MFMP Team Starts New Live Glowstick Experiment (Latest: Active Side of Reactor Hotter by 20+ Degrees)

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting about the latest live experiment from the MFMP in Santa Cruz, California.

Information and links can be found at the Quantum Heat website here:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/522-glowstick-5-3

There is also a live video feed on Youtube here:

Part 1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAfl-M37r1M
Part 2 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TUCZ0e1zjwI
Part 3 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uEV_HYb0PG
Part 4 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/iiXjX_VZp_I
Part 5 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZMZxElslOVY
Part 6 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/5SeFNZDqs80
Part 7 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-K2p_v5H0-c
Part 8 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/GfAJv-jhCY8
Part 9 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/xUyWnN–u7M
Part 10 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/M60lflLHpVE
Part 11 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/1XHE4ccw-Uo
Part 13 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/I7z8_Lt3Uhk
https://www.youtube.com/embed/C39M7GPcqRQ
UPDATE (April 14 2016)

Bob Greenyer wrote below:

So, just as we went through approximately 250ºC in the core from calibration (the temp at which excess heat onset occurs according to IH patent application) we saw the TCs and Optris PI160 average temp over whole cell sides diverge by around 1ºC

during this period, we saw at least 2 thermal neutron driven bubbles form LIVE in the bubble tech thermal neutron detector – the first time that detector has shown anything since being activated a week ago.

You can see the event by going back in the youtube stream

  • artefact
    • Would it be possible for the MFMP team to give a rough estimate of when they will be recreating the conditions that lead to the gamma signal in GS 5.2?

      Need to know when to make the popcorn.

      Also will there be live gamma data available to view/analyze?

      • artefact
      • Sanjeev
      • Bob Greenyer

        There will be more live data from more detectors

        I am going to try to set it up so that the data is synced to google resource folder – for instance the NaI is saving every 10 mins.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are Hydrogenating around 2X the Ni – to give us a faster second run if the first run fails.

        Looks like we need to raise the temperature again.

        We may start the main run tomorrow therefore.

  • Sanjeev

    dT plots for calibration.

    http://imgur.com/lbRavrU

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

    and calibration plot by Ecco.

    http://i.imgur.com/rzg58LH.png

    • Mats002

      Good start guys, this feels like the standard opening now.

      I wonder why (still) no calibration up to the higher temps. I know extrapolation but that is a pure theoretical thing, would be nice with a calibration run up to 1300 C or so.

      • Ged

        Well, it at least made it to 1200 C internal this time, which is very good, and close to or maybe even the cap for the active run.

        • Sanjeev

          1200 is internal.

          • Mats002

            Yes and that is 100 C higher max temp outside than previous GS5 calibration which peaked at 863 C outside. This is better but a Parkhomov-ish run would give the highest delta well above this calibration too.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not only did we go higher we did steady state and had more sample spots at top and bottom so that polynomial fits would be more accurate.

          • Mats002

            No we talking!

          • Bob Greenyer

            The High Temp degassing underway now is also another kind of calibration – but there is no SS fuel container / fuel in though.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess that can be done after run.
        Too high temperatures can damage the wire and tube, and there will be no experiment to do, so its not risked.

    • Ged

      Great work and graphs, Sanjeev and Ecco. This is a very nice looking calibration.

  • Ged

    Good luck once again, MFMP!

    • Andre Blum

      yes. Fingers crossed. A good reproduction will do miracles in these confusing times!

  • artefact

    May the heat be with you!

  • Mats002

    At end of last run (GS5.2) we talked about signal vs noice error marginal in this setup.

    Inspired by Ged I went on to understand the error margin using a number of comparable runs without excess heat versus that GS5.2 run that did show possible excess heat appearing at > 650 C (outside).

    First I ruled out any run before GS4 because the TC readings prior GS4 had the leak current that gave wrong TC readings at > 900 C (outside) which is a large part of the temp range of interest here. The range between 650 – 900 may be revisited later but there is a risk that TCnoice starts to increase well below 900 C (outside).

    Further I looked for highest possible accuracy and therefore ruled out all runs without the PA1000 Power meter because those runs had a calculated Power IN based on the resistance of the heater wire which we know varies with heat and stress over time. To back up that last claim see ‘GS5_cal1.xlsx’ where R is calculated from the true V and I from PA1000, R varies between 9,37 and 9,67 ohm for temp 70C up to 860 C (outside). R do not vary linear over T, the lowest R is at 220 C (outside). Whatever the reason for Rnoice it is +/-0,15 ohm and note that R is unknown (I could not find any data) at T > 860 C (outside) which is a large part of the temp range of interest here.

    • Rip Kirbyian

      Thanks Mats! I wonder why why can’t have a simple cop ratio reported directly with a simple meter.

      • Ged

        I don’t think any such meters exist, sadly. Gotta convert heat to power, manually by comparing on graphs.

        • Chris Blythe

          A simple way is to monitor power supplied to your test reactor and a dummy (that is an exact copy) is as follows: The amount of excess heat can be determined by turning up the voltage on the dummy until it’s temperature is as a match. If you are making heat there will be a disparity between the two.This simple way will give you an electrical difference between the two, keeping it all in the easily calculated electrical power zone. A pic and a couple of thermacouples and you would be getting real time COP

    • Bob Greenyer
  • Bruce Williams

    Good luck MFMP, many thanks for your tireless efforts on behalf of mankind !

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks for the support guys – we could not do it without you – this is going to be another tough week without much sleep!

    • William D. Fleming

      We are watching with excitement!
      Thank you all.

  • artefact
    • Ged

      Interesting how it pulsates slightly, but that was pretty dramatic. Hopefully me356 will be able to post some raw data from a run soon.

    • Obvious

      That looks pretty awesome.

      • artefact

        That was about COP 1.5 if I understand his posts correctly.

        • Obvious

          I want what he is having.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Yes. I would like to know what caused the wiggling. Did he just bump against the camera or against the whole setup? If the reactor was affected as well, that bump could have triggered the reaction.

        • Obvious

          It looks to me that the heat started spreading before the big wiggle, and just the camera moved, so the whole frame jumped.
          If someone was concerned about it, the frames could be lined up in Photoshop or something, to see if the reactor moved relative to the stand. But I don’t think it did.

          • artefact

            he probably did something to trigger the reaction and hit the cable of the camera. He can start it at will.

          • Obvious

            Yes. But it looks like the camera bump was caused by a “wow” moment, like jumping up from a chair. Actually it is interesting that he was probably right there, since most of his experiments are done remotely. Otherwise the bump is weird.

          • Sanjeev

            Pressure change?

    • Here is the link to his more definitive post:
      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1275-me356-Reactor-parameters/?postID=16780#post16780

      Says he can turn excess heat on/off at will. The heating from the core is unmistakable assuming he is accurately reporting information.

      Key quotes from me356:

      “Can any skeptic explain me, how this can be achieved (other than with some source of heat) if you have no heater inside? And to maintain this for at least few minutes…?

      Note that the glow was even 2 times further from the heater during the highest COP. Normally glow ends just under heater due to thermal conductivity.

      Also note, that temperatures of the heater are very same in both cases.

      Power was also very same.”

      Pretty exciting.

      • Bob Greenyer

        It maybe convection in the tube, we have seen things similar, we are in regular contact.

        Also Lithium dissolves Ni as we showed in a previous *GlowStick* and it is exothermic – I have spoken to him and he says that the internal parts are now stuck in and he is going to have to cut it out, the Ni wire in there is likely not wire now he thinks.

    • Sanjeev

      He has recently made some claims besides triggering the reaction at will, like a cop of 2, something ready for production, and he says a time will come when he can sell kits. (All in the same thread, except cop of 2)
      Unfortunately he was gone in to a closed source mode instead of LOS. I hope he progresses fast, we need this even more now.

      • Sanjeev

        Add RF noise from the reactor and no radiation at all, in above list of claims.
        Interesting….

    • Mats002

      Great! Let me disagree with ‘OT’ artefact – me356 is supporting MFMP and has performed a number of live runs over the internet in the spirit of Live Open Science.

