples sent to them by MFMP. I believe that there is GS3 Ash and Fuel in there.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1029567343740631

    All samples at various parties are undergoing isotopic analysis now.

    • Obvious

      I just put the cube as my screensaver.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sorry – New Youtube streaming is not so easy to get going and Alan has limited bandwidth.

        ahhh – get what you mean now!

    • Rémi André

      Are there any news about this isotopic analysis ??

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – one was put in for testing on Tuesday – the other forwarded to the lab yesterday at another party.

        Hoping to have at least one data set next week – but obviously no guarantees what we may see – this is just facts.

        As a bare minimum, we will have a data set that confirms Parkhomov’s fuel elemental analysis.

  • At which temperature we can expect interesting things?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – 1360ºC internal – this is around 1200ºC internal.

  • Obvious

    Cool pressure trace.

  • Skip

    Alan just bumped the PID up to the final temperature step. Now climbing from 900 to 950 degrees (outside)

    • Stephen

      Was the little spike gamma spike in the MFMP GS 4 stream 03 on YouTube real? If so it will be interesting seeing where that came from. Seems to be less than 100 keV maybe about 80 keV?

      • Ged

        This Run So Far Update(tm):

        Well, the temperatures are remarkably stable. The controller system is the best we’ve seen yet. Also had a 288 PSI peak in pressure when temperatures reached 200 C on the active side before the nightly hold (about 250 C inside)–that is more than 11 times higher than the test that had the leak, while there being only 50% more LiAlH4 fuel. We can conclusively say that the first active run with the leak was indeed degassed completely or very close to, and was dead.

        Pressure has continued to decline in a very shallow negative exponential looking curve, which we typically see in absorption. Holding at 156 PSI right now, it seems the tube is well sealed.

        • Mats002

          Li boils at 1342 C, at this temp the “lost” parts might come back into play.

          • Ged

            That is a good point. The device should be able to get that high, so we’ll see, hopefully.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks for the update Ged – I’ll copy to FB if you don’t mind.

          • Ged

            Of course; you always may 🙂

          • Obvious

            I just tested my new SSVR control last night. Works like a dream. Just like a SSR, but has triac output. Only 5 V drop, and can control from 20 V to 440 V input, 25A max. Can be PID controlled, but I am running it manually for now.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Nice one Obvious

          • Obvious

            I wish I had started with this regulator in the first place. It was cheap and works way better than any pre-made dimmer.
            FWIW, I tried a Leviton Renoir II 2000 W dimmer, briefly. It only put out 75.2 V peak with a 1000 W load, cutting possible power in half. (No doubt a dimmer can save you money. The bulbs would never go to full power even turned all the way up!)

  • Skip

    Alan just bumped the PID up to the final temperature step. Now climbing from 900 to 950 degrees (outside)

  • artefact

    11.5C difference at 19:38:00

    • Ged

      Last time, with GS3, cool things only happened after it sat a long while. So far, not much in steady state, but our sensitivity is high so we’ll see.

    • Sanjeev

      With null side higher, unfortunately.

      • artefact

        Thanks for telling 🙂 I did not realize that. I think last time it was the same until at one point the lines crossed…

        • Sanjeev

          Lines crossed many hours ago and since then the null is higher. But its not significantly higher. We need ~50C-100C difference. And with active higher obviously 😉

    • Jonas Matuzas

      pressure stop rising and voltage is falling. But voltage is common for both termocouplers?

  • Obvious

    It would be helpful to put a multimeter on the coil power leads and capture the falling coil resistance when power gets cut off (at the end). The first few 0.1 ohm drops will happen very quickly, from experience. Might want to film that, with ohms and temperature both in view, to get a good handle on the data points. The power will need to be disconnected cleanly in order to get good numbers. I’m not sure if the SSR will cause any problems with resistance measurements or not.

  • Sanjeev

    This is Ecco’s graph. I’m linking here for all to see:
    http://i.imgur.com/Vng7K0I.png

    • Ged

      This chart may be more intuitive: http://postimg.org/image/wwocd81nb/

      10 point moving averages for the difference between active and null, and the delta, or rate of change in that difference.

      The delta stays oscillating near zero, though slightly more negative of course as the divergence between sides grows; but there is no acceleration in the rate of difference as of yet except a growing magnitude in the rate of change fluctuations.

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks for the chart. Its flatline for sure.

  • Alain Samoun

    Too bad I can’t get the streaming working,any advice?

    • artefact

      No streaming is done at the moment (bad internet connection). Only Hugnetlab data stream is available.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The data is on HUGNet

      http://data.hugnetlab.com/

      We are just about to push it as high as it can go.

      I’ll create a bounce stream from the hangout.

    • Bob Greenyer
      • Alain Samoun

        Got it but I’m not sure what I’m looking at: There is a graph with a blue background but it seems the temp is about 200C

        • Bob Greenyer

          This reactor is a dud. will be building another in short order with the learning from this.

          • Ged

            Guess the early crack problems were too much for the poor beasty.

            Edit: Looking back, the max the pressure got to was 29.6 PSI, which is much, much lower than we’ve seen before–just a puff.

          • Zack Iszard

            What is revealed when applying the ideal gas equation? It works best at high temp and (relatively) low pressure, under a half dozen atm and well above RT it predicts quite well, and is easy to calculate. Of course, you would need to know the free volume in the chamber and the mass of hydrogen in the sample (assuming complete dissociation at high temps), but that should resolve a maximum peak pressure. for the system. Adsorption/lattice “infusion” would bring the peak pressure down, as has been observed by Parkhomov, as would the obvious imperfect seal.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ecco’s latest chart

    http://i.imgur.com/3djbImP.png

    the PID is maintaining a very steady temp on the active TC –

    But the question is is the active TC reading right because eccos graph does suggest the average power is going down to maintain temp and the null temp is going up – could the active side TC be de-coupling?

    • Sanjeev

      It does look interesting, not totally flatline anymore, especially after 20:15.
      I thought the same thing that you thought. There seems to be about 100W dip in input power (eyeballed trendline).

    • Ged

      The null side going up is odd. We need more time to see what the power is doing, as the current down turn isn’t long enough compared to the cycles.

    • Bob,
      There is almost certainly a problem with the thermocouples (either the active or null) OR the heater coil has pulled together beneath the null TC causing a hotter zone.

  • Mats002

    Sorry to say, but this run was ‘dead’, no Cat in there.
    Did the H escape, the vessel unable to contain it?

    Anyhow a good test of the stability of the device and as a calibration run.
    Signal-to-noice seams to be low in this setup, so if/when the Cat is awaked that would be obvious – assuming no false positives from equipment malfunctions.

  • Zack Iszard

    The graphs and charts in the comments here are totally phenom. I’m not sure who Ecco is, but mad props. The data setup here looks really, really rich, and probably quite accurate. Precision is apparently very good, too. MFMP, you guys never fail to impress!

    • Zack Iszard

      setup diagram is gorgeous too. Have you guys matched thermal expansion coeffs with the cap and body material? (probably asking too much for metal and ceramics)

  • Stephen

    Was the little spike gamma spike in the MFMP GS 4 stream 03 on YouTube real? If so it will be interesting seeing where that came from. Seems to be less than 100 keV maybe about 80 keV?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T–cJFcbUwM

    There are not many options for ground state nuclei

    Was it at 78 or 67 keV? If so could it be from Ti44 decay to Sc44 (due to Electron capture half life about 60 years) and then Beta+ and Gamma decay to Ca44 about 78 KeV and 67 KeV Gamma. If so I’m not sure where the Ti44 comes from. Could it come from activated stainless steel or concrete blocks? https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9383.html.

    If so what caused the activation?

    If not at these frequencies i guess it must be something else.

    Edit: I suppose given the long halflife 60 years of Ti44 and the fact it’s unlikely that large amounts of Ti44 would generated in the LENR device in the short time of operation with out other effects being seen it is unlikely the source of this spike was from Ti44. Are there any other possible candidates?

  • tobalt

    This was a good experiment. The instrumentation seems now robust. Now take all the learnt together and make a better reactor improving on the glowstick. Most importantly add more monitoring interfaces. More voltage taps. More TCs. This mfmp is now slowly transforming into a setup which CAN produce trustworthy outcomes. All the prior tests were too ambiguous.

    it is good that you refrained from making any statement out of the prior tests as that would have greatly impacted the image of mfmp. Instead these tests serve as data to build on forthe construction of the upcoming reliable test setup.

    and yes: isotopoc analysis will also be a great hint but clear struck electric signals are very solid evidence if preformed well and makes you more independent of the time of others.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like the H2 escaped very early almost completely and whatever pressure we saw was mostly air etc with a little H2. Anyway nothing melted or failed even at 1300C inner temperature, so the construction is good.
    I actually do not understand the use of Ni capsule with Mullite, since the capsule will isolate the fuel from Mullite and they will not interact. I guess we switched to Mullite because of its suspected role in the reaction, so its isolation makes no sense. May be I misunderstood the design?
    Perhaps it needs a good sealant, may be alumina cement or just throw some mullite powder in the fuel and use proper alumina tubes, which should have same effect.

    • Ged

      I’m right there with you on all points. We have a very nice blank run now, however, with -all- components except hydrogen in the “active” side–a fantastic baseline to compare against!

  • Bob Greenyer

    From Alan

    “We have a new GS4.2 reactor assembled from a fresh mullite tube and new heater coil, but using the same thermocouples as yesterday’s test. We installed a dummy fuel load of Ni+Al2O3 like the previous cell, and started the fixed step calibration at 18:00 UTC. The data stream is available at data.hugnetlab.com

    After calibration, we’ll install a fuel load of Parkhomov Ni 1.0 g and LiAlH4 0.15 g. This is 50% more of the hydride compared to the previous run.”

    • Justa Guy

      I am ready to set up a YouTube Video Relay/Chat, I just need the valid Google HangOut Address, thanks.

    • Ged

      Data is looking pretty tight, but not as much as last time, in this dummy run. About 50 C of divergence at max temperature–so not bad, definitely manageable. Alan’s thermal image seems to suggest it’s conduction down the null side away from the TC, so we can compensate for that.

  • Alain Samoun

    Looking at differences between your latest test and the Parkhomov system,it seems that he has his fuel in a steel container and yours is in a nickel container. If you look at some kind of induction heating, steel (or better iron) is a lot more efficient than nickel. That may make a difference in the temperature inside the container. Just a though

  • Ged

    Looks like we’ve got good pressure this time! Only passing 100 C external and already nearly 60 PSI–way better than the 24ish PSI max the leaked fuel gave.

    Justaguy’s re-relaying of the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0gJr8DCyo

  • magicsnd1

    @Sanjeev I used a Nickel capsule to enable loading the fuel after calibration without disturbing the cell assembly. The capsule is just a roll of 0.1 mm foil with the lap joint open. When we removed it from the first GS4 reactor we saw that the liquid LiAl metal had flowed out and coated the outside of the foil and presumably the inside of the mullite tube as well. We haven’t opened the capsule yet, which came out of the core intact. Using Ni foil instead of steel tubing also avoids possible issues of contamination and adds almost 1 g of potentially reactive metal to the core.

    • Sanjeev

      Alan, thanks for clearing it. So there is a possibility of Mullite to participate in the reaction. The new run looks fantastic.

  • Ged

    Here’s the latest calibration run dynamics between sides, from 8/28 at 18:06 to 22:10 when temps peak at 985 C. Same 10 point moving averages as before. We’ll see if the new run diverges from this, in particular if there is a spike in the delta difference that may indicate a reaction kicking off if the device is sensitive enough.

    http://s14.postimg.org/iuurcdb1d/150828_1806_Active_vs_Null.png

    Edit: Pressure now at 128 psi, at only 118 C outside temp, which makes the previous active run’s pressure post leak look like a paltry blip.

    Edit2: Another way to look at the calibration data, this time with the Active-Null temperature difference graphed against the outside heater temperature of the active side, to give an idea of how the difference changes with temperature. http://s1.postimg.org/cw8soxdfz/150828_1806_Active_Null_vs_Active_Outside.png

  • magicsnd1

    Here’s the calibration chart for GS4.2

    It’s now at just over 14 atm, still holding at 114 °C outside, which would be around 180 °C in the core.

  • Obvious

    Hmm. I wonder if divergence is the norm and synchronized T is a fluke. Do you ( Alan, MFMP) use matched TCs? I got a set of 5 from Omega, reasonably priced.
    Edit: since pressure and temperature are closely related, could the divergence be a pressure-related phenomena? Does the divergence have a relation to the pressure in the active side? The null, being plugged with alumina rod, may have a similar pressure, but volume of pressure will be lower…. Maybe that’s a stretch…

    • Bob Greenyer

      Pressure should be the same, Protium is about as small as things get molecular wise.

      The filler rod is more tightly coupled in 4.2 and so there is conduction losses.

  • lars

    maybe it is better to have the two tubes totally independent so you can be sure there are no interference

    • Ged

      Probably not, in this case. Interference (which we saw little evidence of last active run attempt after the leak when temps between sides were extremely equal) will be a Much smaller error than the heater coil differences that two different devices will have. The data here is far more reliable than if the two devices were separate, just for that reason alone.

  • Ged

    This Run So Far Update(tm):

    Well, the temperatures are remarkably stable. The controller system is the best we’ve seen yet. Also had a 288 PSI peak in pressure when temperatures reached 200 C on the active side before the nightly hold (about 250 C inside)–that is more than 11 times higher than the test that had the leak, while there being only 50% more LiAlH4 fuel. We can conclusively say that the first active run with the leak was indeed degassed completely or very close to, and was dead.

    Pressure has continued to decline in a very shallow negative exponential looking curve, which we typically see in absorption. Holding at 156 PSI right now, it seems the tube is well sealed.

    Edit: One thing of interest to note is Alan’s post below about the liquid lithium flowing out of the capsule and coating the inside of the mullite tube and outside of the capsule. Not sure how I feel about that, yet, as that would imply a portion or all of the lithium may gravity flow away from the active sites (if that is the hypothesized mechanism) in the powder and be “lost” from the reaction. Guess we’ll see.

    • Mats002

      Li boils at 1342 C, at this temp the “lost” parts might come back into play.

      • Ged

        That is a good point. The device should be able to get that high, so we’ll see, hopefully.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks for the update Ged – I’ll copy to FB if you don’t mind.

      • Ged

        Of course; you always may 🙂

  • magicsnd1

    Morning all. I have a great team here to help so I was able to get some sleep. I’ve started easing the temp up and you can see that the pressure response is almost flat. This suggests that the first phase of LAH decomposition is mostly done and we can proceed with heating the cell a bit more aggressively. But with due caution of course.

    • nietsnie

      Where is the experiment taking place?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Santa Cruz, California

        • nietsnie

          Thanks. HugNet graph timestamps confused me.

