MFMP Starts New Live Test: Glowstick #5

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial project has posted on its quantumheat.org website about a new test that has been started today by Alan Goldwater and Mark Jurich in Santa Cruz, California.

Details of the test setup are provided in this live document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JYO69FQLuRr5z-O4LYIgAvO0t9RRhaEpJFJWOfkPwPA/edit?usp=sharing

MFMP states in the above document that one difference between this Glowstick and past ones is they are using a HTED Catalyst

From the live document:

One such area of investigation that the MFMP had been exploring in depth during the 3rd quarter of 2015 [http://goo.gl/x6MpHs] is that of Particle 3 of the Lugano reactors fuel which is predominantly a 100um piece of Fe2O3. Analysis of previous data relating to Rossi’s work and the work of Leif Holmlid has led us to what we consider a more faithful replication of Lugano fuel, which will be run for the first time today . . .

The Chinese sourced HTED-04 catalyst has no Cr2O3 which makes it safe to use, the Cr based ones would be considered a known carcinogen. The suppliers said it contained “iron oxide, potassium oxide, calcium and magnesium, cerium oxide, other promoters and stabilizers, but no molybdenum and chromium oxide.”

Live data can be followed here: magicsound.us/MFMP/video (screen grab every 10 seconds), and here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/ (under GS5)

UPDATE: Here’s a Youtube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opc3El8ZdXs&feature=youtu.be

  • Ged

    This is a very interesting fuel design, I am excite to see what happens or not. Good luck guys!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Ged – let’s see if there is anything worth analysing!

  • clovis ray

    yep, good luck guys, i pick you guys from the start, to be first to replicate.
    Make me proud, well i’m already proud of you guys, but prouder, lol

  • Bob Matulis

    Clear and legible – nice! Good luck.

  • GreenWin

    This is an interesting fuel type. There is some evidence that ferromagnetic effects around a condensate may catalyze a reverse beta process within NAEs. Best of luck to all!!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Cheers

  • Sanjeev
    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Sanjeev – are you able to work up an extended version based on a polynomial fit for us please?

      • Ged

        I may not be called Sanjeev, but maybe this graph and its trend fit will be of assistance. Note, the y in the equation is the null side temperature, and x is active side temperature, when doing calculations for comparison with the expected value for the run (null hypothesis).

        http://s10.postimg.org/am8ai5tsp/151116_Calibration_Active_v_Null.png

      • Sanjeev

        Attached is the extended version.
        There is no power data there, so perhaps only Alan can plot a P vs T graph.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Excellent work Ged.

          I have asked Alan to send the time stamped power data so that we can get a power / temp chart together – he is asleep right now.

          • Sanjeev

            Welcome Bob. Just want to know if you had a good sleep because you are calling me Ged 😀

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha – no terrible – just 4 hours!

            Sorry – corrected now.

          • Sanjeev

            No problem. I guessed that 😉 Have a nap, it looks like the experiment will go on for days !

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yeh – getting better each time!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi SANJEEV, would you be able to do a active side external to active side internal chart – the internal data is “ambient” on hug net during the calibration – you can download a zipped file from the working document in either history or 30s average.

          • Sanjeev

            Sure. Its attached here.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Sanjeev – will add to live doc.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Added to live doc

          • Ged

            Looks like we’re just going to have to trade user names at this rate ;).

            Beautiful extended graph, by the way!

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha – I got confused with my lack of sleep, I asked Sanjeev for the first graph – and you did it – then … oh well – you get the idea.

            Just sorted a fixed IP for the bounce computer – so will launch another Youtube stream/chat soon.

          • Ged

            The good news is how close to linear the two sides are to each other (see my true linear line comparison graph below), but there is slight bias towards a hotter active side above 500 C.

            If I read the live doc right, the pressure sensor is on the null side? Could be conduction through that lowers the null temps slightly at higher temperatures. It’s a small, and quantified effect that’s now part of the baseline, so it isn’t an issue, but it is interesting that slight drift, particularly when it happens.

            So far the run has the active side a couple degrees below the null, till recently where they are matched with the active starting to nudge a little higher, yet still only 150 C. Once I am off work, I’ll see about trying to use the polynomial fit versus the calibration data to create a confidence interval to give us a statistical bounds for determining if we see significant excess or not.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Ged – yes, on null side.

            Thanks for your graphing offer.

          • Sanjeev

            Ya beautiful straight line !
            And about the username, even I get confused sometimes, the comments look almost similar from both usernames.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Alan is about to do the P vs T graph

          • Sanjeev

            Great !

  • Bob Greenyer

    Livestream available on Youtube, so will be recorded in sync and able to be re-winded up to 4 hours. https://youtu.be/opc3El8ZdXs

    • Bob Greenyer

      Sorry – IP licence time out – the “stream” is being recorded locally for later reference – people will have to rely on the one here

      magicsound.us/MFMP/video

      for now – note, it works best in FireFox.