  • Rip Kirbyian

    Ok, how many of you bet on a) gamma b) excess heat or c) both in this MFMP experiment?

    • US_Citizen71

      If they do a true replication is should be C as they saw both last time.

    • Sanjeev

      Input power vs temperature for calibration, by Ecco:

      http://i.imgur.com/6DCOcza.png

      • Sanjeev

        And here is a closeup in the range of interest.

        http://i.imgur.com/i9Z737b.png

        • Mats002

          Great! The signal looks a little nervous in this closeup. The channel of obvious error margin is about 30W across.

          Any thoughts what is the reason behind?

          • Ged

            Could be the error associated with the controller, maybe? 5% seems pretty reasonable for a PID, I think, and good we know.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, its due to the PID controlled current being wildly noisy. The fixed step calibration has better margins. (the Ecco’s version above). I guess a mean value of power for each temperature value would be ok.

          • Obvious

            I am a big fan of the steps. Much cleaner data for each power level. Obviously it leaves gaps in the data between steps. But if the reaction can be activated at the same power level of a step, then the difference is unambiguous.

            If PID control is being used, then the PID mode characterization is needed to characterize that.

            I am glad they are doing both methods.

          • Sanjeev

            If exact same power steps are repeated during run, we can compare directly, else just use averaged trend line from PID-power data.
            The problem is the interesting stuff happens above 1050°C to 1200°C, for which there is no calibration and you must extrapolate, so extrapolate from any data. If we are lucky we may see something in lower temperature range, but less likely.

          • Obvious

            Not a big deal here, since this is a replication of an experiment with very little excess heat.
            I mostly like the steps because the steady state is definitely reached, while with PID control the system is in constant flux which is far less precise.

            But there are no guarantees that Nature is going to make measuring things convenient.

          • Ecco

            This is from Calibration 2. If I’m correct, it was performed with PID control enabled in order to slowly increase temperatures over time at a more or less linear rate. Calibration 3 was performed in a steady state mode (fixed input power steps).

          • Andreas Moraitis

            If this data set is not restricted to the equilibrium phases, the aberrations might result from the thermal inertia of the reactor.

        • Bob Matulis

          If excess heat / gamma radiation is to occur when is it anticipated to happen? Last time it seemed there had to be a few cycles before anything happened.

          • Ged

            I don’t think the main run is happening till tomorrow? Right now they are degassing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

          • Sanjeev

            If you see the plot here (the full plot of 3 days under the “Update#1” section):
            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
            you will see that the signal (vertical line marked 7) happened when the temperature was above 1000°C and pressure was about 0.4 bar (below atmosphere), so look for this condition in present experiment. The excess started (very small excess) only after temperatures of 1150C after many cycling phases.
            I don’t think there is a schedule for these events in current experiment, so it can be any time I guess.

      • Ged

        Now that is the real bread and butter graph most people will understand. Very nice looking. The extra data points at start and finish helped a lot.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Mats002

    Interesting discussions over at LENR Forum, in me356 thread about the importance of evaporating Li at a lower temp by having a low pressure in the vessel, this diagram is shared:

    http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7439932&Mask=4&Type=ANTOINE&Plot=on

    Look up the Antoine equation for Lithium.

  • passerby

    Thanks MFMP. Sent you guys a donation for all your hard work.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – really helps – We basically have not left the garage since arriving a week ago!

  • LION

    Hi Bob, is there any update on the high spec, highly instrumented 2 experiment, exactly following the MFMP protocol from University of Missouri? If not, do you know when that is expected?

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – Pump down & hold
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZxElslOVY&nohtml5=False

  • artefact

    Bob: in the stream there is a lot of echo like there are three microphones active. Please only one mic 🙂

    • Mats002

      ?

    • LuFong

      You can delete posts. See the dropdown flag to the right of your post.

      • artefact

        Thanks!

  • e-dog

    has anyone tried an experiment with a Rossi set up reactor, like as in, flat packed ikea style wafers?

    • Ged

      That is a really cool idea, e-dog. The engineering for that may be a bit tougher, so that may be why that hasn’t been done yet.

    • SG

      It is a good point. Most replication attempts today are offshoots from the Lugano device and test results. Much divination was required since the community never had access to the complete internal design details.

      With the granting of Leonardo’s U.S. patent, we have the wafer version, which as Mr. Rossi has stated on multiple recent occasions, is what his current products are built upon.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I would like to very much – I hope to present my reasoning for why I think it is a good design – I tried to make this video before coming to US for the GS 5.2 replication – but ran out of time.

      • Ged

        Hope you are enjoying that side of the pond!

  • Mats002

    Shh! I am peeking into Alans garage, don’t tell anyone: https://theta360.com/s/mec8ROR65Uae7hy44vQSN991s

    • Bob Greenyer

      Arghghg – you beat me to it!

  • Bob Greenyer

    We will be loading the cell with the fuel rod after the current hot degassing, pump down and leave to soak overnight.

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – SS core loading and initial heating
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SeFNZDqs80&nohtml5=False

  • e-dog

    Im excited!!!!!!

    • Stephen Taylor

      Looks like there might be something to get excited about. (Surely its too early for the crossover.) Anyway, at least we know it’s real whatever happens! Beautiful work.

      • e-dog

        I’ll second that!

      • SG

        I agree, it is exciting and real. Bear in mind, if COP > 50 turns out also to be real, getting to and from space will be much easier.

  • e-dog

    I watched the live Spacex “experiment” the other day. Nearly cried when they had a successful out come and nailed the booster landing after lots of work and attempts.
    Im hoping I also get to see the same thing with the MFMP team…

  • e-dog

    Hey Bob, if you have the time and it doesnt get in the way.
    Would it be possible to do a bit of a tutorial/explainer as to what all the information is and where its coming from?
    And an intro to the experiment, its equipment and the testing equipment?

    I have seen bits and pieces that you guys have been explaining but I cant put it all together.
    I also saw you draw some things on the screen but missed it, the mike didnt catch your explanations clearly.

    Anyway!! good luck and may the source be with you guys!

  • Stephen Taylor

    Way optimistic of me, and we haven’t even started this fueled run, but does anyone else “see” the Optris active side warmer than the null? You know this infrared information will be great to have side by side with the thermocouple data. Of course they agree right now that the active fueled side is really warmer than the empty null side. Maybe one of the exothermic chemical reactions accounts for this but it is great to have an “optical” visual reading along with the well calibrated thermocouples. Good stuff MFMP.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Main Run feed started.

    http://youtu.be/UGRXB6lCHnk

    • Ged

      Hugnet still seems to be blank at the moment, for me. Good luck guys!

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think it is still trying to catch up. I have included various real time updated spans on the live stream. Also, there is recordings of the streams as MP4 locally.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Scott Price has fixed the error at HUG, their server should catch up.

      • artefact

        47C difference from the thermocouples.

        • Mats002

          At the lower part of the cycle the temp is about 800 C, that makes the temp diff be (roughly) 50/800 = 6%. That is larger than a 5% signal-to-noice ratio. Rock science math!

          • Stephen Taylor

            Has been said probably, excess seems to increase with additional cycles. Looks good, this repeatable performance is something that can be improved upon with future adjustments.

            Was there a radiation signal detected?

          • Mats002

            I don’t know, hope Bob or someone else from MFMP can tell status on that one.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Extremely encouraging to see how the experiment follows the 5.2 experiment. Hopefully after all the data has been analyzed we will have a high sigma on the excess heat. Keep up the good work!

        • Mats002

          The Excess Heat should be higher than the temp diff. Why? Because XH spreads through the reactor to the Null side and by this the Null side also gets hotter than calibration. Would be interesting to see a plot of T vs W compared to calibration. Ecco maybe?

  • Obvious

    Is there still 67% more nickel than last time, or was some taken out after the bake-out?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is the same amount. We tried to make enough for a follow on if this did not show signal, but with losses there was not enough – however, if this is successful, we may try a follow on with 62Ni.

      This is a replication, so fuel load and mix is the same.