        • nietsnie

          Gorgeous place, by the way…

    • Sanjeev

      Comparing with Ged’s chart of dT, the dT is actually less in fueled run @400C.

      • Ged

        You’ve inspired me to update the chart to compare with the current run: http://s24.postimg.org/trcxe5xph/150829_1846_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null.png

        What can we see? From the very start it’s on a different slope, so we’ll need a pretty strong signal to get confidently above the noise (~80-100 C?). The good news is, the slope is pretty linear for the control run, and so far for the active run, so a major deviation from the slope would indicate a state change in the reactor. That should be pretty dang visible if it happens.

        We’re only around 800 C internal right now, so below the minimal reaction point for this set up as reported by other groups. I’ll keep updating this periodically to see how it’s looking.

        • Mats002

          Bravo Ged!

        • Sanjeev

          Very good plot again. Thanks!
          The reactor looks relatively peaceful compared to the calibration. But yes, if the excess happens, it will be very obvious.

  • magicsnd1

    Morning all. I have a great team here to help so I was able to get some sleep. I’ve started easing the temp up and you can see that the pressure response is almost flat. This suggests that the first phase of LAH decomposition is mostly done (or maybe not…) and we can proceed with heating the cell a bit more aggressively. But with due caution of course.

    • nietsnie

      Where is the experiment taking place?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Santa Cruz, California

        • nietsnie

          Thanks. HugNet graph timestamps confused me.

        • nietsnie

          Gorgeous place, by the way…

  • Sanjeev

    Comparing with Ged’s chart of dT, the dT is actually less in fueled run @400C.

    • Ged

      You’ve inspired me to update the chart to compare with the current run: http://s24.postimg.org/ruyksk0kl/150829_1846_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null.png

      What can we see? From the very start it’s on a different slope, so we’ll need a pretty strong signal to get confidently above the noise (~80-100 C?). The good news is, the slope is pretty linear for the control run, and so far for the active run, so a major deviation from the slope would indicate a state change in the reactor. That should be pretty dang visible if it happens.

      We’re only around 800 C internal right now, so below the minimal reaction point for this set up as reported by other groups. I’ll keep updating this periodically to see how it’s looking.

      Edit: Speaking of linear trend lines, I’ve updated the chart to actually have linear trend lines and equations for the Calibration2 and Active Run2. Those R^2 are surprisingly good.

      • Mats002

        Bravo Ged!

      • Sanjeev

        Very good plot again. Thanks!
        The reactor looks relatively peaceful compared to the calibration. But yes, if the excess happens, it will be very obvious.

  • Why is the voltage so jagged around the 18:00 mark and why is the inside core temp flat and near zero the whole time?

    What should we see happen if LENR starts inside the reactor?

  • magicsnd1

    We’re about ready for the jump to 900 C. It will be a fast ramp to
    thermal shock the cell. Here’s where it might get interesting.

    • Ged

      Looking forward to it!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Exiting times… I hope we’ll get to see something amazing soon 🙂

    • Ged

      We haven’t seen the last LiH decomp either yet, I don’t think. That may be required before excess, too.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Oh, I thought that would happen around 900C. What temp do you estimate we’ll need for an excess possibility?

        • Ged

          900 C – 1000 C. We should be around 900 C internal right now, but there’s been no pressure spike, and the current pressure in the system may push the decomp temp a little higher than 900 C (just like pressurizing water prevents boiling till higher temps than 100 C). When I think about it, LiH has an H already bound and blocking it–perhaps completely liberated Li ions are required to react in an LENR fashion, and thus molecular Li (like LiH) would be inactive. That would explain the 900 C+ minimum for reaction that most replications seem to support..

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Interesting Ged. Waiting for the pressure spike then. Rest of your post . sounds reasonable. Shouldn’t be too difficult to research, I think. Food for thought, though first I’d like to see this reactor take off…

          • Ged

            Updated graph of Active-Null of Run2 graphed with Cal2. Note the slope equation has changed, also note the big spike recently (as of 21:32) due to the drop in null temps. Very minor still, I think. Need a lot more time to see if the trend continues or if it is just a blip.

            http://s18.postimg.org/c0v4hine1/150829_2132_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_2.png

          • Sanjeev

            Sure change of slope after 600C.

          • Sanjeev

            dT=36 at 750C

          • Ged

            Something interesting may be happening. There has definitely been a change.

            Still don’t see that last pressure bump though–were we wrong about when the last LiH decomp would be? Did it happen slowly already, or still ahead?

            Unforutnately, HugNet has stopped updating for me :(. I will work on getting it back and keep updating when I can.

          • Ged

            dt=50 or so at 840C. That should put it back on the Calibration line, but with a massive upward slope. Still no pressure jump. Having to manually put time forward to get it to update for the moment.

          • Sanjeev

            Try reloading the whole page.
            BTW, the last strangeness of power was explained as Alan doing some changes to ramp it up. So we can discount it, but the sudden change in dT behavior is now my next amusement.

          • Obvious

            This looks weird.

          • Mats002

            Why? Control system seams to work, target temp (I assume set at 900) is followed nicely but with a struggle if core add to temp. Looks as expected in my mind.

          • Obvious

            RMS V steady, then chaotic, then steady, then chaotic. The last one at a steady T.
            Looks like a loose wire to me.
            First event below.

          • Ged

            It’s been said this is due to Alan going to some other mode for ramp control. Makes me nervous too, but seems to be ok.

          • Obvious

            It does look like constant V, more or less, then switching to straight PID control by T but with excess V, so it has to cycle a lot.

          • Mats002

            Depends on what time scale you watch. A loose wire should be in milliseconds or more. Physical vibrations should be in play, is it plausible?

          • Obvious

            I think the two types of control of the voltage, as suggested by Ged and my reply discussed below V is what is going on. (The “loose wire” is effectively the PID switching rapidly or in burst fire mode)

          • Sanjeev
          • Obvious

            Thanks. That was my final guess, but good to know for sure.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            So for now the temp difference between active and null is in line with the calibration? No clear indication of excess heat yet?

          • Mats002

            The voltage will tell you the answer.

          • Sanjeev

            There is a slight down trend for null temp. See…
            (I usually need to refresh the page for attached images to show up here)
            If its maintained it can grow to a significant dT.

          • Ged

            Give it 3 more hours and it will be significant -if- this trend holds. But we’ve seen it oscillate and bottom out and then back up before. It’s exciting though, considering the earlier behavior it definitely does not look like either calibration nor the leaked active run.

          • Ged

            Last update for the night, once more using History data.

            Power v Temp now as a 50 point double moving average ontop the 420 moving average. This cut out the noise without distorting the trace shape.

            http://s16.postimg.org/xy3pc3lo5/150830_0345_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp2.png

            And then the Active – Null, using the same double moving average scheme as above for the active.

            http://s30.postimg.org/evb6l93cx/150830_0345_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_5.png

            The changes in power occur at that ~700-750 C moment where the changes in Active – Null occur. Before that point, power versus temp was perfectly on the calibration’s trend line. What this indicates is that the null was running cooler during the calibration, not that the active side was running hotter; and during this active run the null was running hotter than it was in the calibration for the same temperature of active side (same watts in), but at 750ish C, that dramatically changed by a warming of the active side relative to power in. This has become extremely increased in the last awhile as seen by the rocketting upwards of the graph. Due to the double moving average, the largest peaks in the graph are averaged out, so the 80 dT spikes for Active – Null are not visible–this allows a better idea of the underlying stable trend, however.

          • Ged

            It seems like the wild behavior in this run is similar to what we saw in the first GS3 active run that appeared to show excess; and such behavior was not seen in any subsequent runs, all of which did not appear to show excess. It is looking like a common theme.

          • SG

            Note the “ignition” event at just above 700 C active side outer temperature, which I believe translates to around 950 C inner temperature, based on the delta provided by Alan below. Interestingly, Lithium hydride’s boiling point is 900–1000 °C

          • builditnow

            KeV, I agree. Alan’s work is accurate and polished. For instance, the heating coil winding were very neat and regular, wound with the aid of a lathe.

          • Mats002

            Looking at last three hours it looks like power in (voltage) going down 10:th of procent in hard fluctuation but in a obvious trend down – to keep temp at 700 C (external)

            If no equipment failure I say this is the shit!

          • Sanjeev

            This is what it shows with 5 min average of last 1 hour.
            I guess Ged is doing a proper plot, but its interesting.

          • Sanjeev

            Please ignore this snapshot, the power/voltage data is not reliable except when “History” data is selected.

          • Ged

            Here’s the current voltage behavior graphed against outside heater temperature of the active side. http://s18.postimg.org/lr0fdnwmh/150829_2132_Run2_Volt_vs_Temp1.png

            And then zoomed in (starting once temps reached 700 C):

            http://s3.postimg.org/65lnawydv/150829_2132_Run2_Volt_vs_Temp1_zoomed.png

          • Sanjeev

            This is strange.
            But Ecco explained it as error because of high rate of change of PID. The PID is somewhat “unstable” all of a sudden.

          • Ged

            Indeed. The sudden chaotic behavior worries me. I don’t know why it was so stable and then did this. Though, if there is some energy being released by the core, and the PID is trying to hold it down, and if we are right at the threshold, it could explain the behavior.

            However, what worries me, is that equipment starting to fail can also cause this. More data is needed.

          • Sanjeev

            This can be checked by putting it in manual mode for some time and see if the temp increases while at the same voltage.
            It looks like Alan went ahead with the next ramp anyway.

          • Mats002

            If Rydberg matter theory is valid, pressure will go down relative to the amount of Rydberg matter formed. On top of that the signal of pressure vs temp inside the reactor.

          • builditnow

            How can we help Alan?
            I asked Alan what we could do to help and he said, “get me one of these, then I (Alan) can completely automate the tests so they can run unattended.”
            http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-PA1000-Single-phase-Power-Analyzer-/111747337121?hash=item1a04a90ba1

            Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer $2149.00

            This would enable a production line of tests to be run, one after the other.
            Anyone up for making it happen or got ideas to help?

          • SG

            Let’s try to crowd fund one for Alan. I’d pitch in.

          • builditnow

            Right, $100 from 21 people and we are done.
            Who’s going to set it up?

          • Ged

            I’ll gladly pitch in too. Maybe we can use the quantumheat website?

          • builditnow

            We have $300, do I see another $100?
            It could be one of the crowd sourcing websites. As long as people know for sure that the money ends up at Alan’s. It could be directly to his paypal account.

          • Ged

            True, we just need his paypal e-mail then. That’ll be quite secure.

          • Sanjeev

            dT for last 1.5 hours. Sometimes it exceeded 80C
            Attached.

          • Ged

            Very interesting, thank you for the zoomed graph. You can see the moment he turned the fan on, too.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You also have to remember that H2 is an extremely effective way of transporting heat, if the active side is getting hotter – it will be raising the temp of the passive side – this may be seen as an initially wider gap in temperatures that closes up a little with time (must also consider conduction of dummy side).

            More important would be to see what difference in power to achieve a temperature – if it takes less power to achieve a temperature on the active side. Then the actual gain is larger, because their is the additional load coming from the null side that is taking heat away.

          • builditnow

            Thinking ahead. IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN FORMING A TEAM TO HELP AUTOMATE ALAN’S TEST SETUP?
            I personally think it’s a good system to run lots of tests, looking for excess heat greater than about 100 watts. With a few modifications it could be made more sensitive (with the addition of insulation and active cooling for instance).

            I discussed with Alan a future thinking, “kicking the tires” idea of automating his system to enable experiments to be carried out production style. The reactors themselves are relatively inexpensive from a materials point of view.

            The estimate is that Alan could do this automation himself in 6 months, with another suitable person, 4 months, 4 people 3 months, (20 people 2 years LOL ). There would be opportunity for others to contribute time such as monitoring experiments, helping run debug tests, buying supplies, collecting donations etc. etc.

            Since Alan is in the Silicon Valley area, there are numerous people here with all the skills needed, it’s really a matter of are the right people interested and willing to put in the time. Of course, people here also earn nice big salaries, so, they are giving quite a gift to donate their time.

            There is potential for a financial benefit, a quality lower priced product for monitoring and control that could then be sold to all sorts of garage startups who likely have a need for a similar as against the currently expensive “professional systems”. An add on board for a Raspberry pi for instance. Such a board does require very skilled design to eliminate the noise from the power control systems from the measurements. Alan does have related experience from designing audio studio equipment.

            If you are interested or know of potential people, you can comment below for the moment as a way of “measuring the enthusiasm temperature” we have at the moment.
            I have now run some errands, so I’ll check back later this evening for comments.

          • SG

            While not physically in that region, I certainly support the effort and feel such an effort would help push our general knowledge forward, and indirectly push this technology into the marketplace.

          • ecatworld

            Builditnow, I put this comment in its own new thread on the main page, to give it better visibility.

          • magicsnd1

            I’ve started a fan to bring the temperature of my shop down to a more comfortable level. With 1300 watts of heater power, it was up to over 30 °C in there. Once it cools down a bit I’ll turn the fan off, after around 10 minutes.

            As a result of the fan, Tdiff dropped to around 68 degrees, possibly due to the increased convection cooling.

          • builditnow

            Two donations should be in for the helping Alan buy a Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer. Please check they have arrived.

          • magicsnd1

            The lab got pretty warm overnight but is now cooled down and the fan turned off. After things settle a bit more we’ll start an abrupt ramp up to 1020 °C (1280 core).

            In response to popular request, I’ll try to do this in constant voltage mode for more accurate power comparison with calibration. But I need to also keep the PID on line and ready to catch any thermal runaway. It will take careful tuning of the variac voltage but it should be possible.

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks Alan. Pop corn time…

          • Mats002

            He he

          • Ged

            Good luck, Alan! And thank you again for trying our zany ideas. We are like data addicts and you are our street corner dealer, but for free, and we appreciate it.

          • magicsnd1

            OK. Stand by – about 10 minute to launch

          • SG

            Thanks for the update and for your dedicated efforts. This is an interesting run. Let’s see how it plays out. Can you answer one concern that I have about the two-vessel setup in particular… Isn’t it possible that the fueled vessel is heating both the active side and the inactive side? If that is the case, Tdiff by itself does not provide a complete understanding. You would have to look to relative power difference between cal2 and run2, assuming accurate power measurements. Whether or not an accurate power reading can be obtained from a moving average voltage is not relevant to my question.

          • builditnow

            SG, having seen the setup in person and discussed it at length with Alan and Skip, the design of this experiment is to sensitively detect if there is excess heat coming from the active side in order to determine what it takes to get excess heat.
            Once there is excess heat reliably produced, further calibration could emulate the test result to determine the actual excess heat.

            More importantly, a myriad of other test setups can then follow to see how improvements can be made to the output and to accurately measure the output.
            At the moment, experimenters are having challenges getting a reactor producing reliable long term excess heat. There seems to be either meltdowns that suggest a strong energy burst or null results.