      Live data is also on Hug Net – see experiment doc.

  • Roberto Siquieros

    Good luck guys .. make the world a better place (no pressure)!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks

  • Bob Greenyer

    21psi or so of H2 was put in after a vacuum down a heat up and a cool down to test the pressure sensor.

    2 hours in and still in the first LiAlH4 breakdown, we have a nice pressure rise.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This makes the pressure rise clearer

  • R101

    Nice video feed!

  • Axil Axil

    I judge that the huge rust particle(particle #3 of Lugano) was produced by a rusty fuel removal tool that Rossi used to remove fuel from a previous preparation stage.

    There is clear evidence that Rossi uses a stainless steal mesh inside the alumina tube to keep the fuel particles separated and well distributed around the circumference of the alumina tube.

    An iron based catalyst must be used with a noble metal as a substrate. Also graphite is involved. Because the iron catalyst is not properly setup, this test will not work…I hope I am wrong.

    • Ged

      It’s good to make predictions based on hypotheses, such as you have posted. Now we can see what happens to test both competing predictions about the fuel. Thus, win win for the results.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Axil

      Please read the link in the “Why” section of the experiment live doc.

      We’ll be fleshing out the rational in the coming week.

      • Axil Axil

        Rossi’s patent says that he uses stainless steel inside the alumina tube.

        The Stainless steel screen inside the alumina tube kept a few big particles which included particle 3 from entering the central regions of the reactor tube. There was just a few of these oversized particles produced by the fuel preparation process. Most of the smaller nickel particles made it through the mesh and entered the central region.

        When the ash was removed, 99.8 % of the ash was held in place by the mesh inside the reactor tube by the wire mesh. Only the biggest ash particles came out of the reactor tube during the ash dump.

        To make a valid comparison, the Lugano testers selected a large fuel particle from the fuel held back after the fuel loading process.

        That fuel particle was isotopically normal.

        The mesh acts as a backplane that separates and enables the particles to talk electromagnetically. If you want to replicate Lugano, use a very fine mesh inside the alumina tube to hold the powder in place and to even out the hot spots in the powder.

        I would use a nickel nanofoam like defkalion did as a particle holder.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Exactly where are you getting this information presented as “facts” or is it speculation and inference?

          • Axil Axil

            I posted this to ECCO 22 days ago

            Omega Z posted: As to WHY they only had a limited sample.The reason Rossi was involved with extraction of the sample was he didn’t want the Professors to analyze the internals of the reactor. Rossi stated this at the time. Everyone seems to have missed that.I don’t have that link but,Follows is some additional info provided by Rossi

            ———————————————————————–

            Alexvs October 19th

            Why the sample withdrawn from the E-Cat in Lugano was only 2 mg from a 1 g charge ?

            Andrea Rossi October 19th

            Alexvs:Because that was the maximum amount that was possible to withdraw from the E-Cat by the Professors without breaking the reactor, due to its complex internal design.Warm Regards, A.R.http://www.journal-of-nuclear-

            ———————————————————————–

            Everyone assumes the reactor is a smooth bore. It could contain ridges internally as it does on the exterior, or fluted along it’s internal length.It could also be of a threaded nature having been molded around a piece of threaded ready rod.

            These could have various effects. One is it could allow increased heat transfer in from the resistors & out when producing excess heat. It could also aid in the circulation of the Li/H around & into the Nickel catalyst reducing hot spots. The internal shape of the reactor can even control the temperature zones and focus the heat to specific zone of the reactor. It would definitely provide more surface area and definitely make it much harder to scrap out the used fuel.

            ———————————

            Axil Axil to Omega Z: Particle 2 of the ash assay on page 45 of the Lugano report shows a particle that is a silicon dioxide particle. This leads to the speculation that the inside of the Lugano reactor is filled with silica based Aerogel. Like carbon, silicon is a Hydrogen Rydberg matter catalyst. Silicon monoxide is also LENR active since it mimics potassium in terms of electron outer shell bonding. It also may be necessary to keep the nickel particles separated to avoid overheating at startup in order to give the reaction some time for the reaction to establish itself.

            Ecco to axil: with your discussion about ridges in the internal ceramic tube, are you suggesting that the Lugano experiment might have been internally shaped like a sort of heat pipe?

            http://i.imgur.com/zL17Ge6.jpg

            http://i.imgur.com/EegRT9Q.jpg

            http://i.imgur.com/D75gmrLl.jpg

            In principle this could ensure a constant flux of hydrogen on the active sites, needed to observe the effect (ie to form ultra-dense hydrogen according to Leif Holmlid).

            In real life applications a working fluid (usually water or alcohol) able to exist in both gaseous and liquid state is used in these pipes. How could it work in this case?

            That is, unless you meant something else.