  • e-dog

    Hey Bob, if youre reading this in between running the experiment.
    How long or when did the signal appear in the last experiment?
    I think I mean, as you are replicating as best as you can, when/what time should I be tuning in to maybe see some history??
    Are you guys following the same procedures as last time?
    Cheers

    • Mats002

      Hi e-dog, in wait for Bob to write I can tell this: The goal of this GS5.3 run is to replicate the GS5.2 run as much as possible.

      Thanks to Ecco there is a nice picture of the whole GS5.2 run here: http://m.imgur.com/86lLBtB?r

      You need to download the picture to be able to zoom to be able to read tiny texts on axis etc. It is a high resolution picture.

      So where are we right now? The temp is about 160 C and pressure is rising but they bleed some hydrogen gas off now and then to keep pressure low at 12-14 psi. 1 bar = 1 atmosphere = 14.7 psi.

      According to the GS5.2 run we are at 2016-01-31 06:00 time.

      Where did the radiation event take place? It was just in the beginning of area 7 (see blue vertical lines labeled from 1 upwards). That would be at 2016-02-01 23:00.

      So the exciting stuff should start friday night UTC(?).

      Can anyone fill in with if it is UTC or some other time in this picture?

      • e-dog

        Fantastic! Thanks Mats!
        Will look at the data
        Still excited!!

        • Roberto Siquieros

          Fingers crossed!

    • Bob Greenyer

      You should watch from 22:00 UTC – which is Saturday. I suggest sleeping during the day if you are in Europe.

      • e-dog

        cheers!

  • Bob Greenyer

    So, just as we went through approximately 250ºC in the core from calibration (the temp at which excess heat occurs according to IH patent application) we saw the TCs and Optris PI160 average temp over whole cell sides diverge by around 1ºC

    during this period, we saw at least 2 thermal neutron driven bubbles form LIVE in the bubble tech thermal neutron detector – the first time that detector has shown anything since being activated a week ago.

    • Ged

      Careful, we’ll really have to keep an eye on these neutron detectors then (and think about neutron shielding if we start seeing more). Seems it may have been an LENR spark, though it fizzled out at these low temps in this reactor design. Exciting though.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Given that we saw nothing for a week in the detector, it is just amazing to see them happen LIVE right when we are discussing that we might have reached the minimum core temperature to see excess heat according to IH’s patent application.

        The Beryllium window x-ray detector has been clicking a little more than usual behind me, I am hoping this is not all we see – but if it is, I am already satisfied with the data from this run!

        • Ged

          Indeed! Also considering the tubes are small, and the “window of coverage” they are giving out of the sphere of where neutrons could go is quite minuscule. Catching two events so rapidly is a really big deal (can estimate the total neutron production by taking the slice of the spherical area the detectors cover and then extrapolating out for the rest of the sphere).

          And it’s still just the beginning of the run. Be interesting to see what happens when we get to the higher temps, particularly were things were seen last time. But it does raise the question of if there is secretly as sweetspot temp around 250C we’ve been passing by.

          Keep up the fantastic work guys, and stay safe!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – the total flux would be higher – but not worried – just excited.

    • Stephen

      Wow amazing news. I’m not sure I was expecting neutrons but it’s amazing if they appear. I guess the emission rate is very low. But stay safe and shielded just in case especially as this is all new experience for you and us.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Be careful. I remember one of Santilli’s experiments where they had to evacuate the lab in a mad rush due to sudden neutron bursts.

    • Montague Withnail

      Congratulations guys, be careful.

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – Getting close to curie
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2p_v5H0-c

  • Bob Greenyer

    Images of the first 2 thermal neutrons formed.

    • Gerard McEk

      Very exciting Bob! Be carefull!

  • Ged

    In layman’s terms, a thermal neutron is as “hot” as the material that slowed it down post nuclear reaction.

    Think of it like how a heater heats up the air molecules passing by it, and you feel that heat as the average kinetic motion of the air. But in this case, the moderator material slowed down (cooled) an ejected neutron post nuclear fission/fusion to the “heat” of that material; so the neutron is as “hot” as that material, just like the air becomes as hot as a heater element. In both cases–the neutron and the air–the heat that is detected is kinetic motion of the free moving particle. This is also why these neutrons are called “thermal” neutrons, as their energy has been drained down to be equal to thermal temperatures, so they aren’t nearly as dangerous as high energy neutrons unless they run into something like uranium 235 and kick start fission (boom).

    I am not a nuclear physicists, so if there is one around please correct me if I am wrong.

    • Mats002

      Null is 6 C hotter than Active?

      • Ged

        Looks like the Optris and the TCs don’t completely agree with eachother on who is hottest, not that it makes a big deal since both have the two sides within 10 C of eachother.

        Still got a long ways to go before the point where excess was seen last time. Doesn’t mean we’ll see it at that point–could be before, after, or not happen this time, of course.

        • Mats002

          If the canal of signal to noice is 5% it is +/- 20 C at 800 C. Makes sense.

          • Ged

            I’m so glad you calculated that, even if as a rough guide. It really helps put matters in perspective.

          • Mats002

            I have bright moments ^^

  • Charlie tapp

    Is there a safety shut down plan in the event of massive amount of radiation you are not comfortable with. What would the count be on the detector you would not be comfortable with. Can not have you guys soaking up all that bad stuff and getting sick.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Relative position of thermal neutron detector and GS 5.3 cell.

    Whilst Skip and I saw the 2nd bubble form, the first may have been there from at least as early as the melting point of Li as identified by Ecco by looking through the video record.

    • Ged

      So around 180C and 250C. If we can nail down the timestamps, we can look at all the other data streaming in from the same time frames and get an idea what nuclear shenanigans could be going on inside the reactor (mechanistically speaking–this is exactly the sort of data we need to build up theoretical frameworks).

  • Bob

    Congratulations!…
    Not only on finding artifacts that could be very significant, but more so in the method you are doing it! So refreshing not to hear lots of words with nothing to back them up ! I am from Missouri so I have always been inclined to be a “Show Me” type person. Talk is cheap and often means nothing. The MFMP TEAM is doing excellent work, being an excellent role model and hopefully will be excellently rewarded! hint… Oslo…. 🙂
    .
    I will be visiting your site to donate again and encourage others to do so as well!.

  • Ged

    Hey Bob, is it possible to update us on what’s new with the bubble neutron dosometer? I saw Alan took it away for a bit (presumably for pictures?). Did you guys change out for a new one, or is the original one back again? Who would have thought tracking bubbles would become more exciting than tracking temperatures!

    • artefact

      Alen wrote in the chat:

      “The bobble detectors have been removed for resetting. That needs to be done every 24 hours.”
      “The cell is in an extended soak period so this is a good time to reset
      them, in preparation for the next major power step, around 23:00 [UTC].”
      So they are new.

      • Ged

        Thank you, artefact!

  • Ged

    Apparently, with bubble neutrons detectors, you just re-cap it and it turns the gas back into supercritical fluid, and voila, completely reset with no more bubbles just by putting on the lid. Don’t cap it on accident…

    • Skip

      Yup. The cap has 2 ends. One for resetting and one for protection.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • e-dog

    how does the 5.2 compare to the 5.3 so far?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Better – we saw Neutrons, if that is all we see, I am happy…

      It would frankly be seriously groundbreaking if we saw the signal again – only this time over very many devices with better resolution and time accuracy. I am not really ready for how awesome it would be, but we must be prepared for nothing – this is LENR after all…

      • e-dog

        well. lets see a signal then!

  • Bob Greenyer

    On the audio click recordings

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bz7lTfqkED9WM3QtcGZNclZVTXc

    Region Of Interest for NaI (20-200keV) is Right Channel
    Geiger clicks is Left Channel

    • Mats002

      I see active is hotter than null now, it’s alive!

      Why is ‘hottest’ cooler than ‘active hot’ at the thermal camera display?

    • Morning Bob,

      did you consider the latest findings of me356?
      I mean the low pressure, at best 0 psi?

      me356 seems to be very successful with it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I am in very regular contact with me356. I have discussed the importance of low pressure with him.

        Very low pressures is in Piantelli patent.

        We tried a wide range of pressure in Celani cell.

  • e-dog

    hey bob, have you guys got a metallurgist in the group working on this?
    Im not one. but i think that the phase changes with the metals and hydrogen could be very important

  • e-dog

    whats going on?