          • SG

            Fair enough. The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that Tdiff by itself will not yield a sensitive detection of excess heat. It might give a “whiff” but nothing more. Significant excess heat could be present and it won’t be reflected in Tdiff because of the heat conduction and convection between the fueled and inactive sides.

          • Ged

            Good morning, all!

            Graphing Only the nightly cool period’s power (graphing all of it is too messy, as it just doubles back on itself from the cool down and there’s no sense of where we currently are), with the median of the double moving average put in (there’s a lot of lower power moments that pull the average more towards the left). Looks to be about 100 W less power use than the calibration, which seems to be the trend (100-200 W less) ever since that 750 C event.

            Getting a good view of this is starting to push against my limits of graphing skills–quite a fun exercise! We’ll have to see what others can pull out of the data, as it’s morphing into a big dataset. Slicing it by feature may be very useful.

            http://s23.postimg.org/cn5cxencb/150830_1433_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp_post_night_c.png

          • Sanjeev

            Looks great.
            It all boils down to how confident one can be about the power readings. The hugnet sampling is once per second (sometimes skips a few seconds), and if the power varies faster than that it will not capture it or will capture the event in part. So there is a possibility of error here.
            I hope Alan has better data for voltage/power and also resistance vs temperature data, and he will provide the final plot. We will see if the excess of 100-200W still appears in his plot or not.
            One way to increase the confidence is to bypass the PID and step the voltage exactly in values of calibration. This will give a clean plot for direct comparison with cal.

          • Ged

            I really like that step idea. Pure, steady, clean voltage, mmmm. That would make analyzing the relationship trivially easy, and address all the issues with the PID sampling you highlight above.

          • Sanjeev

            It can also show if the temp starts increasing while the power is held constant. If it does, we will not need any analysis to announce success.
            It can do that in places where we saw power decreasing while the temp was constant.
            If it goes dangerously high, you can always cut the power or engage the PID back.

          • Ged

            I could not agree more. Let’s see if we can hit Alan up to try that.

          • Mats002

            Hi! I agree to that also.

          • magicsnd1

            102.3 volts rms, 10.77 amps. The PID is settled at 1020 °C, with a set point of 1030 for safety.

          • Sanjeev

            It doesn’t have 20% Li, only “parkhomov powder”.
            This setup does not allow a direct measurement of COP (no measurement of output power here), it only looks for temperature differences in null and active sides. Some indirect COP calculation is possible via comparison with calibration.

          • Mats002

            I am in.

          • builditnow

            Mats002, you can use paypal to Alan’s account at magicsound3@aol.com.
            Ged and I have sent in our donation.
            Alan told me he would keep track of the funds an if insufficient, return the donations. He also said he would match the amount donated, so, our target is now $1200.

          • Mats002

            Just sent $100 via palpal to Magic Sound.

          • builditnow

            I just called Alan and his paypal account is
            magicsound3@aol.com.
            Alan said he would keep track of the donations and return them if there is insufficient funds.
            Alan said he would put in matching funds, this means our target is $1200 (to allow for shipping), or we could go higher if we want to show more support.
            So far, I’m in for $100, and the following said they are in, Mats002, Ged, SG

          • Ged

            Money sent.

          • builditnow

            Sent mine

          • Builditnow

            SB, you can use paypal to Alan’s account at magicsound3@aol.com.
            Ged and I have sent in our donation.
            Alan
            told me he would keep track of the funds an if insufficient, return the
            donations. He also said he would match the amount donated, so, our
            target is now $1200.

          • magicsnd1

            Ged, I can’t sleep on it, with the power at this level. It seems stable and would probably last the night. But little would be learned, and someone will have to sit and watch it through the night in case of a ‘bang!’ event.

          • builditnow

            An alternative could be to drop the temperature back to a level safe to allow you to sleep then crank it back up tomorrow. The temperature range might do something.

          • SG

            Pressure might also continue to drop and get us down to Parkhomov ranges, which were quite low.

          • builditnow

            Some say that pressure must go to half atmospheric, so, after a cooler run overnight and some sleep, run up the temperature and see what happens, then is there some way to lower the hydrogen pressure? Parkomov suggests that half atmospheric pressure is needed (if I’m right).

          • Bob Greenyer

            according to the recent patents – 0.25 bar – but that is when you doing the reversible LiH reaction with Al.

          • magicsnd1

            Yes, that seems like a reasonable compromise. I’m good for another hour, and there is a volunteer here for the night shift. So the plan is to lower the set point back to 900 C and let it run over night. At the current slope of ~ 4 psi/hr, the pressure would still . Then crank it back up in the morning with a quick thermal shock.

          • Sanjeev

            A good plan.
            I guess the temperatures of null and active sides tend to equalize due to cross talk. So there may not be much difference or it may not increase a lot.
            One way to check if it really produced excess is to simulate lenr by using an extra heater wire inside the active part and see how the dT behaves as you simulate the excess heat by heating the extra heater. This can be done only after removing the fuel.

          • SG

            Agreed. Also, compare relative power consumption between calibration and live runs. And best of all, flow calorimetry.

          • Obvious

            The middle event is still my favorite.

          • Obvious

            Looking good.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – that one was a pretty significant move.

          • Obvious

            I am certain it has to do with a change in control of V.

          • Ged

            Amusingly, I realized you had to be there to supervise it only after I crawled into bed thus making it impossible to leave it alone when that hot, and that was one major reason we’re working to get you that automation system. A good compromise indeed, though! Thanks for working so hard and furiously hot for us.

          • SG

            Sent.

          • Mats002

            Sent.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Exiting times… I hope we’ll get to see something amazing soon 🙂

    • Ged

      We haven’t seen the last LiH decomp either yet, I don’t think. That may be required before excess, too.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Oh, I thought that would happen around 900C. What temp do you estimate we’ll need for an excess possibility?

        • Ged

          900 C – 1000 C. We should be around 900 C internal right now, but there’s been no pressure spike, and the current pressure in the system may push the decomp temp a little higher than 900 C (just like pressurizing water prevents boiling till higher temps than 100 C). When I think about it, LiH has an H already bound and blocking it–perhaps completely liberated Li ions are required to react in an LENR fashion, and thus molecular Li (like LiH) would be inactive. That would explain the 900 C+ minimum for reaction that most replications seem to support..

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Interesting Ged. Waiting for the pressure spike then. Rest of your post . sounds reasonable. Shouldn’t be too difficult to research, I think. Food for thought, though first I’d like to see this reactor take off…

  • Sanjeev

    Can someone confirm if the power has dropped by almost 50% while the temp is same ? (In last one hour)

    • Ged

      The Null side has dropped several degrees while active has stayed stable, in the last dozen some-odd minutes.. Let me go try to graph and see what is up.

      Edit: Maybe the ramp to 900 C should be put on hold for a bit and let it sit a little longer to see how it’s trending? Right, graphs, that’ll inform us.

  • Sanjeev

    Can someone confirm if the power has dropped by almost 50W while the temp is same ? (In last one hour)

    • Ged

      The Null side has dropped several degrees while active has stayed stable, in the last dozen some-odd minutes.. Let me go try to graph and see what is up.

      Edit: Maybe the ramp to 900 C should be put on hold for a bit and let it sit a little longer to see how it’s trending? Right, graphs, that’ll inform us.

  • Mats002

    Looking at last three hours it looks like power in (voltage) going down 10:th of procent in hard fluctuation but in a obvious trend down – to keep temp at 700 C (external)

    If no equipment failure I say this is the shit!

    • Sanjeev

      This is what it shows with 5 min average of last 1 hour.
      I guess Ged is doing a proper plot, but its interesting.

      • Sanjeev

        Please ignore this snapshot, the power/voltage data is not reliable except when “History” data is selected.

  • Ged

    Here’s the current voltage behavior graphed against outside heater temperature of the active side. http://s18.postimg.org/lr0fdnwmh/150829_2132_Run2_Volt_vs_Temp1.png

    And then zoomed in (starting once temps reached 700 C):

    http://s3.postimg.org/65lnawydv/150829_2132_Run2_Volt_vs_Temp1_zoomed.png

    Edit: Interestingly, the drop in voltage has coincided with a 6-8 or so C drop in the outside null heater, while active side has remained stable. Could be a small bit of activity in the reactor, but we haven’t had the last decomp as far as the pressure seems to say, and we are at the lowest part of the active temperature range.

    Note also that voltage has become chaotic in the 30 sec view, where once it was very stable, now it is rapidly fluctuating since this drop in volts and null side temps started.

    • Sanjeev

      This is strange.
      But Ecco explained it as error because of high rate of change of PID. The PID is somewhat “unstable” all of a sudden.

      • Ged

        Indeed. The sudden chaotic behavior worries me. I don’t know why it was so stable and then did this. Though, if there is some energy being released by the core, and the PID is trying to hold it down, and if we are right at the threshold, it could explain the behavior.

        However, what worries me, is that equipment starting to fail can also cause this. More data is needed.

        • Sanjeev

          This can be checked by putting it in manual mode for some time and see if the temp increases while at the same voltage.
          It looks like Alan went ahead with the next ramp anyway.

  • Ged

    Updated graph of Active-Null of Run2 graphed with Cal2. Note the slope equation has changed, also note the big spike recently (as of 21:32) due to the drop in null temps. Very minor still, I think. Need a lot more time to see if the trend continues or if it is just a blip.

    http://s18.postimg.org/c0v4hine1/150829_2132_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_2.png

    • Sanjeev

      Sure change of slope after 600C.

    • Sanjeev

      dT=36 at 750C

      • Ged

        Something interesting may be happening. There has definitely been a change.

        Still don’t see that last pressure bump though–were we wrong about when the last LiH decomp would be? Did it happen slowly already, or still ahead?

        Unforutnately, HugNet has stopped updating for me :(. I will work on getting it back and keep updating when I can.

      • Ged

        dt=50 or so at 840C. That should put it back on the Calibration line, but with a massive upward slope. Still no pressure jump. Having to manually put time forward to get it to update for the moment.

        • Sanjeev

          Try reloading the whole page.
          BTW, the last strangeness of power was explained as Alan doing some changes to ramp it up. So we can discount it, but the sudden change in dT behavior is now my next amusement.

  • Obvious

    This looks weird.

    • Mats002

      Why? Control system seams to work, target temp (I assume set at 900) is followed nicely but with a struggle if core add to temp. Looks as expected in my mind.

      • Obvious

        RMS V steady, then chaotic, then steady, then chaotic. The last one at a steady T.
        Looks like a loose wire to me.
        First event below.

        • Ged

          It’s been said this is due to Alan going to some other mode for ramp control. Makes me nervous too, but seems to be ok.

          • Obvious

            It does look like constant V, more or less, then switching to straight PID control by T but with excess V, so it has to cycle a lot.

        • Mats002

          Depends on what time scale you watch. A loose wire should be in milliseconds or more. Physical vibrations should be in play, is it plausible?

          • Obvious

            I think the two types of control of the voltage, as suggested by Ged and my reply discussed below is what is going on. (The “loose wire” is effectively the PID switching rapidly or in burst fire mode)

        • Sanjeev
          • Obvious

            Thanks. That was my final guess, but good to know for sure.

  • Mats002

    If Rydberg matter theory is valid, pressure will go down relative to the amount of Rydberg matter formed. On top of that the signal of pressure vs temp inside the reactor.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    So for now the temp difference between active and null is in line with the calibration? No clear indication of excess heat yet?

    • Mats002

      The voltage will tell you the answer.

  • Obvious

    I just tested my new SSVR control last night. Works like a dream. Just like a SSR, but has triac output. Only 5 V drop (maximum), and can control from 20 V to 440 V input, 25A max. Can be PID controlled, but I am running it manually for now.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Nice one Obvious

      • Obvious

        I wish I had started with this regulator in the first place. It was cheap and works way better than any pre-made dimmer.
        FWIW, I tried a Leviton Renoir II 2000 W dimmer, briefly. It only put out 75.2 V peak with a 1000 W load, cutting possible power in half. (No doubt a dimmer can save you money. The bulbs would never go to full power even turned all the way up!)
        A 1000W dimmer (Lutron) got so hot with 1000 W load that I had to pull off the cover, decorative bezel, install in a 2-gang metal enclosure, vent the extra opening space [cover area], and open the chassis back to keep it under 58°C, but at least it managed 97 V peak. (120 V in).
        Only a little voltage loss adds up to a huge loss of coil potential power in the upper range.

  • Ged
    • Mats002

      So: Assuming no equipment failure, the Rossi effect kicks in at 700 C (outside)
      Please correct me if I misunderstand the situation.

      • Ged

        That was about 900 C internal, as is suggested to be expected as a minimum temp. But, never saw the last decomp of LiH, so it must have done so earlier than I thought.

        • Mats002

          Well, the Californian gues were lucky then, because the headroom for 110 Volts is almost nothing at 900 C (outside) 😉

          • Mats002

            Should be guys and (inside)

  • magicsnd1

    Tdif is up to 56 degrees, which is around 10% above calibration. Encouraging but not decisive. I’ll be bumping the set point up to 950 °C soon

    • Mats002

      Last 40 min, Null temp is more nervous than Active temp, this suggesting equipment tear down?

      • Ged

        Or suggests power generating in the core and the PID trying to resist it. Only pushing it higher and observing longing will answer which of the two or others is going on 😉

        • Mats002

          Yeah, that works for me 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Are we having fun yet?

          • Mats002

            No 🙁

  • magicsnd1

    Tdif is up to 56 degrees, which is around 10% above calibration. Encouraging but not decisive. I’ll be bumping the set point up to 950 °C soon

    • Mats002

      Last 40 min, Null temp is more nervous than Active temp, this suggesting equipment tear down?

      • Ged

        Or suggests power generating in the core and the PID trying to resist it. Only pushing it higher and observing longing will answer which of the two or others is going on 😉

        • Mats002

          Yeah, that works for me 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Are we having fun yet?

          • Mats002

            No 🙁

  • Ged

    New update, because we’ve officially crossed past the calibration for the dT of active-null vs the active’s outside temperature. This, while not even taking into account the huge ramp from the lower start earlier (three different slope regions in the active run graph, while one slope region in the calibration), is interesting.

    http://s9.postimg.org/oa5x75ilr/150830_0048_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_4.png

    Edit: Since we are near the very end of the calibration data, now it seems it may be best to just let it sit and percolate for a long period of time to get a good steady state reading, and see if anything develops with holding as is suggested to be the case in other runs.

    • Mats002

      61 C diff. The Null side have a plug filling the space, the Active side have powder.
      Null side is more conductive discipating away it’s heat more effective than Active side but again at those high temps radiation is overtaking heat flow, so – in theory – higher temps would make Null side more the same as Active side in the game of get rid of heat.