            Axil to ecco: The heat pipe works by using a liquid like lithium that flows down a heat gradient from the cold end to the hot end where the liquid evaporates. The liquid is held within the mess by capillary force and is carried along by a screen or a foam. After evaporation, the vapor moves down the clear channel down the center of the pipe. What makes the pipe work is a adjustment of a partial vacuum that lowers vapor pressure that reduces the boiling point of the liquid coolant so that the liquid evaporates readily in the optimum temperature range. The vacuum is adjusted to produce the proper temperature operating range. I will bet this heat pipe idea is what Rossi is doing and is one of his secret methods. This method protects the reactor from hot spots, keeps the temperature isothermal and keeps the fuel powder from clumping since the powder gets suspended in the wire mess or foam cover on the inside of the tube.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Laptop_CPU_Heat_Pipe_Cross_Section.jpg/500px-Laptop_CPU_Heat_Pipe_Cross_Section.jpg

            Lithium is a major liquid metal coolant currently in use throughout in the commercial heat pipe marketplace.

            Heat pipe design includes refractory metal or ceramic envelope/lithium working fluid for high temperature (above 1050 °C) applications.

            Some lithium cooled heat pipes have demonstrated a heat flux of more than 23 kW/cm², about four times the heat flux through the surface of the sun.

            Even if Rossi does not do this, it is still a great idea.

            See:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe

          • Bob Greenyer

            This has been discussed yes, but it is not something that is fact, so you first statements are layered conjecture.

            By that I mean it is an assumption, based on assumption… based on an assumption. The one evidence is that Rossi said it had a complex internal design – but then he would say that, wouldn’t he, for obvious reasons.

            For the record – I also think that there could be some mesh, either ceramic or metal – but it is only speculation.

          • Omega Z

            Bob, I’m pretty certain that Rossi doesn’t use just a smooth bore reactor.
            He has said things on multiple occasion’s about the reactor indicating as much. However, He NEVER gives any detail. Only that it is complex. Perhaps that is why 3-D printers were of interest for production of which he has ruled out as to expensive for mass production.

            Aside from that, I don’t think it is critical to getting evidence of excess heat so a smooth bore would suffice. At least short term, Long term could be a totally different story. Note: The recent reactors we are privy to see are likely just for R&D. Quick, cheap, throw away. The real deal is probably more like the one shown with flanges that run away & burned out. Those would get expensive if it happened very often.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The story so far… as the pressure sensor is only rated to 300psi – trying to not have it exceed 150psi – so first the added 20psi (approximate reduction) was bled off – and then another lot before power steps.

    Great news is that Alan and Mark are confident to let it run overnight now unattended – so – we may have a long run opportunity here.

    Specific details on these events are logged here
    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/513-glowstick-5

  • Jarea

    It is strange that Rossi is not giving more tips. It seems his patent is not so clear to be able to reproduce it.

    • James Rice

      That means that the patent is probably invalid. A patent must contain enough information that a person skilled in the art can reproduce the invention.

      • US_Citizen71

        That or most people attempting to replicate it are not really skilled in the art of building a LENR reactor.

        • James Rice

          Actually, by definition, an invention is new, so no one has done that exact thing before. However, what is meant by “skilled in the art” is someone with knowledge of, say, electrical and/or mechanical engineering- whatever skill is needed to actually make the invention. Certainly the MFMP people would qualify. Excessive experimentation to reproduce the invention is prima facile evidence that the patent did not contain enough information to be valid.

          • US_Citizen71

            According to your opinion.

          • clovis ray

            Yet, you know MF/MP, Is presently on the job, lol

          • US_Citizen71

            Another thought MFMP are not really attempting to replicate the device in the patent, they are attempting to replicate the effect. But the geometry, layout, materials,etc… may all be important to create the effect. Until someone actually attempts to build the device pictured in the patent it is premature to even entertain the idea that the patent is not valid.

            No offense intended toward MFMP.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No offence taken.

            One must bear in mind that Rossi has produced a range of shapes and scales of devices, so has IH – as detailed in their patent application – the Lugano reactor does not look anything like that in the patent for instance. All have been said to work.

      • Brent Buckner

        Perhaps Parkhomov tips the balance to the patent being defensible. Further, some other replicators may have had success but the error bars on their measurements were too wide to definitively declare success.

  • Private Citizen

    The hugnetlab data appears to show temp and pressure, but no indication of power. Strange. Isn’t that kind of the most important thing to see trending, relative to temp? Maybe i’m missing something.

    • Ged

      Power is in the snapshots and video in the links above, but not on HugNet. We’ll have to digitize it, unless Alan has the raw data in a convenient form (I think I have heard talk that he does, but we’ll have to see what Bob says). But, we -do- have the data, it isn’t missing, so no worries :).

      • Bob Greenyer

        Raw data will be supplied.

        The calibration and active/null side allows for indications of anomalies anyhow.