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – Calm before the storm…?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikfl0JQzMx0

    • artefact

      Bob, the description of the video says GlowStick 5.2 not 5.3

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks – oops – so tired… will fix

      • Bob Greenyer

        Fixed thankyou

  • Roberto Siquieros

    The countdown has begun. Exciting times .. keep up the amazing work Bob et all. I’m looking forward to seeing a strong signal again.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks, So are we, there are no guarantees though, this is science at the bleeding edge!

      • Mats002

        Science of bleeding H?

  • passerby

    Does anyone have a timestamp or direct link to the part of the video when the bubbles showed up?

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – Ready to power climb
    “About 1 hour after this recording starts, the temperature will start to rise in 4 x 1 hour steps from current temperature to around 875C outside which it about 1100C in core.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAJv-jhCY8

  • artefact

    next power step now.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Can someone tell me the significance of the pressure inversion at 756C active outside temp. What is core temp and what reaction or phase change is allowing the pressure to go down as temp still increases. This sudden change is at 19:20 UTC approximately. Very dramatic and accompanied by a brief possible excess heat? Any signal?

  • Ged

    At the time the active was more than 10 C higher, according to the Optris (which was all they were showing in the stream at that moment). Looks like that’s just how the Optris is compared to the TCs.

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – Into ‘Trace#7’

    “We will be taking GS5.3 to the highest temperature in the run so far and
    the power set point that led into the spectrum trace number 7 that
    showed the ‘Signal’… last time”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUyWnN–u7M

  • artefact

    BEEEEEEEPPP

    • Bob Tivnan

      I just tuned in and there seems to be a lot of activity. Can you update us on what is going on?

      • artefact

        No signal yet. But after arraving at the over 1000C the radiowave detector startet to beeb. Soon after it was nearly a constant beep. It is not much because the detector is sensitive but with an aluminium foil they found out that came from the direction of the experiment (reactor or just the pid) by putting the foil between the experiment and the detector.
        temperature cycling soon to come. No cross over yet but nearly there.

        • passerby

          Not sure I follow that line of thinking. It gave no output all day nor yesterday, regardless of time of day. If it were something that is regularly turned on, even if only for part of the day (or night) then it should have been seen on multiple days, no?

          • US_Citizen71

            I believe they have been progressively setting the alarm sensitivity to be more sensitive.

          • passerby

            Ah that would make sense.

  • Ged

    Looks like the TC’s have crossed over, with Active now ~7-8 C hotter than null. Quite a difference compared to how it was in calibrations (null hotter than active). A good sign! Have to see how long this holds and if it grows like in GS5.2.

    • NT

      Lets hope we are seeing the temp really takeoff…

      • Ged

        It is very much looking like it, if one goes into a longer view time period–the divergence is striking. I think we may be starting to see excess heat.

        Edit: It’s still quite weak though, but that’s also how it started in G5.2.

        • NT

          Yeah, go for it glow stick…

          • Ged

            Divergence getting even bigger now. This is looking pretty amazing, as long as there are no mechanical errors. Remarkable replication so far.

          • NT

            Yes GED, it looks as though they are getting good documentation on this run. I will be interesting to hear Bob’s take on what were are now seeing. I think he just rolled into the picture a few moments ago to observe the computer – maybe he will comment here a bit later?

          • Ged

            I hope so! We are at over 20 C divergence now. Gotta rule out any unforeseen errors, but it’s looking really interesting. Apparently the microwave detector has been going nuts too, but that may or may not be a threshold issue as they were fiddling with that.

          • There’s a problem.

            If you compare GS5.3 so far to GS5.2, the active side temperature is about what we would expect, but the null temperature is ~20 degC lower.

            This makes no sense to me. My initial guess is there’s some sort of problem with the null side, resulting in what appears to be a much earlier crossover and excess energy. But really it’s just null performing at a much lower level than calibration.

          • NT

            But pressure is rising also?

          • Yes. But before we get excited realize the divergence we are seeing is not a reactor getting hotter than calibration it’s the null side getting colder than expected.

            Red flag. Unless I’m reading something incorrectly.

          • NT

            It appears both the Null and active cells rising comparatively now though…

          • Ged

            They bumped up power by 30 watts.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We noticed that the connector to the power driver is running hot and that would likely account for the losses that required a higher input power.

          • When input power was 1 kW in GS5.2, active temp was about what it was in GS5.3, while null is significantly lower in GS5.3.

            Please explain. I can’t.

          • Ged

            Maybe, I think we’ll have to see the power data after the run to know what’s happening in that regard. Seems null is fine though, as the power bump just showed. Such interesting data.

            One commentator on youtube was speculating something about how if the active is generating heat, that would unbalance the heater coil’s resistance and drop null temps. I dunno how true that is though (or what magnitude that would even have if it were).

          • Yeah they just figured out that there’s an issue here that needs explaining.

            Whatever explanation they settle on it needs to be one that explains why this *didn’t* happen in GS5.2.

          • Ged

            Can’t ever be perfectly replicated, so something must be different. Question is what changed.

          • Andre Blum

            siren went off with a short spike in what I believe is the gamma counter:

          • Mats002

            Wow, normally it goes between 20-50 cpm and about 0.02 mR/h.

            One short burst can be some flaw in the apparatus or a cosmic ray or something that is not radiation from the Glowstick.

            They have more than one radiation detector, did all pick up that signal at the same time? Can the direction of the signal be known?

          • Ged

            That is nearly 10x above the normal background they were seeing. Interesting. Will have to see what post analysis shows, if it was just a spike or part of more activity.

          • William D. Fleming

            Great! Watching closely here.

    • Bob Matulis

      When is gamma burst anticipated?

      • They’re in the middle of phase 7, if gammas don’t happen in the next 90 minutes or so then it looks like a whiff.

        • Ged

          They could happen later, or never, or maybe we missed them and they happened already as it’s hard to follow all the many streams of live data at once. Guess we’ll know for sure in post analysis.

          Neutrons are way more exciting anyways.

        • Bob Matulis

          Are you saying the gamma burst during the previous experiment has been determined to not have happened? If so I must have missed that.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • William D. Fleming

      In addition to continuous temperature monitoring by the thermocouples, would it be feasible to use an independent thermometer occasionally to touch the outside of each cylinder in turn? Seems that would add a lot of confidence that things are right.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We can try tomorrow

        Bob

    • Obvious

      That is the estimated inside T?
      Doesn’t seem very glowy, for an outside T, although that subject was beaten up pretty well a long time ago.

      Beautiful photos.

      • Bob Greenyer

        That is the outside T

        I fee it is important to share these accurate photos so people can understand what it really looks like.

        • artefact

          The active site looks brighter…

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.3 – High Temperature cycling
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLK19pllG9g

    • Mats002

      The temp cycling is replicated! The temp divergence seems to separate a little more for each cycle, at about 30 C now.

      This should be a wake up call for official science, but no – Huh :/

      LENR+ is another story, but COP of near 2 have been claimed by Parkhomov and the other day by me356. Both open scientists.

      Hope this run can offer more, I hold my breath…

      • pelgrim108

        Temp difference might be caused by the null getting increasingly less heat input from the coil ( and the active not being affected as much).
        Now that the cycle duration is stable : null getting ever colder dissapeared)

        • Mats002

          Hi pelgrim, yes but how? It is the same heater wire going over both Null and Active. I have many times proposed a voltage measure in the middle of that wire between the coils to rule out (or actually know) any diff in resistance (ohm) between the two halfs. MFMP and other people says it is not needed because the current (I) must be the same all over and that excess heat is higher than can be explained by resistance changes over the wire.

          Any other ideas how energy in to Null and Active can differ?

          • pelgrim108

            Im hoping for this one:
            Active isnt affected as much by coil heat input due to having an extra heat source.
            notice also that active temp graph is less erratic than the null temp graph.

          • Mats002

            Interesting finding.

          • If the PID controller is running off of the active side, the active temp would be more stable than the null. If the excess is real, I would actually expect the null side to be less stable (which we see).

          • pelgrim108

            You are correct but the PID is not used in this experiment, wattage is controlled by hand.