      61 C diff. Can be due to heater coil failure, the Null side part of coil is melting and/or oxidize so that resistance change in favour for the Active side.

      61 C diff. Temp is not enough to tell, let’s look at voltage (power in): Hard to tell energy input because voltage is fluctuating and need to be integrated and calculated which is not possible without getting all the data after the test, I want an answer in real time 🙁

      61 C diff. Voltage trend going down, that is a good sign, but how to calculate yield?

      • Ged

        The first idea seems to not be the case, as the active side was much closer in temp to the null than in the calibration for the majority of the temperature domain. Changes only began around 750 C.

        Heater coil failure would show up across the whole thing, since it is one contiguous heater coil, not two separate pieces, so that doesn’t seem too likely–it also can’t explain the larger divergence during the calibration at lower temps, which was highly linear.

        Indeed, it is suggestive, but not definitive a difference yet. We can look at the voltage, as the average integrates it. The problem is… converting that to Watts which is the real measure we want. Voltage is just half the equation, and can’t tell us the whole story. The voltage also suggests that the coil is fine though, which strikes out the second possibility. If the coil was oxidizing, I believe the voltage would be forced upwards to maintain watts due to the greater resistance.

        We just need the resistance to find the “yield”, i.e. power, by comparing the power in for the calibration against the active run. We can use the previous leaked run too as a comparison, giving us a larger N.

        • Mats002

          The reference run has power in (W) vs temp out (C) see comments below 21 hours ago, plot from Alan.

          How would the same plot compare to this run?

        • Sanjeev

          Resistance is 9.8 ohm. If you wish to see only the trend of power then exact value is not needed.

  • Ged

    Here by popular demand, and assuming a 9.8 ohm resistance:

    http://s4.postimg.org/yf1xnygkt/150830_0048_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp.png

    • Mats002

      I cant vote up by a simple click, so: I vote up!
      Time is 4 in the morning, so I guess I am hooked on this run….

      • Bob Greenyer

        4 here too.

        Mats, will you be in Stockholm Tuesday?

        • Mats002

          My plan is to be in Örebro, not passing Stockholm, but I can change that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – I’ll be there Monday late till Thursday early.

          • Mats002

            I will mail you tomorrow sunday (actually later this day), that will be fun!

    • Sanjeev

      Great!
      It will look better with power on x-axis and a poly trendline.

      • Ged

        You read my mind ;). I want to grab the latest data first. Been an explosion of comments here, hah. Let me get this whipped up.

    • SG

      Should the legend refer to “Moving Average Power” rather than “Moving Average Voltage”? The y axis shows power in W.

      • Ged

        Nice catch. I hadn’t fixed that yet from when I did volts.

      • Mats002

        With assuming resistance 9.8 ohm over the whole temp range (which is a simplification), it should be “Moving Average Power”. Trend would be the same for “Moving Avarage Voltage”, Ged – please correct if wrong.

        • Ged

          Yep, it’s pretty much the same for both ;). Just different scale and exponential equation, but same relative trend differences between the two.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Is the power going down right now with the active at same temp – or am I imagining that?

    on a 15 min average we are now at under 82V, there was a 15 minute average of over 82.5V on the previous power step when the temp was 49ºC cooler.

    • SG

      If I’m interpreting the Cal2 v Run2: Power v Outer Temp graph correctly that was just posted below by Ged, then the active run is requiring about 200 W less power to maintain same temperature as calibration run at just under 1000 C.

      • Mats002

        Swedish moms (tax on things you buy) is 25%.
        The signal-to-noice ratio in the equipment (assuming not malfunctional) should be much less than that.

    • Obvious

      I was just looking at the 15 min average V vs 30 second average V vs steady V at the 700 degree step. I am wondering if the average V from the PID can be relied on. You can see a big drop where the PID takes over from steady volts.

      • Obvious

        30 second avg (bumpy PID V), 15 min avg (smooth),

      • Sanjeev

        I think, only History data is reliable for power calculations.

    • Sanjeev

      Sometimes it does look like that Power goes down. This happened in last hour for 15 mins. See attached graph. I’m not sure how accurate this is, perhaps Ged can confirm.

  • Bob Greenyer

    See here

  • Bob Greenyer

    See here

  • magicsnd1

    The set point is now 1000 °C, corresponding to 1250 in the core.. The Tdif at 60 degrees compared to 54-56 for the calibration. This is less than 1% deviation and shouldn’t be taken as significant.

    The heater power cannot be estimated accurately by moving average of the voltage data.

    • Mats002

      Because you hit the roof of your power supply?

    • SG

      If resistance stays constant at around 9.8 ohm for the duration of the test (an assumption only), then the moving average of the voltage data could be used to estimate heater power. While the resistance likely varies a little as the vessel heats, it seems that such variance would occur in both the cal2 and the run2 at essentially the same rate. So, it seems to me, that the *relative* difference in power consumption between cal2 and run2 *is* significant.

  • magicsnd1

    The set point is now 1000 °C, corresponding to 1250 in the core.. The Tdif at 64 degrees compared to 54-56 for the calibration. This is about a 12% deviation and may be significant. It’s worth watching anyway.

    The heater power cannot be estimated accurately by moving average of the voltage data.

    • Mats002

      Because you hit the roof of your power supply?

    • SG

      If resistance stays constant at around 9.8 ohm for the duration of the test (an assumption only), then the moving average of the voltage data could be used to estimate heater power. While the resistance likely varies a little as the vessel heats, it seems that such variance would occur in both the cal2 and the run2 at essentially the same rate. So, it seems to me, that the *relative* difference in power consumption between cal2 and run2 *is* significant.

  • Ged

    By popular demand part 2. Calculated from History data. 420 point moving average. Probably best to do a double moving average to extract the trend from the noisy swings (e.g. ignore that last leftward spike). I have to disagree that it can’t be estimated by moving average of the voltage data, as indeed it can, as long as our assumptions of resistance hold true; and in fact this is sort of accurate estimation is what double moving averages in particular are for. I’ll do that next time.

    http://s3.postimg.org/pxs1fn7df/150830_0216_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp.png

    • Sanjeev

      That’s 200W of difference in power terms, if we assume that the power calculation is valid.

      • Ged

        We need a much longer observation time, I think, before we can be sure.

        • builditnow

          Alan said, signs of excess power showing up.

          • Ged

            Interesting! My connection to HugNet lags no matter what I do (refreshing the page does not help), so I have to wait quite awhile before I can make an update.

          • Sanjeev

            dT reached 70C. Are there any more signs?

          • Ged

            I’ll update my graph as soon as the I stop lagging and can catch up, and post it here if something interesting has occurred with the power or dT.

          • builditnow

            Correct, possibly about 20C above calibration on the active side, as I understand it.

  • Ged

    By popular demand part 2. Calculated from History data. 420 point moving average. Probably best to do a double moving average to extract the trend from the noisy swings (e.g. ignore that last leftward spike). I have to disagree that it can’t be estimated by moving average of the voltage data, as indeed it can, as long as our assumptions of resistance hold true; and in fact this is sort of accurate estimation is what double moving averages in particular are for. I’ll do that next time.

    http://s3.postimg.org/pxs1fn7df/150830_0216_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp.png

    • Sanjeev

      That’s 200W of difference in power terms, if we assume that the power calculation is valid.

      • Ged

        We need a much longer observation time, I think, before we can be sure.

        Edit: the null side is going down again, dT is 69 C. It seems to oscillate slowly over hour scales of time. Definitely need a much longer time period to see what’s going on with the trend, particularly if there is a reaction and it builds with time.

        Edit2: Now at 72 dT. Definitely longer observation necessary.

  • builditnow

    Back from visiting with Alan and Skip and Mark,

    Sweet setup and Alan, Skip and Mark are great people.

    3 of us locals showed up, one from the University of Berkeley with access to testing facilities. Alan handed over 2 test samples, single blind, in that he did not say which contained the before and after samples.

    For those who want to view the experimental data in real time, Go to hugnetlab.com and select the bottom entry, GS4.

    The “Inside Core” temperature is not in use in the live run and is monitoring the temperature of the radiation monitor which needs to stay below 30C.

    Be aware that the inactive side of the test runs at a lower temperature than the active side, Alan thinks this could be that the alumina plug in the inactive side is conducting some heat away on that side.

    This means that the result we all are hoping for is when the active side goes higher than it did on the calibration run. The graphs Ged posted below show the deviation from the calibration run. Alan considers that if the active side goes higher than the inactive side by 100C, we have indications of excess heat. This would mean that the active side is about 50C higher than during the calibration run.

    • SG

      Thanks for the update. Temperature difference alone does not tell the whole story. Relative power difference between cal2 and run2 at a given temperature tells the story.

      Edit: One reason for this is simple. During run2, the fueled vessel can heat both the active side and the inactive side. You must also look to relative power difference to get the complete picture.

  • builditnow

    How can we help Alan?
    I asked Alan what we could do to help and he said, “get me one of these, then I (Alan) can completely automate the tests so they can run unattended.”
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-PA1000-Single-phase-Power-Analyzer-/111747337121?hash=item1a04a90ba1

    Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer $2149.00

    This would enable a production line of tests to be run, one after the other.
    Anyone up for making it happen or got ideas to help?

    • SG

      Let’s try to crowd fund one for Alan. I’d pitch in.

      • builditnow

        Right, $100 from 21 people and we are done.
        Who’s going to set it up?

        • Ged

          I’ll gladly pitch in too. Maybe we can use the quantumheat website?

          • builditnow

            We have $300, do I see another $100?
            It could be one of the crowd sourcing websites. As long as people know for sure that the money ends up at Alan’s. It could be directly to his paypal account.

          • Ged

            True, we just need his paypal e-mail then. That’ll be quite secure.

      • Mats002

        I am in.

        • builditnow

          Mats002, you can use paypal to Alan’s account at magicsound3@aol.com.
          Ged and I have sent in our donation.
          Alan told me he would keep track of the funds an if insufficient, return the donations. He also said he would match the amount donated, so, our target is now $1200.

          • Mats002

            Just sent $100 via palpal to Magic Sound.

      • builditnow

        I just called Alan and his paypal account is
        magicsound3@aol.com.
        Alan said he would keep track of the donations and return them if there is insufficient funds.
        Alan said he would put in matching funds, this means our target is $1200 (to allow for shipping), or we could go higher if we want to show more support.
        So far, I’m in for $100, and the following said they are in, Mats002, Ged, SG

        • Kristian

          I’m in

        • Ged

          Money sent.

          • builditnow

            Sent mine

      • Builditnow

        SB, you can use paypal to Alan’s account at magicsound3@aol.com.
        Ged and I have sent in our donation.
        Alan
        told me he would keep track of the funds an if insufficient, return the
        donations. He also said he would match the amount donated, so, our
        target is now $1200.

        • SG

          Sent.

        • Mats002

          Sent.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      How does one use this analyzer to get fueled & unfueled elements power consumption’s?

      • builditnow

        The power analyzer will allow Alan to run tests unattended
        His current system requires human supervision while running.

        The power analyzer enables the use a triac style power regulator and being able to accurately measure power. At the moment, in order to measure power accurately, Allan has an on / off power controller with zero voltage switching coupled with a variable transformer. This switches on an off every few seconds. His currently system enables easy calculation of power, accurately, using his current RMS meters, but has the down side that it requires manual intervention to adjust the power.

        With a triac power supply, full control of the power can be completely automated, so, tests can proceed while Alan is asleep etc. enabling a lot more tests to be run. This type of power analyzer is required for the output of triac power supplies because of the rather extreme spiky choppy wave forms produced that cause cheaper meters to be inaccurate.

        The bottom line: Lots more tests more frequently from Alan.
        Having seen his setup, my opinion is that it is accurate and robust enough to run tests on a continuous basis. The cost of each run could be somewhere between $50 and $100 for the parts, volunteers could be found for the labor component. You could fund your experiments with the fuel mix and parameters you think might work.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Why don’t you use a cheap watts power meter & off load the meter reading to a recorder. These meters have the proper high speed ADACs to properly measure power consumed real & imaginary effects automatically accounting for resistor change & inductance & capacities effects which you can’t do reading aliased voltages & coil resistance vs temp curves? You can pick one up for about $20. One can even use two – one upstream of power supply & one before the coil to account for source converter losses. IMHO

  • Mats002

    Right now 70 C diff, ‘power in’ trend going down.
    I need to hit the sack for a few hours.
    Wow! What a night, thanks!

    • Ged

      Sleep well now!

  • Mats002

    Right now 70 C diff, ‘power in’ trend going down.
    I need to hit the sack for a few hours.
    Wow! What a night, thanks!

    • Ged

      Sleep well now!

  • builditnow

    Alan said, signs of excess power showing up.

    • Ged

      Interesting! My connection to HugNet lags no matter what I do (refreshing the page does not help), so I have to wait quite awhile before I can make an update.

    • Sanjeev

      dT reached 70C. Are there any more signs?

      • Ged

        I’ll update my graph as soon as the I stop lagging and can catch up, and post it here if something interesting has occurred with the power or dT.

      • builditnow

        Correct, possibly about 20C above calibration on the active side, as I understand it.

  • Sanjeev

    There is a slight down trend for null temp. See…
    (I usually need to refresh the page for attached images to show up here)
    If its maintained it can grow to a significant dT.

    • Ged

      Give it 3 more hours and it will be significant -if- this trend holds. But we’ve seen it oscillate and bottom out and then back up before. It’s exciting though, considering the earlier behavior it definitely does not look like either calibration nor the leaked active run.

      Edit: One overlooked metric is the pressure, which is keeping its steady downward march. A leak, or absorption? Still at 80 PSI range, so probably the latter. Is there a critical point where the pressure must drop to? It may be playing a role in the long time scales we’re seeing.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Great job guys, sorry I have to turn in now! Good luck on the replication effort. Still think alternating currents thru heater coils are necessary to initiate, grow & control LENR sites in fueled elements. Just maybe these sites can be extinguished by unidirectional applied current to shut down process, even from (ssm) LENR mode with no prior input power required. Rossi patents mentions proper EM & frequency content are part of the power generation process, IMHO

  • magicsnd1

    I’ve started a fan to bring the temperature of my shop down to a more comfortable level. With 1300 watts of heater power, it was up to over 30 °C in there. Once it cools down a bit I’ll turn the fan off, after around 10 minutes.

    As a result of the fan, Tdiff dropped to around 68 degrees, possibly due to the increased convection cooling.

    • builditnow

      Two donations should be in for the helping Alan buy a Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer. Please check they have arrived.

    • SG

      Thanks for the update and for your dedicated efforts. This is an interesting run. Let’s see how it plays out. Can you answer one concern that I have about the two-vessel setup in particular… Isn’t it possible that the fueled vessel is heating both the active side and the inactive side? If that is the case, Tdiff by itself does not provide a complete understanding. You would have to look to relative power difference between cal2 and run2, assuming accurate power measurements. Whether or not an accurate power reading can be obtained from a moving average voltage is not relevant to my question.