        It is morning in California. Should be better stream today as on fixed IP.

        https://youtu.be/Ct9QYEbiQek

  • Bob Matulis

    Any estimate of how many hours till the temperature reaches the “interesting range”? Thanks

    • Bob Greenyer

      Not really, this one will be taken cautiously.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys, i take it this morning that we are loading the NI.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – slowly decomposing LiAlH4 to LiH, and some will reduce oxides and then load Ni.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ged OR Sanjeev, would either of you be able to work up an extended chart based off the calibration / power data that Alan has posted – extended Power vs T for active, dummy and internal.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W4TtM4mz68o3nhxpkxaN0A4wBiIJRbOjkSx8dqU_v6E/edit#gid=455477733

    • Sanjeev

      Thanks for the data Bob.
      The plots are attached. The extrapolated one may not be so accurate for higher power values, so perhaps Ged can produce a better extrapolation.

      • Obvious

        The upward curve (extrapolation) in the upper chart seems unlikely. Shouldn’t it flatten instead?

        • Sanjeev

          That’s right. That’s why I mentioned that it may be inaccurate. Its what Excel produced.

          • Ged

            A logarithmic fit may be the proper one to use here, rather than a poly. That should flatten out the tops properly, and match the curve shape in the middle which the poly can’t do. I’ll look into it too when I am able.

          • Bob Greenyer

            IIRC, Alan uses a log fit.

        • Sanjeev

          Another try with offsets plugged in “by hand”.
          This looks more realistic.

          • Obvious

            That looks a lot closer to what I’d expect. Maybe even flatter at peaks?.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks – I’ll add the bottom one for now into the live doc

        • Sanjeev

          I made another one, see the reply below to Obvious. It should be good enough I guess.

          • Bob Greenyer

            nearly – I have uploaded the non extended for now as we are well in that zone!

            Thanks for your effort

  • Sanjeev

    Its oscillating wildly for some reason. Controller issue?

    • Bob Greenyer

      been switched to PID which is training

  • Ged

    I performed the projection of the polynomial fit for the Active vs Null side temperatures, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each point. Anything outside that interval, that is, below/towards the right, will indicate potentially statistically significant excess heat. Note that CI’s do not generally give actual statistical significance directly as they are too conservative, and a proper test would have to be done to verify–but they are a very good indicator.

    http://s27.postimg.org/6orbjl2w3/151117_Cali_Active_v_Null_95_CI.png

    I’ll look at the temp versus power data when I get a chance in a few hours.

  • Bob Greenyer

    well – I just got back from office and stream dropped – I dislike YT new streaming.

    That aside, there is a “rough time from start of experiment counter” which is in Yellow.

    The stream is a minute or so behind the stream here:

    http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video/

    Best viewed in FireFox (has less issues with refresh)

  • Mats002

    Good evening guys! Temp stable now but pressure oscillating in larger and larger waves. I wonder why? Something is alive in there…

  • ecatworld

    AR has said that that while he has no problem with anyone trying to replicate the Rossi effect for scientific reasons, and considers replicators’ work important, he won’t give any assistance or even hints.

    • Jarea

      Is is patent valid if nobody skilled in the art can replicate it? And i mean clear reproducible results. Parkhomov is there but somehow his resuts are not reproduced yet by MFMP.

  • Lux Terrea

    Can someone post how the test performed / is performing for us little people?

    • artefact

      From Alan on quantumheat:
      “I increased the power to 50 watts, which will take the core to around
      230 °C. This will finish off the first stage of H2 generation. When that
      has settled, I’ll reduce the pressure to 100 psi, then start a ramp up
      to 400 C.”

    • Mats002

      H2 is released from LAH, which then is split into single H by a catalyst which is micro sized Ni powder. The larger the surface of the catalyzer (Ni) the higher probability for LENR reaction.

      In this experiment there is an additive of Fe2O3 never used in live open experiments before, believed used by Rossi in the Lugano experiment.

      Also new in this experiment is the control of pressure in the H2 atmosphere inside the reactor. Partial vaccum is probably needed to make high yield LENR, at least so was the situation for the successful Parkhomov experiment about 9 months ago.

      Right now pressure is going down but if excess heat will show up, I expect it after pressure is below 0.5 atm, about 3.5 bar, and at temp above 700 C.

      Alan can ‘cheat’ by bleeding H2 out to lower the pressure. That is also new this time.

      Please fill in or correct my view of the current situation.

      • Zephir

        This additive looks rather strange for me with respect to chemistry, Fe2O3 would consume the hydrogen under formation of LiO, FeO or even free iron. Also, the resulting basic LiO would react with iron oxides into ferrates,

  • Ged

    Some more graphs:

    Active side outer temperature versus the internal temperature

    http://s29.postimg.org/5i2qtrrd3/151117_Calibration_Active_v_Internal.png

    Power vs All Temperatures. Since power is well known to be related to temperature by a forth degree polynomial, making a 4th order trendline works unsurprisingly really well (ignore my logarithmic suggestion from earlier, Sanjeev!). I’ll work on getting a Power vs Active/Null side only graph with the 95% CIs.

    http://s28.postimg.org/jxrylg98d/151117_Calibration_Power_v_Temperature.png

    • Bob Greenyer

      Ooo, pretty. Thanks.