          • pelgrim,

            I doubt that. Where did you get this information? The chart looks like it is running on a PID algorithm on the active side. If it was wattage based, the charts would look very different.

          • pelgrim108

            Bob Greenyer explained in the live stream that the PID was not used.
            I have been trying to find some proof of this but could not find it. So I remain convinced that the PID is not used but I cannot point you to some proof of this.

          • Ok. The active side temp seems to be going to clear set points, but maybe they can explain this.

          • pelgrim108

            I asked Skip from MFMP in the chat about PID/manual. He says its manual.
            Edit: so there are no setpoints.

          • Ok, thanks.

      • Ged

        Wow, I didn’t expect them to replicate 5.2 so easily and so dramatically. That builds enormous confidence in the results as now we have an N = 2.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The difference between active and null seems to be extremely consistent. Can you rule out calibration drift?

    • Mats002

      Hi Ophelia, can you please give some examples of calibration drift? Is it power in or TC or Optris that should be drifting or something else?

      • Ophelia Rump

        A broken wire, a burned thermocouple. Are there multiple ways of determining the temperature, to cross check one another to know that the difference is not a flaw?
        Or would you have to wait until after the test completes to verify the measurements were all reliable?

        It seems to me the thermal images must be reliable but I have no experience of that to form a judgment.

        • Mats002

          Yes they measure temp in two ways simultaniously; TCs and Optris thermal camera, see the live video. A broken wire? Please elaborate on that.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Forget that if you have a cross check. Congratulations.

            Wires have been known to snap and still work somewhat, but that would not pass a crosscheck.

          • Sanjeev

            The resistance has gone up from 8.3 to 8.9, a difference of 0.6 ohm. I don’t know how much that will affect the temperature there.
            The resistances from active and null to center were measured before the start of the run, so we can compare.

          • Mats002

            I have said this time and time again: you can’t know how the wire behaves under stress if you don’t measure it under stress. It is possible – though far fetched, I agree – that the wire resistance under stress change in faviour for one side. If most of the change of 0.6 ohm is on one side that is 8.9 / 8.3 = 7% and we are at about 7% diff in T now.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, time to recheck the ends to center resistances. I guess it can be done only after power off.

          • Mats002

            Sanjeev, after power off the stress is gone and the wire might go back to original state (or near to it). MFMP did a post check on the wire for GS5.2 run, the resistance was about the same as before, they also measured at middle of wire, no diff that matters, though a little.

          • Ged

            Thankfully, Bob’s hot test idea (turning off power and measuring before it cools) would give us accurate resistance data for both sides of the wire when hot, just as we want to have. But getting close to something near 1000 C… that’ll be an adventure.

          • Mats002

            Yes, especially if you need to scrape off cement to get the probe on place and in contact.

            Be careful!

          • Sanjeev

            Wire is exposed at center.

          • Mats002

            OK didn’t understand that, good move!

          • Sanjeev
          • Obvious

            The wire may be heavily oxidized at the end. Something needs to be connected at the start, and monitored continuously.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – I suggested that as well during 5.2 – however at the end of the run – the resistance was checked and it was evenly divided.

            We are planning to do a ‘hot’ tests after the 5.2 zone 7-11 is surpassed, drop power and rapidly test from one side to the center.

          • Ged

            That is a really good idea. Just be careful not to get burned of course.

          • US_Citizen71

            Grab the asbestos gloves!

          • Obvious

            We have discussed this effect several times in the past. There is finally an exposed gap wire that can enable monitoring of possible differential resistance changes causing heat imbalance. Eventually someone will hook it up during an experiment.

          • Mike Henderson

            The difference between the active and the null sides of the device as measured by Optris IR camera thermography is 20 degrees C.

            The difference as measured by twin thermocouples embedded in the device just outside of the heater wire is much greater, currently more than 50 degrees C.

            Data taken at the same point in four cycles:
            TIME UTC Delta T Optris Delta T TC Resistance Ohms
            11:57 19.3 32.1 8.218
            13:04 18.4 49.4 8.199
            14:06 17.9 48.9 8.198
            15:19 19.2 54.6 8.191

            The active and the null side share the same heater wire so current is identical over the two sides. Resistance is continuously measures across the entire length of the heater wire and it is drifting ever so slightly each cycle, not enough to account for the difference unless one side has gained resistance while the other side has lost resistance. I presume that will be measured after the tests are complete. No sense in risking a system upset at this point. Next time, it may be prudent to continuously measure resistance of each half of the heater wire continuously.

            The temperature gap is NOT coming from an increase on the Active side, rather from a drop on the null side. This is a bit baffling. If the system were being controlled to have a constant temperature on the active outer surface, we would see the null side temp fall as the need for input power was reduced by anomalous heat. But in this experiment the power input is being held constant. Null side temperature should be steady with Active side temperature being increased by the anomalous heat.

            Somebody has some ‘splaining to do.

        • Warthog

          Optical measurement methods are among the most reliable possible, in particular when looking at differences. Absolute measurement is somewhat more problematic, requiring an “internal standard” (a material of known emissivity) or a measurement of the emissivity of the material on which the measurement is being made

    • Ged

      But it’s been growing, so it seems to be only “consistent” on normal human attention span lengths of time. It’s 60 C now, and it was just 20 C difference 9 hours ago. It’s a slow change, but much bigger than I expected.

      Have to see if they find any mechanical errors, but with all the multiple crosscheck systems in place, this is looking pretty fantastic. Particularly since this is a replication of 5.2 and is working well at that–we’re seeing what we’ve seen before only more so.

      What will really help is once the power data is released. If active is higher versus power in, then we’ve really got something. So I guess we just need to be patient till all post processing is done before we can proclaim anything.

      • Mats002

        We should not have to wait. Use the data from GS5.2 calibration or if the calibration data for this 5.3 run is available you can do that check right now.

    • Private Citizen

      The Null side appears to be much cooler than the calibration runs at the same wattage. There is the possibility that the Glow Stick is broken, which could also result in IR camera showing a similar discrepancy in Null v. Active.

      That the IR and thermocouple readings are so different bothers me: is there no science to make these devices agree on an actual temperature? For a long while the thermal couples showed the Null warmer than Active, while the IR showed the opposite.

      The radiation spikes, over which enthusiastic proclamation of proof of a replicable LENR formula was pronounced, should have been spotted real-time by the better sensors employed this time, was my understanding. Perhaps Ecco will find that later.

      There is still hope that the experiment is exhibiting excess heat (and increasing!), but we shouldn’t let hope color judgment.

      • Ged

        Agreed. There is a lot of data and post run tests to churn through, to make sure any conclusions are solid. The IR difference between sides has increased like the thermocouplers, so that is at least a good sign, even if the camera and couplers never agreed anywhere in the run.

        Part of the difference between couplers and IR camera, is that the couplers are measuring one spot, while the camera is integrating across the entire side (with the hot pixel not being were the couplers are).

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Hot pixel temp is the hottest single pixel in the averaging zones

          The ‘Hottest’ is the hottest 9 pixels on average in the optris FOV

      • Bob Greenyer

        Agreed

      • Since this does not seem to be running on PID, it does look like a degrading on the null side. If PID was running on the active side, it would make sense that the temp levels remain consistent and the null drops. If they power input is more constant, then it is less likely to be excess (you would expect the active side to ratchet up instead of the null to ratchet down).

        • Bob Greenyer

          We saw this in 5.2 – but not after later at similar temps after removing H2

          See the long graph from 5.2 – zones 18 – 20

          http://www.quantumheat.org/images/Gamma/Whole_Run.jpg

          • Ged

            It is honestly spectacular how well this has replicated GS5.2’s temperature trends behavior.

          • Bob Greenyer

            So, is it systematic, or real?

            We need to think of post 7-11 tests (and post other test) to try and rule out other hypothesis.

          • R101

            Any preliminary results or do you care to hazard a guess if there was excess heat seen?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The TCs decoupled and therefore might not be reliable.

            We are using the Optris with new zones and the data is looking positive but would need more analysis.

            We saved the NaI data every 10 mins – so much more analysis for time regions need to be done to assess if there was or will be any ‘signal’.