      • builditnow

        SG, having seen the setup in person and discussed it at length with Alan and Skip, the design of this experiment is to sensitively detect if there is excess heat coming from the active side in order to determine what it takes to get excess heat.
        Once there is excess heat reliably produced, further calibration could emulate the test result to determine the actual excess heat.

        More importantly, a myriad of other test setups can then follow to see how improvements can be made to the output and to accurately measure the output.
        At the moment, experimenters are having challenges getting a reactor producing reliable long term excess heat. There seems to be either meltdowns that suggest a strong energy burst or null results.

        • SG

          Fair enough. The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that Tdiff by itself will not yield a sensitive detection of excess heat. It might give a “whiff” but nothing more. Significant excess heat could be present and it won’t be reflected in Tdiff because of the heat conduction and convection between the fueled and inactive sides.

  • Sanjeev

    dT for last 1.5 hours. Sometimes it exceeded 80C
    Attached.

    • Ged

      Very interesting, thank you for the zoomed graph. You can see the moment he turned the fan on, too.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You also have to remember that H2 is an extremely effective way of transporting heat, if the active side is getting hotter – it will be raising the temp of the passive side – this may be seen as an initially wider gap in temperatures that closes up a little with time (must also consider conduction of dummy side).

        More important would be to see what difference in power to achieve a temperature – if it takes less power to achieve a temperature on the active side. Then the actual gain is larger, because their is the additional load coming from the null side that is taking heat away.

  • magicsnd1

    I’ll increase the set point to 1020 °C in a few minutes. That will bring the core to ~1280.

    • Ged

      If Mats002’s idea is correct, it’ll be interesting to see what would happen if we can get the core to 1350 C on the inside. I am inclined to watch for a long period of time rather than up it too much though and risk burn out.

  • magicsnd1

    I’ll increase the set point to 1020 °C in a few minutes. That will bring the core to ~1280.

    • Ged

      If Mats002’s idea is correct, it’ll be interesting to see what would happen if we can get the core to 1350 C on the inside. I am inclined to watch for a long period of time rather than up it too much though and risk burn out.

  • Ged

    Last update for the night, once more using History data.

    Power v Temp now as a 50 point double moving average ontop the 420 moving average. This cut out the noise without distorting the trace shape.

    http://s16.postimg.org/xy3pc3lo5/150830_0345_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp2.png

    And then the Active – Null, using the same double moving average scheme as above for the active.

    http://s30.postimg.org/evb6l93cx/150830_0345_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_5.png

    The changes in power occur at that ~700-750 C moment where the changes in Active – Null occur. Before that point, power versus temp was perfectly on the calibration’s trend line. What this indicates is that the null was running cooler during the calibration, not that the active side was running hotter; and during this active run the null was running hotter than it was in the calibration for the same temperature of active side (same watts in), but at 750ish C, that dramatically changed by a warming of the active side relative to power in. This has become extremely increased in the last awhile as seen by the rocketting upwards of the graph. Due to the double moving average, the largest peaks in the graph are averaged out, so the 80 dT spikes for Active – Null are not visible–this allows a better idea of the underlying stable trend, however.

    • Ged

      It seems like the wild behavior in this run is similar to what we saw in the first GS3 active run that appeared to show excess; and such behavior was not seen in any subsequent runs, all of which did not appear to show excess. It is looking like a common theme.

    • SG

      Note the “ignition” event at just above 700 C active side outer temperature, which I believe translates to around 950 C inner temperature, based on the delta provided by Alan below. Interestingly, Lithium hydride’s boiling point is 900–1000 °C

  • magicsnd1

    I increased the set point to 1020 °C, to see if it was right on the edge of kicking in. the result was no change, Tdiff continued at 66-68 degrees.

    I can push it a bit higher, but at 1350 watts, the coil will likely be degraded within a few hours. Or I can shut it down and call it “flat line 2”. Let’s have a show of virtual hands.

    • SG

      I think Tdiff will continue to be about the same even if you had significant excess heat. (See below for my reasoning.)

      Edit: I second Ged’s suggestion of letting it run. . . Parkhomov style.

    • Ged

      I vote to let it sit as is and keep running, and see how it develops over the night. Then we can come back to it in the morning and see what we think we should do. Aka, sleep on it ;).

      Edit: After all, dT seems to increase with time while at steady state, not so much after a ramp.

    • builditnow

      I vote to let it run at this temperature for some hours. There may be some longer time effect. Do you have some volunteers to watch over things?

    • Obvious

      If you are leery of running it real hot all night (I would be), then maybe 750 all night instead?
      I wouldn’t run an experiment at full power in my sleep. But half power is a nice glow and fairly harmless.

  • magicsnd1

    Ged, I can’t sleep on it, with the power at this level. It seems stable and would probably last the night. But little would be learned, and someone will have to sit and watch it through the night in case of a ‘bang!’ event.

    • builditnow

      An alternative could be to drop the temperature back to a level safe to allow you to sleep then crank it back up tomorrow. The temperature range might do something.

      • SG

        Pressure might also continue to drop and get us down to Parkhomov ranges, which were quite low.

        • builditnow

          Some say that pressure must go to half atmospheric, so, after a cooler run overnight and some sleep, run up the temperature and see what happens, then is there some way to lower the hydrogen pressure? Parkomov suggests that half atmospheric pressure is needed (if I’m right).

          • Bob Greenyer

            according to the recent patents – 0.25 bar – but that is when you doing the reversible LiH reaction with Al.

      • magicsnd1

        Yes, that seems like a reasonable compromise. I’m good for another hour, and there is a volunteer here for the night shift. So the plan is to lower the set point back to 900 C and let it run over night. At the current slope of ~ 4 psi/hr, the pressure would still . Then crank it back up in the morning with a quick thermal shock.

        • Sanjeev

          A good plan.
          I guess the temperatures of null and active sides tend to equalize due to cross talk. So there may not be much difference or it may not increase a lot.
          One way to check if it really produced excess is to simulate lenr by using an extra heater wire inside the active part and see how the dT behaves as you simulate the excess heat by heating the extra heater. This can be done only after removing the fuel.

          • SG

            Agreed. Also, compare relative power consumption between calibration and live runs. And best of all, flow calorimetry.

    • Ged

      Amusingly, I realized you had to be there to supervise it only after I crawled into bed thus making it impossible to leave it alone when that hot, and that was one major reason we’re working to get you that automation system. A good compromise indeed, though! Thanks for working so hard and furiously hot for us.

  • builditnow

    How can we help Alan run a lot more experiments?
    I asked Alan what we could do to help and he
    said, “get me one of these, then I (Alan) can completely automate the
    tests so they can run unattended.”

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektro
    Tektronix PA1000 Single-phase Power Analyzer $2149.00

    This would enable a production line of tests to be run, one after the other.
    4 people have signed up to send Alan a donation, 2 donations already sent in.

    You can send you donations securely via paypal to Alan’s email at magicsound3@aol.com
    Alan told me that he will keep track of the donations and if there is insufficient he will return them. He also said he would match the donations, this means our target is about $1200.
    We might be at about $400 if everyone puts in $100.
    Anyone else in?

    Incremental tests could be in the range of $50 to $100, so, you can fund your own test.
    I’m of the opinion that Alan’s setup will sensitively detect excess heat. This could be verified by adding a small heater inside the test side during a calibration run.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – the most important thing right now is a power analyser. It would make it much easier to see what is going on.

      • ssdd

        I donated $100 (via the MFMP) towards a power analyzer back on June 6. Hopefully this can be added to the total.

  • Obvious

    The middle event is still my favorite.

    • Obvious

      Looking good.

      • monti

        Heater active is now 60 degrees warmer than heater null. Can it be they found something?!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – that one was a pretty significant move – not really at a temp that would imply an exothermic chemical reaction. I think it could possibly be something to do with the accuracy of the power monitoring – will have to see if Alan changed the peak voltage at that point – and if he did – then it comes down to how the voltage is being sampled.

        • Obvious

          I am certain it has to do with a change in control of V.

  • Ged

    Good morning, all!

    Graphing Only the nightly cool period’s power (graphing all of it is too messy, as it just doubles back on itself from the cool down and there’s no sense of where we currently are), with the median of the double moving average put in (there’s a lot of lower power moments that pull the average more towards the left). Looks to be about more than 100 W less power use than the calibration, which seems to be the trend (100-200 W less) ever since that 750 C event.

    Getting a good view of this is starting to push against my limits of graphing skills–quite a fun exercise! We’ll have to see what others can pull out of the data, as it’s morphing into a big dataset. Slicing it by feature may be very useful.

    http://s23.postimg.org/cn5cxencb/150830_1433_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp_post_night_c.png

    Edit: Here is the full view, so you can see what I mean–lotsa spaghetti. The median of the current temperature hold is almost exactly on the long term trend line for this run. Don’t take the trend line too seriously at high power though, as it doesn’t capture the increasingly large power/dT at the highest powers for cali2 and run2, but it’s the best equation Excel can do at the moment.

    http://s1.postimg.org/qq6c5ipyn/150830_1433_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp3.png

    • Sanjeev

      Looks great.
      It all boils down to how confident one can be about the power readings. The hugnet sampling is once per second (sometimes skips a few seconds), and if the power varies faster than that it will not capture it or will capture the event in part. So there is a possibility of error here.
      I hope Alan has better data for voltage/power and also resistance vs temperature data, and he will provide the final plot. We will see if the excess of 100-200W still appears in his plot or not.
      One way to increase the confidence is to bypass the PID and step the voltage exactly in values of calibration. This will give a clean plot for direct comparison with cal.

      • Ged

        I really like that step idea. Pure, steady, clean voltage, mmmm. That would make analyzing the relationship trivially easy, and address all the issues with the PID sampling you highlight above.

        • Sanjeev

          It can also show if the temp starts increasing while the power is held constant. If it does, we will not need any analysis to announce success.
          It can do that in places where we saw power decreasing while the temp was constant.
          If it goes dangerously high, you can always cut the power or engage the PID back.

          • Ged

            I could not agree more. Let’s see if we can hit Alan up to try that.

          • Mats002

            Hi! I agree to that also.

  • Ged

    One more, the Active-Null. Some of the spaghetti is due to the zoom down in outer temps, and the graph trying to connect the sudden leap. I’ve put in the median of only the current hold as with in the power graph. You can view it as a friendly little “You Are Here”.

    http://s15.postimg.org/lajmd4fzv/150830_1433_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_6.png

  • Ged

    One more, the Active-Null. Some of the spaghetti is due to the zoom down in outer temps, and the graph trying to connect the sudden leap. I’ve put in the median of only the current hold as with in the power graph. You can view it as a friendly little “You Are Here”.

    http://s15.postimg.org/lajmd4fzv/150830_1433_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_6.png

  • magicsnd1

    The lab got pretty warm overnight but is now cooled down and the fan turned off. After things settle a bit more we’ll start an abrupt ramp up to 1020 °C (1280 core).

    In response to popular request, I’ll try to do this in constant voltage mode for more accurate power comparison with calibration. But I need to also keep the PID on line and ready to catch any thermal runaway. It will take careful tuning of the variac voltage but it should be possible.

    • Sanjeev

      Thanks Alan. Pop corn time…

      • Mats002

        He he

    • Ged

      Good luck, Alan! And thank you again for trying our zany ideas. We are like data addicts and you are our street corner dealer, but for free, and we appreciate it.

      • magicsnd1

        OK. Stand by – about 10 minute to launch

  • Optist

    Since the COP should be much bigger than 1 at non-reactor destroying temperatures, can we conclude that this test with the 20% lithium isn’t successful?

    • Sanjeev

      It doesn’t have 20% Li, only “parkhomov powder”.
      This setup does not allow a direct measurement of COP (no measurement of output power here), it only looks for temperature differences in null and active sides. Some indirect COP calculation is possible via comparison with calibration.

      • Optist

        Thanks for clarifying. Is there a planned test with the reactants that Rossi described in his patent?

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, Bob said he is arranging Li. But not sure when it will be done.

  • magicsnd1

    102.3 volts rms, 10.77 amps. The PID is settled at 1020 °C, with a set point of 1030 for safety.

  • maddox

    Anyone notice what happened with the pressure? It has been dropping at a steady rate since the start of the test, but it looks like it’s stabilized now.

  • AdrianAshfield

    I would love to see the data live. I wish someone would post a sticky link at the top, that works..
    All I get from the MFMP site is a message saying the owners have taken the video down.

    • Ged

      http://data.hugnetlab.com/ this will give you the live data, at least. Click on “View” on GS4 at the bottom of the list, then check the “Update with new data” box. You can turn off what you don’t want and the scales will adjust.

      • builditnow

        Frank: could you add this description of how to see live data above.
        Also add, “Set the period length to see smaller or larger sections of the experiment”
        Thanks

      • AdrianAshfield

        As before, the temperature is shown at 27C

        • Ged

          Oh, no, that is the inside core temp sensor (or the room temp reference sensor), that sensor is only used during calibration, it is currently not in use, so it’s best to click it off so you can see the other data traces.

    • Obvious

      Turn off “Update with new data” then paste this

      08/29/2015 01:00:00

      into the “From” box, then click “Go” and you will see pretty much the whole main experiment.

  • AdrianAshfield

    I would love to see the data live. I wish someone would post a sticky link at the top, that works..
    All I get from the MFMP site is a message saying the owners have taken the video down.

    • Ged

      http://data.hugnetlab.com/ this will give you the live data, at least. Click on “View” on GS4 at the bottom of the list, then check the “Update with new data” box. You can turn off what you don’t want and the scales will adjust.

      • builditnow

        Frank: could you add this description of how to see live data above.
        Also add, “Set the period length to see smaller or larger sections of the experiment”
        Thanks

      • AdrianAshfield

        As before, the temperature is shown at 27C

        • Ged

          Oh, no, that is the inside core temp sensor (or the room temp reference sensor), that sensor is only used during calibration, it is currently not in use, so it’s best to click it off so you can see the other data traces.

    • Obvious

      Turn off “Update with new data” then paste this

      08/29/2015 01:00:00

      into the “From” box, then click “Go” and you will see pretty much the whole main experiment.

  • builditnow

    If after some hours, no excess heat is seen, here are other experiments to consider before shut down.
    1. Electromagnetic (EM) stimulation,
    2. DC supply,
    3. Lowering pressure, perhaps to 50% vacuum as per Parkomov.
    4. What will give the signal of excess heat and why only temperature difference matters at this point.