      It is 01:34 here – I am going to cycle to office and re-launch the stream.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Ok – this new yt stream is so flaky – might try on my home connection – never had these problems before.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Do not dispair, inconclusive is a result – we have changed one fuel component and otherwise run in comparable reactor to that tried before. If there is no large COP, it might discount this approach – that is learning.

  • Ged

    Looking at the current run up to the 400 C point, compared to the calibration, for Active versus Null.

    http://s22.postimg.org/aa1zlw0zl/151118_0015_Calibration_v_Run_Active_v_Null.png

    • Sanjeev

      Perfect match so far !

  • GreenWin

    Roger, like much in this semblance of life, these are exercises providing opportunity for learning. This is sometimes referred to as the “Edisonian” approach – meaning trial and error. Oddly enough this was the approach of early “big iron” computing where machines tried every possible enumerate solution to reach an answer.

    Rossi is enabled by a commercial venture with many millions invested in its leading IP. He has stated from the very beginning the E-Cat’s formula is proprietary. Just as is most of Navy’s and other world government LENR research. They’re not about to give it away. But there is much to be learned from open LENR science – especially in formulating portions of the underlying theory. The current test emphasizes Fe203 and there is some evidence this may catalyze ferromagnetic action germane to pyconuclear reactions. Each experiment builds the foundation of LENR open science.

    Think of it as a puzzle – as it is intended to be. 🙂

  • Sanjeev

    dT (Active-Null) vs Null temperature for calibration run.
    Should be useful for comparing. For now (at 470C) it matches calibration more or less.

    • Sanjeev

      Here is another version with running averaged dT using 30 sec data, for better readability.

  • magicsnd1

    I’ve added the formal calibration data to the live document at the link above. The reactor is very stable and controllable, and the data system is working well.

    The set point at 464.3 C matches the calibration power of 250 watts, so no excess heat (yet). The core temperature is ~620 C, just below the melting point of Li + Al, so the next step up will yield phase changes in the fuel and should be interesting.

    There have been a few glitches in the PID control as I try to fine tune it: +- 4 degrees seems to be the best this unit can do. So please ignore those momentary events as they aren’t significant.

  • Sanjeev

    dT at 540C is about 10C, somewhat above the calibration.

    • US_Citizen71

      Only about a 2% difference hopefully the margin widens.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Gerald.

    No, not here in Czech – though some of my family experienced it in UK.

    I have recordings of hours 18 though to 40, 18-28 uploaded, so nothing is missed!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Recording of hours 18-28.

    https://youtu.be/vxeq1h8Pz_Y

  • magicsnd1

    The system has been stable at ~700 C (core) for over 8 hours. I propose
    to now increase the temp to 800 C, where we’re sure that the Al+Li have
    melted. Should I bleed off some gas pressure first?

    • Bob Matulis

      How have you determined system is around 700 C? I am seeing about 540 C external. Per charts below that suggests and internal temp below 600 C.

      • Sanjeev

        700C is right. Probably you got 600C from the cool down part of the curve (upper trace), which can be ignored.

        • Ged

          Oh wow, I just realized the history calibration data is in reverse time order. This whole time, I’ve been graphing it backwards (i.e. I graphed the cooldown not heatup phases of internal vs active, and null vs active). My goodness.

          Well, guess I’ll be fixing that up tonight!

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, its reverse in time, but it should not matter if you are using whole data. Removing chunks of data can cause trouble. 😉

    • Mats002

      Hi Alan. How much H2 is still in there? Someone can calculate/estimate it?
      If Parkhomov had a leak, may be bleeding more H2 is the correct measure to do.

  • magicsnd1

    I changed the PA1000 data to a 64 point moving average, to get a better measurement for comparison with the calibration data. After settling and splitting the min/max values, I see 301 watts. The calibration power for the current set point (520 C) was ~312 watts.

    This is encouraging but inconclusive. Temperature bump coming up.

  • Bob Greenyer

    *GlowStick* V5 – Stream 03

    https://youtu.be/W6OkiG4T_jg

  • magicsnd1

    With the system on manual control at 400.1 watts, the T-active and T-null readings are within 1 degree of calibration data. The PID thermocouple reading has shifted about 9 degrees higher since the calibration.

    Nothing else in the measurement setup has changed, so it appears that the PID input calibration shifted for some reason. This doesn’t invalidate the experiment but it is curious. And unfortunately it confirms that there is no excess heat at this point.

    • Ged

      Weird. What could cause the PID’s calibration to drift?

      • magicsnd1

        Bad cold junction compensation parts comes to mind. I got this unit because it offered ramp/soak and remote control software. But the basic PID function doesn’t impress me so far. It works but isn’t very smart.