            Goof thing is – everything was published as it happened and is available for anyone to analyze.

            https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bz7lTfqkED9WSGcyZkcyUlRsY00

          • R101

            Thanks Bob. I’ve still got the stream running to the background. Interestingly that bubble appeared, though Alan (Alda 🙂 ) thinks it likely cosmic.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The one we had this evening – was likely Cosmic as in fast detector – the other two when we were heating the cell and between 170 and 250 .. that was in the slow neutron detector.

        • Ged

          In the end, it’s all about that power in ;).

  • Mats002

    Why? A claim out of thin air or..?

  • Ged

    Actually, the divergence has grown greatly, just like with GS5.2. So, it is not really “extremely stable”, but is increasing over time. It’s just, that “over time” is longer than the normal human patience span. It’s at a huge 60C difference now, whoa. It was only 20C when I went to sleep last night.

    • Sanjeev

      The active has stayed more or less constant, while the null is dropping.
      Is that due to drop in power? I need to check from videos… or if someone is already keeping an account, please comment.

      http://i.imgur.com/YMcp4ft.jpg

      • Ged

        We’ll definitely need the power log.

        • Mike Henderson

          Power input is constant at about 1030 W, amps are constant and resistance is drifting very slightly (not enough to account for the diff). Doesn’t that suggest a shift in resistance across the heater wire with the Null side losing resistance while the Active side gains resistance? Weird stuff.

          • Ged

            They will do a hot test to see if that’s the case (turn off power and measure resistance between sides while the wires are still hot). On the other hand, they’ve noticed less power than expected has been making it to the glowstick due to over heating at the power connectors on the power supply (you can actually see them as bright spots in the full Optris view, also why they had to bump to 1030 instead of just 1000 many hours ago). Could be 1030W is not making it to the glowstick after all, and the PSU connectors are degrading. Guess it would be easy enough to measure with a multimeter along one of the power input wires?

        • Sanjeev

          Its 600/1030 W cycle, so no need of log really. The null-TC went crazy, unreliable.

  • US_Citizen71
    • Bob Greenyer

      About 2 hours after its start, we will go to the highest temperature of the run so far.

      • Ged

        The difference between the two sides seen by the Optris has also grown since last night, though about half as much as the thermocouplers. Be really interesting to see what the max temp shows, and the power trace.

        • US_Citizen71

          We need ‘Watson’ if he can listen to Bob Dillion he can analyze a little LENR data. ; )

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes GED, the Optris average has always read cooler as it is over an
          equivalent area of each side and unlike the TCs, is not buried.

          I
          noticed that over the post zone 6 run… it appeared to me at least
          that the Hot pixel from each sides sample area differential is about
          half that of the TCs differential

          TC Act – TC Null : ‘Active’ Hot – Null Hot
          20 : 10
          40 : 20
          60 : 30

          The Optris RAVI files to confirm this against HUGnet history data and the Optris PI Connect software are in this folder

          https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bz7lTfqkED9WdGRRYU8tTTNSc0E

          • Ged

            That is very strong evidence, since both measurement systems are seeing the same trends.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Eccos chart from the latest optris data shows both sides going up at high and low temperature points.

            http://imgur.com/ltFJMST

          • Ged

            Oh wow, that is Major. That means that the entire device is getting hotter for the same input power, with the active side leading the way and diverging faster away from null (aka, excess heat).

            Guess the couplers just can’t see that from where they are. Hmm. This will take some analysis.

          • Bob Greenyer

            With H2 in the cell – it makes sense that any hotter areas would be able to partially transfer heat to other areas via convection.

          • Ged

            Absolutely. And that is even more effective than conduction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Radiation cross-talk however would be minimal due to the linear design of the reactor.

          • Ged

            How cool is that. A serendipitous design.

  • Ged

    Gunna re-post this from Bob below so it’ll be at the top and not buried, since this is probably the most important chart right now: the Optris’ view of what’s been going on during the cycling http://imgur.com/ltFJMST

    • Stephen Taylor

      Thanks GED, just got back here. That is a very impressive data set. Does anyone have a handle on the “signal” status?

      • Ged

        Besides the neutrons, there was a radiation spike at one point, that someone posted below. But, it took Ecco’s analysis post run in GS5.2 to notice the radiation then, so we may have to wait till the full integrated radiation data is analyzed post this run too.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Good, thanks.

    • Sanjeev

      This may mean that the TC on null side is not reading accurately.

      • Ged

        So the growing divergence is the active heating up and dragging along the entire device to higher temps per input, according to the Optris. Dunno why the TC’s seem to be “splitting” the signal, so to speak, and doubling the difference. Could be degradation, as that typically manifests in lower temperature readings. How to check that?

        Thank goodness for multiple lines of data capture.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, the crosstalk will make the null side heat up a bit, the null-TC should have detected that, but I guess its coming loose. I think the Optris version is more reliable at this point. Seeing that the power is held at 1030W (upper end) there is an increase of about 25°C approx, which is encouraging and very solid.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Only via conduction and convection, but not through radiation and this may account for the increasing differential.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, almost no thermal radiation will be “seen” by the null side, which is good.
            It should be possible to quantify the cross talk by heating only the active side (by tapping at the center), and that should give us a better estimate of the actual XH.

  • Mats002

    Can anyone explain the theory of ‘building nano Ni precipitates’?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Lithium absorbs more Ni the higher the temperature – at some point it gets super saturated, lowering the temperature would FORCE precipitation, and not necessarily in the same place. Nucleation of precipitate clusters would occur throughout the Li. In the next heat cycle, you would get Li dissolving not only from the clusters but from bulk Ni elsewhere – over time and cycles, more and more nano clusters would form in the Li and become progressively more resilient.

      This is my hypothesis and supported by chemistry and data from papers that Ecco subsequently found.

      • Mats002

        Thanks and some questions:

        – Is that process known to be exothermic?
        – How is that process good for LENR?
        – Is H or H2 involved, if so how?

        • Bob Greenyer

          1. Don’t know
          2. More Ni clusters of potentially same size – plus Rossi is known to cycle temps.
          3. Don’t know

    • Ted-X

      The Ni-precipitates might form in the gas phase as well, if there are traces of carbon and oxygen in the mixture (with the temperature cycling, nickel would form volatile carbonyls, which would partly decompose in the gas phase to nano-nickel once the temperature is lowered).

  • Stephen

    Could the difference between the TC and Optris be due to spectral radiated effect versus a TC thermal absorption effect? If the emission is not purely Black Body but radiating in IR for some other reason for example? Just pure speculative question on my side and I could be very wrong in my assumptions.

    I agree it’s more likely at this time to be due to a physical change in the TC’s somehow however.

    Were both used during calibration?

    • Ged

      We’ll just have to rely on the Optris, as both TCs seem to be unable to handle this accurately. They see the trend at least, but the null is either degrading or coming loose (despite being cemented) and exaggerating the trend.

      • Obvious

        This is a big raspberry for complainers saying IR is inferior to thermocouples. But a good example of why using both is a good idea.

        If another set of thermocouples was connected in series, to do differential thermography on the two sides, that might be an interesting extra data point, if adding another TC signal and bunch of wires isn’t a huge hassle.

        • Ged

          I am So glad they used both, otherwise it would be really hard to interpret the data.

          I really like your idea. It would allow correction of TC degredation/connection drift.

          • Obvious

            I don’t know if it could be used for corrections, since there is room for the same types of errors. But it provides corroboration of the difference and excludes TC problems if it is reasonably the same.

          • Bob Greenyer

            On the active side – we have another TC – it is used to measure the temp for PID – we capture that in the Logbook.

          • Ged

            Excellent. Be good to see what it is also saying.

      • Obvious

        I would like to add that I have experimented a lot with attaching thermocouples so that they give a comparable temperature to an IR surface measurement. It can be fiendishly complicated, because the attachment process almost invariably changes the surface characteristics. Metals aren’t too bad, but ceramics and other porous or rough surfaces are especially frustrating.