    For point 1 & 2:
    Why did Rossi have a 3 phase 380V power system for the Lugano reactor when the power heating of the reactor was about 1kW? Switzerland has 220V normal household plugs and 380V for 3 phase.
    For the household plugs 220V at 10 amps = 2.2kW and it’s likely 15 amps = 3.3kW. Way more power than needed for the Lugano reactor is available a standard single phase house hold power outlet. 3 phase could easily be capable of 50 amps, over 30kW. Seems way over kill.

    So, why the 3 phase?
    It would give a very copped wave creating much larger EM peaks.

    Rossi could have also modified the controller to supply the EM pulses in alignment (same magnetic direction) for periods, then switch the direction, or, always on one direction (pulsed DC).

    My sense is there is something to the 3 phase and it’s likely the large EM pulses.

    Some thoughts for things to try:
    – I there is something that generates a lot of EM, like an old tape eraser that could be moved close to the reactor and given bursts.
    – Is there a powerful audio amplifier that could match a coil that could be put near the reactor to experiment with different wave forms. Both a class D and linear amp could be tried.
    – What about half wave or full wave rectifier with a cross over switch to change polarity.

    To point 3:
    – I’ve heard second hand that Parkomov thinks the reactor pressure needs to go negative with respect to atmospheric pressure. I wonder if also allowed a small leak or air into the reactor.
    – Did Parkomov vacuum out his reactor after fuel loading or just load with air? If so, does air play some part?
    – I’d favor doing the EM stimulation before altering the reactor pressure.

    For 4:
    What will give the signal of excess heat.
    First, some have raised the idea that the heat flow connection between the left and the right of the reactor is so good that heat in one side will closely maintain temperature in the other such that excess heat is undetectable. I find this idea so incredulous that I need help understanding how someone could even think this. I’ve seen the reactor in person, and my strong opinion is that the heat isolation between the sides is completely adequate to see a clear temperature difference if there is excess power. Sure, some heat will flow but nowhere near enough to see a clear temperature rise if there is excess heat. The test itself indicates that a smallish heat loss on the null side, due to the alumina plug on that side, causes that side to be about 50C lower in temperature than the active side. The section between the left and right side is visibly not red hot at maximum temperature. Sorry folks, that idea is nonsense. A later calibration test that puts extra heat in the active side will prove it.

    So what indicates excess heat? Simply the temperature difference between the left and right sides compared to the calibration. Nothing else is required. Initially, power measurements are not required. The first thing is to find a way to get excess heat. After we figure out how to get excess heat, we can start measuring how much, then accurate power measurements are required.

    So, don’t worry about power measurements at this point, just try all sorts of things and look for the temperature difference.

  • builditnow

    If after some hours, no excess heat is seen, here are other experiments to consider before shut down.
    1. Electromagnetic (EM) stimulation,
    2. DC supply,
    3. Lowering pressure, perhaps to 50% vacuum as per Parkomov.
    4. What will give the signal of excess heat and why only temperature difference matters at this point.

    For point 1 & 2:
    Why did Rossi have a 3 phase 380V power system for the Lugano reactor when the power heating of the reactor was about 1kW? Switzerland has 220V normal household plugs and 380V for 3 phase.
    For the household plugs 220V at 10 amps = 2.2kW and it’s likely 15 amps = 3.3kW. Way more power than needed for the Lugano reactor is available a standard single phase house hold power outlet. 3 phase could easily be capable of 50 amps, over 30kW. Seems way over kill.

    So, why the 3 phase?
    It would give a very copped wave creating much larger EM peaks.

    Rossi could have also modified the controller to supply the EM pulses in alignment (same magnetic direction) for periods, then switch the direction, or, always on one direction (pulsed DC).

    My sense is there is something to the 3 phase and it’s likely the large EM pulses.

    Some thoughts for things to try:
    – I there is something that generates a lot of EM, like an old tape eraser that could be moved close to the reactor and given bursts.
    – Is there a powerful audio amplifier that could match a coil that could be put near the reactor to experiment with different wave forms. Both a class D and linear amp could be tried.
    – What about half wave or full wave rectifier with a cross over switch to change polarity.

    To point 3:
    – I’ve heard second hand that Parkomov thinks the reactor pressure needs to go negative with respect to atmospheric pressure. I wonder if also allowed a small leak or air into the reactor.
    – Did Parkomov vacuum out his reactor after fuel loading or just load with air? If so, does air play some part?
    – I’d favor doing the EM stimulation before altering the reactor pressure.

    For 4:
    What will give the signal of excess heat.
    First, some have raised the idea that the heat flow connection between the left and the right of the reactor is so good that heat in one side will closely maintain temperature in the other such that excess heat is undetectable. I find this idea so incredulous that I need help understanding how someone could even think this. I’ve seen the reactor in person, and my strong opinion is that the heat isolation between the sides is completely adequate to see a clear temperature difference if there is excess power. Sure, some heat will flow but nowhere near enough to see a clear temperature rise if there is excess heat. The test itself indicates that a smallish heat loss on the null side, due to the alumina plug on that side, causes that side to be about 50C lower in temperature than the active side. The section between the left and right side is visibly not red hot at maximum temperature. Sorry folks, that idea is nonsense. A later calibration test that puts extra heat in the active side will prove it.

    So what indicates excess heat? Simply the temperature difference between the left and right sides compared to the calibration. Nothing else is required. Initially, power measurements are not required. The first thing is to find a way to get excess heat. After we figure out how to get excess heat, we can start measuring how much, then accurate power measurements are required.

    So, don’t worry about power measurements at this point, just try all sorts of things and look for the temperature difference.

  • Bob Greenyer

    And this means?

    • Ged

      Seems to be holding relatively steady, like over night? The pressure is staying far more steady than I would have expected.

    • builditnow

      Hi Bob, I am presuming you are referring to my comments below.

      I talked to Alan about the suggestions below, points 1 to 4 and Alan has discussed all of these issues with his team and has a good handle on them.

      Here is what we discussed:

      To point 1. The controller used at Lugano has been identified as an on off type controller that switches at zero volts, as such is very similar to Alan’s setup. However there is interest in trying EM stimulation, but there is no equipment currently on hand to provide EM stimulation for this test. Unless someone locally has a powerful EM generator or induction heater, probably not for this test.

      To point 2. DC supply. We didn’t discuss, but, it’s different from Lugano and Parkomov, so, might be possible.
      To point 3 Lowering pressure is being discussed and would be possible by creating a temporary leak. So, probably on the agenda. It’s a one off thing, so, something for later.
      To point 4. Alan agreed that the temperature measurements give a good signature of excess heat provided the excess is above about 100 watts. My point is that one could fiddle with the power supply at this point (if conceivable) and not worry too much about the accuracy of power measurements, just try things and see if there is a temperature signature. Also, tests could be run as fast as new reactors are built and could be done using a variac controller and living with the inaccurate power measurements for the moment.

      Additionally: Your suggestion of going for higher temperatures is also likely something Alan will do.

      I suggested that some temperature swings might yield useful results, even going below the melting points of lithium etc. This might be one of the last things to try after dropping the hydrogen pressure.

      On the trip to Alan’s one of our team has a long history and interest in LENR / Cold Fusion and has access to and familiarity with using mass spectrometers and the like. Alan gave him 2 samples to test. That was probably the best result from our visit.

      • magicsnd1

        The PID set point is now 1050 °C, corresponding to 1300 C in the core. Power is 107.4 volts, 11.27 amps, 1200 watts continuous. The heater is so bright it’s painful to look at.

        • Ged

          Oh wow. Don’t think I’ve heard that before, even when pushing up in this range. Time to grab some sunglasses!

          • Ged

            Last set of graphs for this run. They don’t really say anything, but they sure are amusing. Starting a little before the power throttling and all the way till shut off (but not completely through cool down, as that is still going, just 8/31 0005).

            Active-Null (square spiral graph!):

            http://s14.postimg.org/ey6omys35/150831_0005_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_7.png

            Power v Temp (circular spiral graph, even prettier):

            http://s29.postimg.org/6edbzkv1j/150831_0005_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp4.png

            Obviously, this analysis fails during these ramps, but gotta show it for completeness.

          • Obvious

            Thump. Thump. Thump.

          • Justa Guy

            Ged, these are great plots to spend the time/care doing (as well as all the plots various people are submitting; Ecco & Obvious plotting come to mind, immediately), even if they may look silly!

            The first plot is a great example of what Heat Capacity/Flow is all about, which can be extracted (partially) from the second plot. If perhaps with a little more detail revealed during the experiment (which I witnessed first-hand), you/one could redo the first plot and show that it almost all will sit on that straight line on the plot. There is much recovery/lag of this crude calorimeter, and you/one might need to know the exact ambient temperature of Alan’s Studio Area at any time, to make it happen.

            During the run, Alan mentioned your plotting and his immediate analysis of it to me and hence the additional above comments…

            It would be extremely useful if we record temp/humidity vs time near these experiments and save/analyze that data, also. Alan may even be doing that [unknowingly] with his cell phone or some other fixed gadget in the lab/studio.

            Thanks to all for sharing the plots!

          • Ged

            Thank you for the kind encouragement. Without Alan and Skip, and the other supports such as you and builditnow, there would be no data to gnaw ;).

            Knowing the sum total mass of the reactor, the longitudinal thermal conduction coefficient of the mullite and nickel tubes and their heat capacities, and then the ambient temps and humidity as you point out, it should be possible to mathematically compensate for lag times during powerups/downs. This would also smooth out the data in general too, and probably remove the need for double moving averages for trend extraction. It may take something a bit better at number crunching than excel to handle.

            Just heat capacity, mass, and ambient alone would allow a lot of approximate ramp effect compensation, and provide extraction of the data during those events. Even kinetics perhaps, as we have the full behavior of the active side sans hydrogen.

            A few partial derivative heat equation simulations in matlab would do it too, but also provide a complete model description. Interestingly, having such a model would be a sensitive comparison method. But, it is beyond my current equipment and capabilities.

            For now though, builditnow’s suggestions to increase sensitivity would go a long way in improving the methods. More fuel adjustments but even more so automation would be hugely beneficial for further tests.

            I feel like we’re chasing the tail tip of the dragon through some dark cave, barely brushing a touch, but not yet getting a good grasp, let alone taming the whole beast. We’re getting there though, with these brilliant feats of design Alan is cooking up. And one day that trash can calorimeter could add to our arsenal.

          • Preston Brown

            So, what is the conclusion? That 60C delta was real constant for most of the run, is that just tolerance on the sensors or a sign of something? That first run up to 1000C was looking promising; but is it all still inconclusive?

            Also, given the construction what would cause a constant 60C offset – if the resistance of thecoils was different then the offset would vary with input voltage, right? So maybe something else?

          • magicsnd1

            @Preston: We did two separate runs. The second one
            (GS4.2) used a new heater coil and mullite reactor cell, and was
            carefully calibrated before the fuel was added. The analyses done by GED and
            ECCO used the correct calibration data and found no excess heat, with a
            data resolution of about 1% of T (±10°C). The calibration data and charts for both runs are available at http://tinyurl.com/nu8dcrw

            Your question points out that the construction of the
            Glowstick design leads to some variation in the balancing of the active
            and null thermocouples. This must be accounted for by calibrating the
            two thermocouples against steady-state input power before the fuel is
            added. Here’s a thermal camera image from the calibration of the second reactor. It provides experimental evidence that the difference in TC readings
            is due to the conduction of the longer alumina filler rod in the null
            side of the cell.

        • Sanjeev

          I suggest doing thermal kicks (like the Lenz group recommends). Sudden cooling and sudden heat. And also look for HAD.

          • magicsnd1

            I’ll try that in a few minutes. I’ll turn off the power, let it cool to about 700 watching for HAD, then back on to heat rapidly up to 1050.

          • Sanjeev

            Well, what does it say ? The dT became 0 in the valley.

          • Ged

            Interesting!

          • Sanjeev

            The pressure rose for a few seconds when the power was turned off. I find that strange, it should have gone down immediately if there was nothing to cause a sudden heat.

          • Ged

            Yes, that is contrary to ideal gas behavior. Something would have had to either heat the gas or release more gas to resist the de-pressuring from the cooling temps.

          • Sanjeev

            Pressure change is a direct indication of inner temperature, that’s why I find that amazing. It didn’t rise in next kick but there was a delay of few seconds before it fell.
            Note that now the dT is ~35, it was ~15 when it was at 600C previously. Don’t know why.

          • Ged

            Also note that pressure is now falling again, where it was staying pretty constant earlier when the reaction appeared dead. Hmmmmm.

          • Sanjeev

            Kick worked a bit, although no clear HAD.

          • Ged

            I seriously don’t think we can ever see HAD unless we have absurdly high COP, simply due to he physics of thermal inertia and the percentage of heat from a reaction versus the heater. A calorimeter might see HAD though.

          • Sanjeev

            Increasing the amount of fuel should increase the COP I guess. Make it 10 gram may be.
            Probably pure Li should be added to the fuel next time, since now we know it is the real fuel.

          • Ged

            Agreed. More fuel would make a higher thermal mass which may make it more noticeable. Also, definitely the extra Li, probably to free the Li from the Al, stoichiometry.

          • magicsnd1

            I’ve ended the run at midnight UTC. The total elapsed time is 47:10.
            This long experiment wouldn’t have been possible without the generous help and good company of Skip and Justa Guy, and I thank them for their patience and support.

            The data is all available at hugnetlab.com. A good part of the analysis has already been done by GED and ECCO, who I also thank for the time and skill they brought to the party.

            Best regards to all,
            Alan Goldwater
            MFMP

          • Ged

            Thank you so much guys for this fantastic marathon, once again!

          • builditnow

            Well done Alan and team.
            I visited Alan and witnessed the experiment directly for some of the time and had deep and wide ranging discussions with all of Alan’s team. I have to say that this experiment was excellently executed in every detail as planned, as I see it.

            The experiment was run on the fuel that Parkhomov gave MFMP at the last cold fusion conference. In many ways this test is identical to Parkhomov’s successful test, so, what is the missing ingredient?

            Was it the fuel container?
            There is a video from the conference where Parkhomov gave his “big reveal” and in that conference he was asked what kind of material the fuel container was made of. The answer was “stainless steel”, but, no answer as to the type of stainless steel. Very thin stainless steel I think with holes poked in it with a needle (if I’m remembering correctly).

            Was it the pressure which decreased to half atmosphere in Parkhomov’s case?
            Is it the identical fuel?
            Was there air in the reactor when it was fueled and sealed?
            Was there cement used in the reactor and what type was it?
            Was it the triac type power supply (I think Parkhomov used)?

            It looks like we need many more experiments.
            Perhaps Alan’s system can be more sensitive to less excess heat as there may have been some in this experiment but it was not clear.

            We may have to look for far less excess heat in order to what factors improve excess heat output.

          • Ged

            I still wonder how much if any effect the lithium’s ability to ooze out of the fuel pellet and get between the mullite and nickel tubes could have. We’ll have to see in the post mortum what it looks like.