  • Mats002

    Pressure and temps follow so nicely, sorry to say but that is not what we looking for.

    In previous runs the pressure goes down and we speculate if the reason is ab/adsorption of H into the lattice of Ni or the formation of Rydberg matter which is also expected to lower the pressure.

    I wonder if Zephir is right in that Fe2O3 would consume the hydrogen under formation of LiO, FeO or even free iron.

    • magicsnd1

      There was one pressure drop event yesterday, during the ramp up from 180 C to 400 C. The profile looked like what Parkhomov reported and we also saw in Padua.

      Any reaction of Fe2O3 with Li would be strongly exothermic, even more than the Al thermite reaction. There’s been no sign of that and no drop in the hydrogen pressure other than what we valved off yesterday. In fact, this seems to be the tightest cell yet, thanks to highly polished sealing surfaces.

      • builditnow

        The reactor looks very hydrogen tight. Nice Job. Were the manual pressure releases those that occurred when the pressure reached around 160psi? Is the pressure drop created by the reactor the one that goes from about 135psi to about 88psi at approximately 2015-11-17 21:30 ref: http://hugnetlab.com/ GS5.

        That is a hopeful drop in pressure.
        Do you propose to later reduce the pressure to below 1 Bar?

        • Roberto Siquieros

          Parkhomhov talked about the reaction occurring when the pressure was <1 bar I think.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – needs to be below 1 bar – to allow the reversible reaction to breathe.

            Adding more free lithium advances this process by taking up the free H2.

  • Ged

    Quick fix to my active vs internal temperature graph: now with 100% less backwards data! And this is why we check our timestamps.

    http://s23.postimg.org/yyqsvmml7/151117_Calibration_Active_v_Internal.png

  • Ged

    Quick fix to my active vs internal temperature graph: now with 100% less backwards data! And this is why we check our timestamps.

    http://s3.postimg.org/5zw4gcznn/151117_Calibration_Active_v_Internal.png

  • Justa Guy

    This is it, folks … We are running out of time for this run until
    after Thanksgiving. Alan/I have decided to chance 840 C to 850 C PID
    Temp Bump (almost 1200 C in the core) as one last attempt to see
    something. Any thoughts?

    Thanks to all for their assistance so far!

    • LuFong

      I’m just watching. It seems to me that it should be showing significant extra heat by now as per Rossi/Parkomov. Shut it down and refuel with another fuel.

      Another thought. Why not have two actives on the next run. You should have a good idea based on the initial calibration of the null and this run whether it’s working. We are looking for a COP of 2+ which should be easily detected. Trying different fuels, perhaps making them different in one way, will double your throughput. Just a thought.

    • Sanjeev

      Attached is a quick and dirty comparison of dT against calibration in the range 500-900C.
      There was some excess, although nothing significant.

      • Sanjeev

        PS: This is from the 30Sec averaged data. If you check the history data, the peak reached above 40C.

        • Ged

          Very interesting, Sanjeev. Once again, suggestions of excess (10+ C), but something preventing it from taking off (Bob’s idea of too much pressure?).

          Hopefully we can get power data to compare with too, see if that is more sensitive than the null v active method (since thermal conductivity will dampen the difference a little).

          • Bob Greenyer

            The power data will come.

            Having free Lithium will lower the melting point of Li Al mix and lower the H pressure.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I’ll ad this to the live document.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We missed something in the last experiment, the H2 pressure needs needs to be below 1 bar – to allow the reversible reaction to breathe – Parkhomov said to me and Emanuele outside the Palazzio after the Padua run that it needed to be 0.5 bar, in line with wikipedia.

    Adding more free lithium advances this process by taking up the evolved H2 – adding LiH would make no difference as it is already stoichiometric (in reaction balance)

    We could wait for a LONG time, bleed at high temp and then lower temperatures – or use the Zircal getter I have proposed in the past.

    • Ged

      Bleeding it out sounds like a nice idea, easy and simple (just don’t ignite the gas coming out, of course). The getter would be easier and safer still.

      The run looks to be over now (amazing amount of pressure left over, 77 psi!), but I agree that a bleed or getter should be done next time if possible to avoid such a large amount of left over gas. Once again, we saw suggestions of excess heat, but if the high pressure is dampening it (e.g. constricting the lattice motions) then the results we have here are what we would expect, and lowering the pressure would be predicted to allow proper excess production.

      • Sanjeev

        It was a nice experiment, nothing went wrong !
        But this once again demonstrates that simply heating the Ni powder with H2 is not going to produce the effect we are after. Probably it needs a preparation of Ni and a good amount of H2 absorption before any significant excess is seen.

        • Ged

          There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that pre-treating Ni is important. I feel we are definitely narrowing down on the parameters we need–it’s now less about “what matters”, and more about “how to implement”. Alan et al have become de facto experts on reactor design now, so it’s only a matter of choosing what implementation to try next.