    • Obvious

      We know for certain that alumina does not radiate blackbody. The camera is detecting at nearly the perfect bandwidth for alumina, however, close to matching the peak emissivity band of alumina. It is possible that the emissivity does change slightly over the temperature range, affecting the camera IR calculations for temperature.
      Differential temperatures of the same material in the same view, even with a wrong emissivity setting for the IR camera, will be very close to being the same as with the correct emissivity, unless the temperature difference is quite large, or the emissivity value entered into the camera is very wrong. The temperature difference will have the stronger effect compared to wrong emissivity value, all else being equal.

      • Stephen

        Thanks Obvious

  • Bob Greenyer

    Could the slow growth by both sides maybe an offset due to the lead well and lead shield heating and presenting a warmer IR background to the cell?

    • Ged

      It wouldn’t be a slow growth then (maximal in minutes), and it would be completely temperature dependent (not happen at lower temps). Also, it would be seen in calibration too.

      Edit: For reference, lead has a Very low heat capacity, a third that of copper, at 0.128 c for J/gm K, so it would heat up and cool down very fast.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – it would be in calibration also. Perhaps, the bookend calibrations without a cool down.

  • Sanjeev

    Meanwhile me356 reports more success:
    Today I was able to get excess heat again with COP near 2, then reactor
    failed due to a bad sealing that started to melt. Reactor was much
    bigger than previous time thus produced energy was in range of 1kW.

    This time I was able to trigger excess heat from 350°C external, then
    temperature increased to ~700°C external just in 4 seconds. Internal
    temperature was higher.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?postID=17337#post17337

    • Ged

      Interesting. If we can replicate him, that would be enormous.

      Looks like the community is finally narrowing down on the parameters for success. Between GS5.3 surprisingly replicating GS5.2, and me356’s work, I think we’re on the cusp of understanding mechanisms and building reliable reactors. Should be able to explore the phenomenon a lot more now.

      • Mats002

        Hurra!

    • LuFong

      Someone should ask him how long it takes him to go from initial power up to get extra heat. MFMP sure takes a long time….

      • Bob Greenyer

        We had no choice – it was a replication!

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Such a steep raise in temperature seems to indicate direct radiative heating.

    • LuFong

      I think when a reactor fails, all bets are off. Difficult to tell what is happening but sharper minds than mine might disagree…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I agree that everything which happens after a seal failed would be irrelevant. But it sounds as if he meant that the event was observed before the failure occured. Hopefully, we will get more information soon.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Burning Lithium in Air gets hot.

          I want to see the data – I know he collects it. It needs analysis about onset time, duration etc. Material masses added.

    • Ged

      Maybe Bob can get into contact with him and see if it’s possible to run the reactor like he is after all the tests are done, once the MFMP is in the destruction phase of testing.

    • Mats002

      Me356 says: “Conditions that are normally giving significantly reduced temperature are good for triggering the excess heat. So you will immediately know when triggering failed or was successfull.”

      What do you make of that? What conditions can he mean?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Reducing pressure, I guess.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          He also says:

          „If you are getting clear excess heat while input power is zero and reactor is still strongly glowing I think that the result is clear.“

          [Depends on how long the reactor stays hot, of course.]

          So both releasing pressure and switching off the power could be the factors he meant.

          • Mats002

            I think he just mean that SSM is clear evidence. But with that much extra juice I can see why he would like to switch off or lower power in.

  • LuFong

    For the increasing/decreasing temperature differential, is there a temperature gradient (left to right, right to left–which ever way the current flows) or maybe a hot/cold spot? You might be able to use the Optris or the Optris data to see this?

    • Ged

      The Optris data is really nifty in the live stream. I don’t see any gradient myself, but it’d be good to have other eyes looking. All I see is that the active is hotter near the middle areas of the active side–and the TCs present a cold spot equal on both sides.

      Looking at the calibration would probably help too.

      • LuFong

        I was watching last night when the difference appeared. I thought I heard (difficult to follow) that the active was running per calibration but the null was lower? Not sure about this. I guestimate a COP of about 1.04 using Optris data.

        • Ged

          For the TCs, that sounds that way.

          The Optris doesn’t show the null lower, in fact both active and null have grown hotter, but more so the active–in the Optris’s readings. The TCs look to be detaching or degrading slightly, so they aren’t keeping up (and null is breaking down fastest) The trend for the TC’s is about double that of the Optris. It’s really interesting.

          For the Optris, the active side TC connector makes a larger cold spot than on the null side, yet active is higher despite that. Pretty nifty.

          • LuFong

            Yes, promising especially if you say that both are running hotter than calibration with the Optris.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Was the active side filled with a ‘dummy’ fuel during the calibration or was it empty?

        • Bob Greenyer

          The equivalent SS fuel holder to the ‘Active’ on the Null hold Alumina powder from calibration to take-down.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Optris software and our recorded data is public here:

      https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bz7lTfqkED9WdGRRYU8tTTNSc0E

      • LuFong

        Data not complete but take a look at the 3D chart for a good view of any gradients.

  • Charlie tapp

    When the destructive part comes along are you guys going to contact me356 for his ideas on activation ? And are you planning on taking some ideas on activating from the crowd I would like to see full power cycled on and off every 2 seconds just to put to rest a wierd annomoly I had once with my back yard trainwreck of a so called reactor

    • Bob Greenyer

      I will try to convince Alan.

      • Obvious

        After trying a bunch of things, please consider (carefully, and if possible) quickly venting then resealing the reactor at 800°C or higher.

        Do this last because it may plug up the tubing.
        I don’t know if you are set up for this.

  • Ged

    Ecco’s latest chart update, with some more data components such as active – null (bottom trace): http://i.imgur.com/ofcKvVp.png

    • Mats002

      A replication of GS5.2, kudos to the MFMP team!

  • Mats002

    What happened to the video? I see a grey mat, the camera that pointed to a computer display tilted somehow?

    • Bob Greenyer

      haha – sorry, we took the bubble detectors away and then discovered some really important stuff that meant I forgot to change the switcher.

      • Ged

        Really important stuff, you say? Don’t keep us hanging :D!

        • Mats002

          Beer?

          • Bob Greenyer

            mmmm beer

      • Axil Axil

        How do you know that the bubble detector is detecting neutrons instead of another type of particle. What did the cload chamber tracks look like?

        Oh, you did not use a cload chamber; what is that?

        • Ged

          The bubble detectors only detect thermal neutrons due to their physics, that’s one of their selling points.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Moreover, they are individually designed to test different energies, we have just 2 – one for fast Neutrons like from Cosmic rays and one for slow Neutrons like from neuclear reactions – the second is the one that went off in the range of late 100s to around 250ºC in the core.

          • Ged

            Looks like a number of bubbles in the thermal neutron detector again, even; unless I’m just looking at it wrong.

            Edit: Ok, yes, nevermind. Small bubbles are normal, large is a signal.

          • Private Citizen

            They put it on a textured background that looks like tiny bubbles on video too

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is a new bubble in the Fast Neutron detector

          • Ged

            Wow. This run has been a stunning success if only for the neutrons, let alone the rest.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ecco’s latest chart on the rate count meter attached to the x-ray probe showed that as we raised and lowered temperature upto the highest yet last night – the x-ray count followed.

            We are planning to do a step change.

          • Ged

            Amazing, Bob. Seems your theories are proving out so far! This is a good base to jump forward from now.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Why does the pressure still rise, although temperatures are held constant? Is there air leaking in from outside?

            I’m referring to this section: 04/17/16, about 06:30 – 08:15.

          • Bob Greenyer

            H2 coming out of Li / Ni

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe one could accelerate this process by applying mechanical force (similar to shaking a bottle with a carbonic drink)?

          • LION

            Good Idea. To see what might happen, buy one bottle of pepsi and drill a small hole in the cap, remove cap and drop in several murray mints tied on a piece of cotton and quickly replace the cap, = soda fountain. This way there is no need to SHAKE the bottle. Just horses for courses. Supersaturate the sponge, just like F.AND P.did with D2 in Palladium Lattice.

          • Axil Axil

            Will the bubble detector reactor to exotoc neutral particles?

          • Ged

            None I think anyone is aware of. But if the GS5.2 is producing exotics that could, that would in itself be absolutely incredible.