            Still, like GS3, there was a clear and discrete state change that pushed the device well above calibration. That change also mostly died out after a day–all of which suggests, if not definitively, that there was a excess heat reaction with a sharp beginning boundary and slow trail off 24ish hours later with a strength of more than 100 W.

          • builditnow

            Ged, thanks for your analysis:
            Talking to Alan 100 watts is very close to the margin or error so the approximate 100 watts is “perhaps” exothermic. Also, the length of time means it could be chemical.

            I’ll talk to Alan about increasing the sensitivity to smaller amounts of exothermic heat. My initial thought is more fuel and insulation using fire bricks. Then add forced air cooling. There is a nice “soft brick” rated at 2600C, easy to drill / cut / carve. GreenTherm 26 LI made by ANH Refactories.

            http://jjmedina.com.ec/GREENTHERM%202010-Flyer.pdf
            I have some, they are very easy to work with.

            The advantage of insulation is that less power is required to heat the reactor as a result, small amounts of exothermic heat with cause a larger temperature rise. This way the experiment is more sensitive. At first thought, it seems the experiment could easily be adapted this way.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well done Alan and Skip for excellent execution of not one, but two experiments. Thankyou also to those that dropped in on Alan to offer support.

            Much learning.

            Thanks for taking the relay Justa Guy.

            Thankyou GED and ECCO also.

            And thanks to everyone that took part in the discussion.

          • Obvious

            Please fix the diagram inner and outer diameters. Either the coil tube outer or cover tube inner diameter is incorrect. There is no room for the heater coil as depicted.

          • magicsnd1

            Thanks for spotting that! Here’s an updated reactor drawing with details of the GS4.2 fuel. I also attached the GS4 system block diagram showing the data and control systems.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – we are still way above atmospheric.

            – there are cycle kicking as suggested above.

            From the new patent information there is cycling around the formation of LiH – which because we have not got extra Li in there is below 900 and above 1000 internal – so a cycle could be to take it to 900, then kick to where you are now or something of your choosing.

      • Sanjeev

        dT behavior during last kick. It suggests that the actual dT is 90C at 1000C active side. The cross talk reduces it as time passes.

        • Ged

          Also, pressure is going up and staying steady again too, oddly.

          • Sanjeev

            May be it will peak and then fall again.

          • builditnow

            No expert here, the temperature may have gone low enough for some of the hydrogen to recombine with the lithium or something else, then released again as the temperature went back up.

          • builditnow

            Perhaps a lower temperature hold might lower pressure so that the rise could have a small “pumping” effect to drive more hydrogen into the nickel.

          • Stephen

            Is the current GS4.1 reheat test planned to be displayed on Hugnet and Youtube or is it only available on Google Hangouts?

            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/502-glowstick-gs4-run

        • Sanjeev

          (You may need to refresh the page to see the attached chart.)

    • builditnow

      Hi Bob, ok, I see you are referring to the diagram which did not show to me initially.
      The temperature difference is too close to calibration to show anything.
      The pressure drop, unknown, Alan thinks it could be diffusion out of the cell. It seems to be settling to about 40psi. Alan thinks this could be a pressure that cell can hold at these temperature.

      • Ged

        It’s hard to say how much cross talk there is. A simulation of excess via a heater inside the core would be required to figure that out, and find out if there is a “max” dT or so detectable by this method.

    • Ged

      In all honesty, it’s starting to look like it’s peetering out, as the null is getting closer to the active with time, and voltage is going up slowly. That would be evidence of a reaction too. Or it could be it doesn’t like these high temps after all. However, we aren’t seeing those >80 C dT spikes any more like we had earlier (and which was the lower threshold in my view for a signal above the noise, and we did surpass, and then the divergence was also proportionally more than 20% higher than calibration during the nightly cool down).

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, its no more alive now.

        • Ged

          Gave us more than 24 hours of activity though. Pressure is still pretty high; wonder why it’s apparently died out.

  • Bob Greenyer

    And this means?

    • Ged

      Seems to be holding relatively steady, like over night? The pressure is staying far more steady than I would have expected.

    • builditnow

      Hi Bob, I am presuming you are referring to my comments below.

      I talked to Alan about the suggestions below, points 1 to 4 and Alan has discussed all of these issues with his team and has a good handle on them.

      Here is what we discussed:

      To point 1. The controller used at Lugano has been identified as an on off type controller that switches at zero volts, as such is very similar to Alan’s setup. However there is interest in trying EM stimulation, but there is no equipment currently on hand to provide EM stimulation for this test. Unless someone locally has a powerful EM generator or induction heater, probably not for this test.

      To point 2. DC supply. We didn’t discuss, but, it’s different from Lugano and Parkomov, so, might be possible.
      To point 3 Lowering pressure is being discussed and would be possible by creating a temporary leak. So, probably on the agenda. It’s a one off thing, so, something for later.
      To point 4. Alan agreed that the temperature measurements give a good signature of excess heat provided the excess is above about 100 watts. My point is that one could fiddle with the power supply at this point (if conceivable) and not worry too much about the accuracy of power measurements, just try things and see if there is a temperature signature. Also, tests could be run as fast as new reactors are built and could be done using a variac controller and living with the inaccurate power measurements for the moment.

      Additionally: Your suggestion of going for higher temperatures is also likely something Alan will do.

      I suggested that some temperature swings might yield useful results, even going below the melting points of lithium etc. This might be one of the last things to try after dropping the hydrogen pressure.

      On the trip to Alan’s one of our team has a long history and interest in LENR / Cold Fusion and has access to and familiarity with using mass spectrometers and the like. Alan gave him 2 samples to test. That was probably the best result from our visit.

    • builditnow

      Hi Bob, ok, I see you are referring to the diagram which did not show to me initially.
      The temperature difference is too close to calibration to show anything.
      The pressure drop, unknown, Alan thinks it could be diffusion out of the cell. It seems to be settling to about 40psi. Alan thinks this could be a pressure that cell can hold at these temperature.

      • Ged

        It’s hard to say how much cross talk there is. A simulation of excess via a heater inside the core would be required to figure that out, and find out if there is a “max” dT or so detectable by this method.

        • magicsnd1

          Sorry, BobG, I don’t think it will go to 1380, the Variac knob is already on 11.

          So what’s next?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – we are still way above atmospheric.

            – there are cycle kicking as suggested above.

            From the new patent information there is cycling around the formation of LiH – which because we have not got extra Li in there is below 900 and above 1000 internal – so a cycle could be to take it to 900, then kick to where you are now or something of your choosing.

    • Ged

      In all honesty, it’s starting to look like it’s peetering out, as the null is getting closer to the active with time, and voltage is going up slowly. That would be evidence of a reaction too, as then we’d be seeing it ending. Or it could be it doesn’t like these high temps after all. However, we aren’t seeing those >80 C dT spikes any more like we had earlier (and which was the lower threshold in my view for a signal above the noise, and we did surpass, and then the divergence was also proportionally more than 20% higher than calibration during the nightly cool down).

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, its no more alive now.

        • Ged

          Gave us more than 24 hours of activity though. Pressure is still pretty high; wonder why it’s apparently died out.

  • magicsnd1

    The PID set point is now 1050 °C, corresponding to 1300 C in the core. Power is 107.4 volts, 11.27 amps, 1200 watts continuous. The heater is so bright it’s painful to look at.

    • Ged

      Oh wow. Don’t think I’ve heard that before, even when pushing up in this range. Time to grab some sunglasses!

    • Sanjeev

      I suggest doing thermal kicks (like the Lenz group recommends). Sudden cooling and sudden heat. And also look for HAD.

      • magicsnd1

        I’ll try that in a few minutes. I’ll turn off the power, let it cool to about 700 watching for HAD, then back on to heat rapidly up to 1050.

        • Sanjeev

          Well, what does it say ? The dT became 0 in the valley.

          • Ged

            Interesting!

          • Sanjeev

            The pressure rose for a few seconds when the power was turned off. I find that strange, it should have gone down immediately if there was nothing to cause a sudden heat.

          • Ged

            Yes, that is contrary to ideal gas behavior. Something would have had to either heat the gas or release more gas to resist the de-pressuring from the cooling temps.

          • Sanjeev

            Pressure change is a direct indication of inner temperature, that’s why I find that amazing. It didn’t rise in next kick but there was a delay of few seconds before it fell.
            Note that now the dT is ~35, it was ~15 when it was at 600C previously. Don’t know why.

          • Ged

            Also note that pressure is now falling again, where it was staying pretty constant earlier when the reaction appeared dead. Hmmmmm.

          • Sanjeev

            Kick worked a bit, although no clear HAD.

          • Ged

            I seriously don’t think we can ever see HAD unless we have absurdly high COP, simply due to he physics of thermal inertia and the percentage of heat from a reaction versus the heater. A calorimeter might see HAD though.

          • Sanjeev

            Increasing the amount of fuel should increase the COP I guess. Make it 10 gram may be.
            Probably pure Li should be added to the fuel next time, since now we know it is the real fuel.

          • Ged

            Agreed. More fuel would make a higher thermal mass which may make it more noticeable. Also, definitely the extra Li, probably to free the Li from the Al, stoichiometry.

  • Sanjeev

    dT behavior during last kick. It suggests that the actual dT is 90C at 1000C active side. The cross talk reduces it as time passes.

    • Ged

      Also, pressure is going up and staying steady again too, oddly.

      • Sanjeev

        May be it will peak and then fall again.

      • builditnow

        No expert here, the temperature may have gone low enough for some of the hydrogen to recombine with the lithium or something else, then released again as the temperature went back up.

        • builditnow

          Perhaps a lower temperature hold might lower pressure so that the rise could have a small “pumping” effect to drive more hydrogen into the nickel.

    • Sanjeev

      (You may need to refresh the page to see the attached chart.)

  • builditnow

    Thinking ahead. IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN FORMING A TEAM TO HELP AUTOMATE ALAN’S TEST SETUP?
    I personally think it’s a good system to run lots of tests, looking for excess heat greater than about 100 watts. With a few modifications it could be made more sensitive (with the addition of insulation and active cooling for instance).

    I discussed with Alan a future thinking, “kicking the tires” idea of automating his system to enable experiments to be carried out production style. The reactors themselves are relatively inexpensive from a materials point of view.

    The estimate is that Alan could do this automation himself in 6 months, with another suitable person, 4 months, 4 people 3 months, (20 people 2 years LOL ). There would be opportunity for others to contribute time such as monitoring experiments, helping run debug tests, buying supplies, collecting donations etc. etc.

    Since Alan is in the Silicon Valley area, there are numerous people here with all the skills needed, it’s really a matter of are the right people interested and willing to put in the time. Of course, people here also earn nice big salaries, so, they are giving quite a gift to donate their time.

    There is potential for a financial benefit, a quality lower priced product for monitoring and control that could then be sold to all sorts of garage startups who likely have a need for a similar as against the currently expensive “professional systems”. An add on board for a Raspberry pi for instance. Such a board does require very skilled design to eliminate the noise from the power control systems from the measurements. Alan does have related experience from designing audio studio equipment.

    If you are interested or know of potential people, you can comment below for the moment as a way of “measuring the enthusiasm temperature” we have at the moment.
    I have now run some errands, so I’ll check back later this evening for comments.

    • SG

      While not physically in that region, I certainly support the effort and feel such an effort would help push our general knowledge forward, and indirectly push this technology into the marketplace.

    • Frank Acland

      Builditnow, I put this comment in its own new thread on the main page, to give it better visibility.

  • magicsnd1

    Now doing temperature cycles to ~500 C (~650 core), 30 minute hold, then back up to ~1050.

    @Sanjeev: I think what you’re seeing is the thermal time delay as the system heats back up. Because of the extra mass of the alumina filler rod, the null side will take longer to rise in temperature. The settling time for this looks to be about 7 minutes before it settles.During that period Tdiff will be higher than the steady-state value.

    • Sanjeev

      I see. I was assuming that since the mass/thickness of alumina between both the TCs and the heater are same, they should respond in same way. But it looks like the mass below the heater also counts and has a large effect.

  • magicsnd1

    Now doing temperature cycles to ~500 C (~650 core), 30 minute hold, then back up to ~1050.

    @Sanjeev: I think what you’re seeing is the thermal time delay as the system heats back up. Because of the extra mass of the alumina filler rod, the null side will take longer to rise in temperature. The settling time for this looks to be about 7 minutes before it settles.During that period Tdiff will be higher than the steady-state value.

    • Sanjeev

      I see. I was assuming that since the mass/thickness of alumina between both the TCs and the heater are same, they should respond in same way. But it looks like the mass below the heater also counts and has a large effect.

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, Bob said he is arranging Li. But not sure when it will be done.

  • magicsnd1

    I’ve ended the run at midnight UTC. The total elapsed time is 47:10.
    This long experiment wouldn’t have been possible without the generous help and good company of Skip and Justa Guy, and I thank them for their patience and support.

    The data is all available at hugnetlab.com. A good part of the analysis has already been done by GED and ECCO, who I also thank for the time and skill they brought to the party.

    Best regards to all,
    Alan Goldwater
    MFMP

    • Ged

      Thank you so much guys for this fantastic marathon, once again!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well done Alan and Skip for excellent execution of not one, but two experiments. Thankyou also to those that dropped in on Alan to offer support.

      Much learning.

      Thanks for taking the relay Justa Guy.

      Thankyou GED and ECCO also.

      And thanks to everyone that took part in the discussion.

  • Ged

    Last set of graphs for this run. They don’t really say anything, but they sure are amusing. Starting a little before the power throttling and all the way till shut off (but not completely through cool down, as that is still going, just 8/31 0005).

    Active-Null (square spiral graph!):

    http://s14.postimg.org/ey6omys35/150831_0005_Cal2_Run2_Active_vs_Null_7.png

    Power v Temp (circular spiral graph, even prettier):

    http://s29.postimg.org/6edbzkv1j/150831_0005_Cal2_Run2_Power_vs_Temp4.png

    Obviously, this analysis fails during these ramps, but gotta show it for completeness.

    • Obvious

      Thump. Thump. Thump. Thunk

    • Justa Guy

      Ged, these are great plots to spend the time/care doing (as well as all the plots various people are submitting; Ecco & Obvious plotting come to mind, immediately), even if they may look silly!

      The first plot is a great example of what Heat Capacity/Flow is all about, which can be extracted (partially) from the second plot. If perhaps with a little more detail revealed during the experiment (which I witnessed first-hand), you/one could redo the first plot and show that it almost all will sit on that straight line on the plot. There is much recovery/lag of this crude calorimeter, and you/one might need to know the exact ambient temperature of Alan’s Studio Area at any time, to make it happen.