          This run, along with GS3 and 4, once again fits into the “no clear negative result” category. That’s how I as a scientist would classify the outcome of the experiments so far. They clearly are not negative, yet the effect is not strong enough to unequivocally say in what way they were positive, or if it’s due to the source of excess heat we are looking for.

          It’s like being a rabbit chasing a carrot on a stick. We see it, we get close, but we have yet to get that bite. On the other hand, experiments that fall in the “no clear negative result” class, are often the ones that spur the most discovery and keep us coming back for more, even if they are often the most arduous and take the greatest skill to overcome.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes on the pre-heat, this is said to be done by Parkhomov and not done here.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Recording time lapse of main part of experiment, hours 18-57 available here:

    Download

    https://goo.gl/Z5iNo1

    Youtube

    https://youtu.be/6DqdplqEBtU

    thanks to Alan and Mark for a successful experiment and for the support for you all, particularly Ged and Sanjeev for their graphing.

    I suspect that Alan will re-heat this after thanksgiving.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Great thoughts from Bob Higgins related to GS5 run

    “Regarding the Lugano particle 3 … the iron-rich particle, I note that it shows no signs of Na or K and the SEM showed it was not a porous particle. Because of this, I don’t think it was and F-T catalyst and I don’t think F-T catalysis is complicit in the hotCat type of device. The only thing that is probably important is the Fe2O3 as a chemical additive – perhaps to help oxidize the aluminum to take it out of the mix. At high temp where XH occurs, the Ni is coated with liquid LiH and I believe the action is at the Li-Ni interface. If this is the case, any catalyzed hydrogen form that makes its way to the surface of the LiH film, will probably not be usefully transferred through the LiH to the active boundary at the Li-Ni interface.

    In the lower temperature eCat devices operating in the 280-450°C range, the F-T catalyst is in its optimum temperature range. A porous F-T could catalyze the H2 into a species that is optimum for application to the Ni surface. Just as an example, if the H(1) RM species is formed via catalysis, it would want to stick onto the surface of the Ni like a disk magnet on my metal toolbox. This lower temperature range eCat device could still look like our Glow Stick devices, only you would want to segregate the LiAlH4 from the Ni (perhaps with a zirconia wool or alumina wool plug) so it would only supply H2 and NOT coat the Ni. You would mix the ground up F-T catalyst with the Ni as the fuel.”

  • Axil Axil

    Has the fuel in this test been pretreated?

    The Rossi patent says:

    “In other embodiments, the catalyst in powdered form, has been treated to enhance its porosity. For example, the catalyst can be nickel powder that has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.”

    And

    “Preferably, the nickel has been treated to increase its porosity, for example by heating the nickel powder to for times and temperatures selected to superheat any water present in micro-cavities that are inherently in each particle of nickel powder. The resulting steam pressure causes explosions that create larger cavities, as well as additional smaller nickel particles.”

    Also

    “However, it has been found that a suitable mixture would include a starting mixture of 50% nickel, 20% lithium, and 30% LAH.”

    From the Lugano test We know that the nickel particles in the fuel were covered with lithium BEFORE insertion by Rossi into the reactor. That means that the pure lithium to the tune of 20% was added to the fuel mix during pretreatment. We also know that the temperature at pretreatment was high enough to sinter many 5 micro particles into a large 100 micron particle.

    Have these steps associated with pretreatment of the fuel been done to the fuel used in this test before this replication attempt?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Axil,

      In the experiment live doc linked to above, we noted from the beginning that the there was no pre-treatment and we are aware of it’s reference in the patent and the previous recommendation by Parkhomov – it just was not done.

      We have pure lithium. We just need to run through many tests.

      • Axil Axil

        MFMP is looking for the key process that unlocks the LENR reaction. MFMP states as follows:

        “There has been little success by most replicators when attempting replications of Dr. Alexander Parkhomov, even when using the exact same fuels. It may be due to some impurity in the Mullite he first used for which he has had no analysis done and did not know the provenance – or in the later 3 day experiment, it may have been due to the make-up of his stainless steel fuel container. For this reason it is necessary to start exploring other avenues that may lead to results similar to those claimed in Lugano.”

        And yet MFMP ignores the recommendation to preprocess the fuel as follows:

        “and the previous recommendation by Parkhomov – it just was not done.”

        MFMP must do a better job at evaluating “assumptions” in its test criteria matrix available about the Rossi replication.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It was not a choice, I think it was an oversight – I’ll have to check with Alan.

          • Mats002

            Hi Bob! I think you now have reached the goals of engineering, including measurements of energy input and output for a COP well above 1, which we look for.

            No need to develop the glowstick platform further, from here everything is about procedures. Preparation of fuel, pressure management and EM stimulation is the parameter space to explore.

            There are many combinations to try, should be performed in a structured approach to narrow down the most rewarding combinations. Easy to say…

          • Bob Greenyer

            About the engineering – yes, done.