      During the run, Alan mentioned your plotting and his immediate analysis of it to me and hence the additional above comments…

      It would be extremely useful if we record temp/humidity vs time near these experiments and save/analyze that data, also. Alan may even be doing that [unknowingly] with his cell phone or some other fixed gadget in the lab/studio.

      Thanks to all for sharing the plots!

      • Ged

        Thank you for the kind encouragement. Without Alan and Skip, and the other supports such as you and builditnow, there would be no data to gnaw ;).

        Knowing the sum total mass of the reactor, the longitudinal thermal conduction coefficient of the mullite and nickel tubes and their heat capacities, and then the ambient temps and humidity as you point out, it should be possible to mathematically compensate for lag times during powerups/downs. This would also smooth out the data in general too, and probably remove the need for double moving averages for trend extraction. It may take something a bit better at number crunching than excel to handle.

        Just heat capacity, mass, and ambient alone would allow a lot of approximate ramp effect compensation, and provide extraction of the data during those events. Even kinetics perhaps, as we have the full behavior of the active side sans hydrogen.

        A few partial derivative heat equation simulations in matlab would do it too, but also provide a complete model description. Interestingly, having such a model would be a sensitive comparison method. But, it is beyond my current equipment and capabilities.

        For now though, builditnow’s suggestions to increase sensitivity would go a long way in improving the methods. More fuel adjustments but even more so automation would be hugely beneficial for further tests.

        I feel like we’re chasing the tail tip of the dragon through some dark cave, barely brushing a touch, but not yet getting a good grasp, let alone taming the whole beast. We’re getting there though, with these brilliant feats of design Alan is cooking up. And one day that trash can calorimeter could add to our arsenal.

  • builditnow

    Well done Alan and team.
    I visited Alan and witnessed the experiment directly for some of the time and had deep and wide ranging discussions with all of Alan’s team. I have to say that this experiment was excellently executed in every detail as planned, as I see it.

    The experiment was run on the fuel that Parkhomov gave MFMP at the last cold fusion conference. In many ways this test is identical to Parkhomov’s successful test, so, what is the missing ingredient?

    Was it the fuel container?
    There is a video from the conference where Parkhomov gave his “big reveal” and in that conference he was asked what kind of material the fuel container was made of. The answer was “stainless steel”, but, no answer as to the type of stainless steel. Very thin stainless steel I think with holes poked in it with a needle (if I’m remembering correctly).

    Was it the pressure which decreased to half atmosphere in Parkhomov’s case?
    Is it the identical fuel?
    Was there air in the reactor when it was fueled and sealed?
    Was there cement used in the reactor and what type was it?
    Was it the triac type power supply (I think Parkhomov used)?

    It looks like we need many more experiments.
    Perhaps Alan’s system can be more sensitive to less excess heat as there may have been some in this experiment but it was not clear.

    We may have to look for far less excess heat in order to what factors improve excess heat output.

    • Ged

      I still wonder how much if any effect the lithium’s ability to ooze out of the fuel pellet and get between the mullite and nickel tubes could have. We’ll have to see in the post mortum what it looks like.

      Still, like GS3, there was a clear and discrete state change that pushed the device well above calibration (but not extremely). That change also mostly died out after a day–all of which suggests, but not definitively, that there was an excess heat reaction with a sharp beginning boundary and slow trail off 24ish hours later with a strength of more than 100 W at peak.

      That is how it appears, anyways, barring equipment or data collection issues (but those generally don’t fade out).

      • builditnow

        Ged, thanks for your analysis:
        Talking to Alan 100 watts is very close to the margin or error so the approximate 100 watts is “perhaps” exothermic. Also, the length of time means it could be chemical.

        I’ll talk to Alan about increasing the sensitivity to smaller amounts of exothermic heat. My initial thought is more fuel and insulation using fire bricks. Then add forced air cooling. There is a nice “soft brick” rated at 2600C, easy to drill / cut / carve. GreenTherm 26 LI made by ANH Refactories.

        http://jjmedina.com.ec/GREENTHERM%202010-Flyer.pdf
        I have some, they are very easy to work with.

        The advantage of insulation is that less power is required to heat the reactor as a result, small amounts of exothermic heat with cause a larger temperature rise. This way the experiment is more sensitive. At first thought, it seems the experiment could easily be adapted this way.

  • KeV

    This is by far the best test I have seen so far. The data plots are so intuitively designed that anyone with half a brain (like me) can interpret the results in an unambiguous way. This is very encouraging because when (I am sure it will happen) the right ingredients are eventually found, the data plot will show high excess heat very clearly indeed (if the equipment survives).

    Keep up the good work MFMP – you have gone a long way in a relatively short time!

    • builditnow

      KeV, I agree. Alan’s work is accurate and polished. For instance, the heating coil winding were very neat and regular, wound with the aid of a lathe.

  • Justa Guy

    Assuming that all non-destructive ideas (better than this collective one) have been exhausted, and that there is some indication of a residual/lasting pressure still remaining in the cell (I believe when I had left, there was somewhere around 40 or 30 psi of presumably H2 at high temperature), I would like to propose the following (obtained with some ending discussions, especially with Alan):

    1) Attempt to pump out & pull vacuum on the cell as best as possible, resealing it. This may be a challenge and I have some ideas on how to do this, but I believe Alan will succeed in achieving it!

    2) Perform one/more heating excursions, trying to maintain/develop as much vacuum at a reasonable/safe temperature for the cell.

    3) Boosting the temperature with vacuum level (or as low as possible) pressure in an attempt to stimulate the cell, once again.

    The idea here (discussions near the end of the weekend run with Alan), is that perhaps residual H2 Gas is poisoning/spoiling/inhibiting/preventing the excess heat reaction. It’s about the only thing I am left thinking about, that Parkhomov may have discovered about pressures during the reaction, that he may not be in a position to convey or has not been able to hypothesize yet…

    … If anyone has any ideas/thoughts why residual H2 Gas pressure would do this to the reaction, I would love to hear them, as I am sure the rest of us would love to discuss/debate!

    Alan/Skip, it was a pleasure meeting & working with you (as well as the 3 visitors) and I thank all for the visits and valuable discussions that ensued. I hope we can all clang our heads together and achieve some indications of excess heat/energy in these open experiments and subsequent future ones!

  • ss dd

    Great work everyone!

    I think there will always be some doubt as to whether we are seeing the Rossi effect until we obtain a decent COP. Rossi on his blog recently answered the question “In the early years of creating the e-cat, what kind of COP did you obtain before yelling “Eureka”?”: “about 1.5”.

    I’m going to make the wild assumption that a COP of 1.5 is obtainable by using the information in the latest patent. Though it might take a few iterations and we want to make sure that we are able to detect smaller COP values, e.g. 1.1, so that we have a baseline to start with and improve upon iteratively.

    IMO, a power analyser is a must and we will end up scratching our heads every time until we have a clear idea of the energy consumed. Buying one seems to be in the works.

    In addition, the latest experiment by me356 has shown that restricting ourselves to thermocouples might lead to missing a lot of what’s going on. IR measurement seems like another “must-have”.

    Alan has been making many breakthroughs in terms of experiment setup, reactor design, open science etc. However, until he is fully equipped my bets are on me356 to be the first to demonstrate the Rossi effect in a live open experiment.

    It sure would be nice to have the euro and the US team be at the same level of equipment. I already put my money where my mouth is and donated $500 back in January for lugano-inspired replication attempts, as well as another $100 3 months ago to get Alan a power analyzer. Good to see that others have been contributing recently.

  • ss dd

    Great work everyone!

    I think there will always be some doubt as to whether we are seeing the Rossi effect until we obtain a decent COP. Rossi on his blog recently answered the question “In the early years of creating the e-cat, what kind of COP did you obtain before yelling “Eureka”?”: “about 1.5”.

    I’m going to make the wild assumption that a COP of 1.5 is obtainable by using the information in the latest patent. Though it might take a few iterations and we want to make sure that we are able to detect smaller COP values, e.g. 1.1, so that we have a baseline to start with and improve upon iteratively.

    IMO, a power analyser is a must and we will end up scratching our heads every time until we have a clear idea of the energy consumed. Buying one seems to be in the works.

    In addition, the latest experiment by me356 has shown that restricting ourselves to thermocouples might lead to missing a lot of what’s going on. IR measurement seems like another “must-have”.

    Alan has been making many breakthroughs in terms of experiment setup, reactor design, open science etc. However, until he is fully equipped my bets are on me356 to be the first to demonstrate the Rossi effect in a live open experiment.

    It sure would be nice to have the euro and the US team be at the same level of equipment. I already put my money where my mouth is and donated $500 back in January for lugano-inspired replication attempts, as well as another $100 3 months ago to get Alan a power analyzer. Good to see that others have been contributing recently.

  • Obvious

    Please fix the diagram inner and outer diameters. Either the coil tube outer or cover tube inner diameter is incorrect. There is no room for the heater coil as depicted.

    • magicsnd1

      Thanks for spotting that! Here’s an updated reactor drawing with details of the GS4.2 fuel. I also attached the GS4 system block diagram showing the data and control systems.

  • Preston Brown

    So, what is the conclusion? That 60C delta was real constant for most of the run, is that just tolerance on the sensors or a sign of something? That first run up to 1000C was looking promising; but is it all still inconclusive?

    Also, given the construction what would cause a constant 60C offset – if the resistance of thecoils was different then the offset would vary with input voltage, right? So maybe something else?

    • magicsnd1

      @Preston: We did two separate runs. The second one
      (GS4.2) used a new heater coil and mullite reactor cell, and was
      carefully calibrated before the fuel was added. The analyses done by GED and
      ECCO used the correct calibration data and found no excess heat, with a
      data resolution of about 1% of T (±10°C). The calibration data and charts for both runs are available at http://tinyurl.com/nu8dcrw

      Your question points out that the construction of the
      Glowstick design leads to some variation in the balancing of the active
      and null thermocouples. This must be accounted for by calibrating the
      two thermocouples against steady-state input power before the fuel is
      added. Here’s a thermal camera image from the calibration of the second reactor. It provides experimental evidence that the difference in TC readings
      is due to the conduction of the longer alumina filler rod in the null
      side of the cell.

  • Stephen

    Can someone remind me what happens to the other gasses (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2 etc) present in the sealed container?

    Could this be part of the remaining gas or are they removed from the gas at high temperatures by reaction with the Nickel and Aluminium (would dry Nickel make a difference)? Perhaps all the hydrogen is absorbed/ adsorbed or converted to Rydberg matter or something but the other gasses are what remain?

    If a steel container was used would it react with the other gasses.

    Do we know the composition of the remaining gas in the device? Or can it be found during degassing or opening?

    In case low pressure is required. Would degassing before or during the experiment after the hydrogen is processed remove some of the nitrogen and oxygen?

    Assuming all the Hydrogen is removed from the gas in some way. I think if we assume the ideal gas law for the atmospheric gasses then a 5 * increase in Temperature would result in a 5 * increase in Pressure assuming no absorption or outgassing and constant volume. If some absorption of the atmospheric gasses occurs or the volume changes due to the reactions then the value will vary from this.

    Would it be worth degassing the current gasses from the device and restarting the test with the hopefully already adsorbed or converted Hydrogen?

    FreeThinkers recent test run reported on LENR Forum fumes to mind here.

    • Bob Greenyer

      They get sequestered to oxides and nitrides of Al that are refractory

      • Stephen

        Thanks Bob, I remember the atmospheric gasses were accounted for somehow but forgot exactly where. I suppose there would be plenty of Aluminium in the LAH and tube to account for the extra gas in the greater free volume

        • Bob Greenyer

          It depends on your dead volume!

  • Stephen

    Can someone remind me what happens to the other gasses (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2 etc) present in the sealed container?

    Could this be part of the remaining gas or are they removed from the gas at high temperatures by reaction with the Nickel and Aluminium (would dry Nickel make a difference)? Perhaps all the hydrogen is absorbed/ adsorbed or converted to Rydberg matter or something but the other gasses are what remain?

    If a steel container was used would it react with the other atmospheric gasses?

    Could the increased dead volume away from the fuel mean that more of the atmospheric gas is present than in previous devices?

    Do we know the composition of the remaining gas in the device? Or can it be found during degassing or opening?

    In case low pressure is required. Would degassing before or during the experiment after the hydrogen is processed remove some of the nitrogen and oxygen?

    Assuming all the Hydrogen is removed from the gas in some way. I think if we assume the ideal gas law for the atmospheric gasses then a 5 * increase in Temperature would result in a 5 * increase in Pressure assuming no absorption or outgassing and constant volume. If some absorption of the atmospheric gasses occurs or the volume changes due to the reactions then the value will vary from this.

    Would it be worth degassing the current gasses from the device and restarting the test with the hopefully already adsorbed or converted Hydrogen?

    FreeThinkers recent test run reported on LENR Forum comes to mind here. He also reported High pressure and reported seeing an interesting increase in counts when running after degassing.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1872-Freethinker-s-replication-attempts/?pageNo=5

    Could pre filling the device with Hydrogen gas (or Helium if less dangerous) instead of air bring some advantage?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They get sequestered to oxides and nitrides of Al that are refractory

      • Stephen

        Thanks Bob, I remember the atmospheric gasses were accounted for somehow but forgot exactly where. I suppose there would be plenty of Aluminium in the LAH and tube to account for the extra gas in the greater free volume

        • Bob Greenyer

          It depends on your dead volume!

  • Stephen

    Is the current GS4.1 reheat test planned to be displayed on Hugnet and Youtube or is it only available on Google Hangouts?

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/502-glowstick-gs4-run

  • magicsnd1

    The GS4.2 reheat experiment data has finally been posted at data.hugnetlab.com/
    Click to VIEW FC0600 at the bottom of the test definitions list. Then click
    on the “From” time and set it to 9/17 03:00 using the slider controls.

    The pressure plot illustrates the reversible LiH decomposition and
    recombination over the range of 425-1050 °C in the core (about 50-100
    degrees hotter than the outside temperatures shown).

    • Mats002

      Thanks Alan! I did not understand the hangout but I now know about the chat function.
      Next time…

      • magicsnd1

        The complete GS4 data set is now available as csv files:
        tinyurl.com/p2362kf

        There are separate files for the calibration, the experiment and the reheat.

  • magicsnd1

    The GS4.2 reheat experiment data has finally been posted at data.hugnetlab.com/
    Click to VIEW FC0600 at the bottom of the test definitions list. Then click
    on the “From” time and set it to 9/17 03:00 using the slider controls.

    The pressure plot illustrates the reversible LiH decomposition and
    recombination over the range of 425-1050 °C in the core (about 50-100
    degrees hotter than the outside temperatures shown).

    • Mats002

      Thanks Alan! I did not understand the hangout but I now know about the chat function.
      Next time…

  • magicsnd1

    The complete GS4 data set is now available as csv files:
    tinyurl.com/p2362kf

    There are separate files for the calibration, the experiment and the reheat.