            With the right money – I’d like 20 experiments running at once – even have some spaces to do it. Crash this sucker!

          • Mats002

            Yeah! That’s the spirit ^^

            Any new sources of money in sight?

          • Bob Greenyer

            er…. working on a solution to that

  • builditnow

    If there is some way to get to 0.5 bar absolute, that could be interesting.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Getting below 1 bar is a question of adding more free lithium NOT LiH… it gets to equilibrium at 500ºC … 0.25bar according to Wikipedia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride

      Other than that – ZirCal getter in another part of the cell – with a separate heater that can add or remove H2 as needed.

    • Mats002

      The metal lattice is stiff at high pressure and stiffness is bad for phonons, vibrations, in the lattice. I can not link to sources now but I have read about it in more than one paper.

    • Justa Guy

      We can certainly pump out the gas to under 100 microns or so. The current transducer(s) only measure gauge pressure from 0 to 300 psi (atmosphere and above), but that can be rectified. We can stop the pumping by closing a valve at 0.5 bar absolute. We need to work on this a bit to do it safely, but that should be resolved by the time of the next runs.

      If you know of a nice 0 to approx. 300 psi absolute pressure transducer we can interface, please post the link(s)!

  • Justa Guy

    Many good points have been mentioned here and now that things have settled down a bit, I would like to share some of my thoughts concerning this rather quick run…

    The main problem we faced turned out to be time constraints. Had we not been under pressure to do something before our time evaporated, we would have surely pretreated the fuel similar to the patent disclosure (and even remembered to mention that it was not pretreated). We did pump out the cell to about 80 microns/mT (i.e., a rough vacuum) and the fuel sat there above 100 C (180 C?) for quite some time as we tried to understand the Pressure Tranducer issue, so in a way it was treated (The evolved water vapor would have been trapped inside). We would also have included the Lithium Nanopowder, but we didn’t have the proper time to set up the inert (or more specifically, non-Oxygen) atmosphere/environment to safely load/seal the cell and prevent [excessive] reaction. We also did not finish up on a good way to integrate the chat session with Alan’s Web Page and that definitely will happen on the next round of experiments.

    The other thing that I want to mention is that from the start, this particular run was not a strict Lugano/Parkhomov replication due to the fact that a Holmlid-like Catalyst (with more than simply Iron in it) was going to be used. It was sort of a hybrid experiment and we found some way to squeeze the run in before our pre-holiday time evaporated. We can do Lugano/Parkhomov/Piantelli/Holmlid/? experiments but it will be difficult to do all of them in one experiment.

    To give you some examples of development going on, a system/technique is being engineered/tested by Alan/MFMP to quickly try different experiments using a more robust fuel capsule. If successful, it may be possible to actually perform many of the suggestions people have mentioned in less time. It could also be problematic in the short term, as some “kinks” are worked out. The capsule right now is quite thick and I have some slight concerns about that.

    Alan plans on doing a post calibration and fuel capsule removal/inspection after the Thanksgiving Holiday, before ending this particular run; it may be extended, if one of us here comes up with a clever idea before taking it apart!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Excellent summary Mark – thanks.

      • William D. Fleming

        Some of us are avidly following your efforts.

      • Axil Axil

        Some interesting feedback from Eric Walker regarding the Rossi patent

        “Among the embodiments are those in which the fuel mixture includes lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, those in which the catalyst includes a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form, or in any combination thereof.”

        This feedback considered the addition of palladium and/or platinum in the fuel mix.

        Note: platinum has a weight of about 195.

        I don’t know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. But one detail in the Lugano report that only became apparent to me much later was that there appears to have been a number of heavy elements in one of the fuel assays in Appendix 3 (see the lower graph, outlined in red).

        http://i.imgur.com/7RQon11.png

        Some of these heavier masses were likely to have been compound ions. But it’s seems unlikely that 100 percent of them were. Note that palladium overlaps with m=105. Even if palladium were not present, I would not be surprised if one or more heavier elements were.

        I do not know why this was the only instance in which a graph for m>100 was shown in the appendix.

    • Axil Axil

      It is a mistake to mix the Rossi reaction with the Holmlid reaction. They are completely different and infact if the two are mixed they will work against each other. For example, Piantelli states that deuterium is a poison to his Ni.H reaction whereas Holmlid uses deuterium. I have a post submitted here at E Cat World to explain the reasons for all who cannot access The LENR forum. But for all who can, this reasoning based on the optical differences between these hydrogen isotopes can be found at

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2303-Polariton-engineering-imperatives/?postID=9637#post9637

      IMHO, this test was ill advised because of its attempt to mix deuterium and protium technology.

  • magicsnd1

    The power data for GS5 is available at:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kNmZPTy1UUTFLcW8

    Data interval is 0.5 sec, so it’s a big file (10 MB)
    Unfortunately the data for the first hour or so of the run is not available.