          • Axil Axil

            FYI

            If you don’t see neutron activation around the device, then the bubbles may not be caused by Neutrons. There are a possible zoo of strange particles involved with LENR, including kaons, pions, muons, and ENPs.

            The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.

            Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.

            http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/341fig1.jpg

            That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell’s glass reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.

            The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours.

            If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.

  • Bob Greenyer

    @All

    You can download the drivers for the main scintillator here:

    http://www.spectrumtechniques.com/software_downloads.htm

    It is UCS30. With this software, you should be able to group load or additive load sequential 10minute samples together to create larger sample times. The data is uploaded every 10 mins here:

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bz7lTfqkED9WcGVpMXZYaWNVRmM

  • Ged

    Interestingly, the divergence between the sides seems to have died out according to the Optris, after doing those maximum high temp cycles (close to Ni melting temps probably), particularly at the current 650 C temps. Looks like the LENR reaction may have been burned out by the super high temps (according to the Optris).

    • Bob Greenyer

      I just gave a hypothesis as to why that may be – and people can use custom areas on the Optris data already published to determine if my hypothesis has weight

  • Bob Greenyer

    New Stream

    Closing out and into free testing

    http://youtu.be/-QMLRSi0kzk

    • Ged

      Then we can start having fun!

      Edit: Well, MORE fun, I mean 😉

      • Bob Greenyer

        First need to test the de-coupling TC / Optris averaging relationship.

        • Ged

          Definitely yes please.

        • Matt Sevrens

          Please share the processed .dat files after you’ve excluded the TC area.

        • Matt Sevrens

          Looks like you’re right. Temp diff in optris data raises in direct proportion to temp diff in TC data.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      That explains that. Even the active has broken away a little it seems, but that poor null is really having a sad day.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The New optris zones is telling a different story

        • Mats002

          Good morning from Sweden! I guess its about midnight in Alans garage? Interesting temp readings with the new Optris areas. It is still a temp diff of about 20 C between Active and Null but not at the TC terminals. They are much lower and same temp.

          Me356 reported that XH can come from any place in the reactor, not only from the fuel capsule. Vaporized Li spreads and is the source of heat. Anyway – have you done any wire resistance measurements per side yet?

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is interesting that the Optris is still pointing to a hotter ‘Active’ side.

            We do plan to do a wire resistance measurement.

          • Mike Henderson

            >Excess heat can come from any place in the reactor, not only from the fuel capsule.

            That pretty much invalidates the “Null / Active in a common tube’ design of the experiment. Ouch. Calorimetry of a single chamber, or isolate the Active from the Null side.

  • Obvious

    What I have been using are stainless steel hose clamps, raised up from the tube with several standoffs made of porous ceramic tubes, one of which traps the thermocouple to the tube, with the tip in the hole. After much testing, this has been found to be close to isothermal with the surface. I use ceramic fish filter tubes, roughly 8 mm long and 8 mm in diameter. They are frustrating to install but work for me. They look sort of cool, too. The screws must be stainless also; some cheap clamps have plated screws and stainless bands, and the plating fails rapidly in the high heat.

  • e-dog

    any signal?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Need to do analysis by grouping together 10 minute samples

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Alan Smith

    This looks like a good place to post an advert for someone interested in experomewnting….

    HELP WANTED. Lookingforheat are seeking anyone with free time (A retired science teacher perhaps, or technician) who is interested in helping out ‘hands on’ in Lookingforheat’s reasonably well equipped LENR laboratory/engineering workshop on the East side of London. This would mainly involve monitoring experiments, helping to build equipment and suggesting and researching possible new methods. And drinking tea.

    We are an equal opportunity company and pay all staff members the same wage. By which I mean everybody has an equal chance of doing something dumb and we all pay ourselves nothing.

    If this amazing opportunity appeals, please contact me via Lookingforheat.com.

    • Skip

      Hmmmmm, sounds like my current job.

      • Alan Smith

        Ah…but do you get free tea? If you do, I will raise you a bacon sandwich and free cookies.

        • Skip

          😂

          Thanx for the offer. Also to my current and past hosts in LENR…

          Today I get a motorcycle to ride…

          • Skip

            In all seriousness, I highly recommend this offer to those interested and suitably available . Very personally rewarding…

      • Bob Greenyer

        After we have done Ecco’s re-hydrogenating test we have another test planned in light of the new patent granted to Piantelli.

        Other than H- production at special Ni Nano-clusters, he is putting forward several other ways to create H-, the preferred embodiment is a Microwave generator, but since we don’t know the suitable frequency and it would take too long to design and build and even then it would change the way we could monitor the cell – we are going to do a quick test using one of the other suggested embodiments.

        We have a UV light we could dangle above it. but not sure that would penetrate the cell.

        We do not want anything that could activate the cell or contaminate the surroundings, so we are proposing our sealed Cs137 check source, the very same one used to calibrate all of the various radiation detectors employed in this experiment. We can wave it near the active cell for a period of time and see if there is subsequently enhanced heat output. The source is only 1uC so it is a long shot, but it is non-destructive and the energy of the gamma is sufficient to penetrate the cell and ionize the H2.

        From Piantelli patent.

        “For example, a step can be provided of prearranging near the active core a radioactive material such as 137Cs or 90Sr”

        • Sanjeev

          I suggest building a reactor with HV ionizer like a spark plug or electrodes. It seems this is an essential prerequisite. It also looks like that a catalyzer is nothing but a substance that can ionize the H2 (or at least break it into H atoms). Possibly the LAH or metallic Li can serve as sources of H-.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Li+H- (LiH) does, as I have said before

          • Sanjeev

            Why are we not seeing any significant excess heat then? What else is missing?
            Will increasing the fuel amount by 10x increase the signal (excess or radiation)?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our next test that is fully compliant with Rossi’s patent is use of enriched Ni – we will start with 62Ni.

            Also – as I have said recently, it is clear to me at least that the Li + Ni should be in one area and the LiAlH4 in another. H can travel between.

          • Axil Axil

            MEMP has not followed our suggestion to pre-process the the fuel with an arc from a rare earth doped electrode. This will fracture the nickel microparticle and sinter them. It will also add all sorts of rare earths to the surface of the nickel as seen in the Lugano test, and it will coat the nickel with lithium.

            MFMP must feel that suggestions about the LENR process are not a priority in their testing plans.

        • Ged

          Sounds like a cool idea. Goodluck!

          Edit: hands can take the highest yearly dose of radiation, but may be wise to wear a face shield/body apron and hold it with tongs to minimize exposure to the rest of the body. ALARA and all that ;).

        • Axil Axil

          This article can help

          http://www-old.ias.ac.in/jarch

          The Negative Ion of Hydrogen

          A. R. P. Rau

          Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University,

          Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-4001, USA.

          The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth’s ionosphere (Rau 1999).

          you can stimulate the H- by using the absorption frequency as found by using the light equations

          http://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/LightEquations2.html

        • fact police

          The source is only 1uC so it is a long shot,

          A very long shot. If every gamma ray from a 1 uCi source produced an H- ion, and every H- ion resulted in a heat producing LENR reaction releasing say 20 MeV thermal energy (a very high estimate), the total power would correspond to

          3.7E-10 * 1E-6 * 20E6 eV * (1.6E-19 J/eV) / s = 1.2E-7 W, or about 0.12 uW

          Taking account of the solid angle subtended by your reactor would reduce that by a few more orders of magnitude, and taking account of the very low cross-section for H- ionization, another few, to say nothing of the LENR probability itself.

          In the end, the expected power would be much less than a billionth of a watt. That’s not easy to detect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – it is a long shot. Thankyou for adding the metrics!

          • Ged

            If it chain reacts while in the presence of the stimulant, then we may see something. I suppose that is what the patent is implying will happen; shall be interesting to see.

  • artefact

    New stream:

    *GlowStick* 5.2 Free testing hold
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDyhuhWVjwo

  • Ged

    How would that be a control? What would it control for?

    • Roberto Siquieros

      Cosmic rays?

      • Ged

        Already being controlled for by the fast neutron detector that is side by side with the thermal neutron detector. So, what would another room do, what would it control for?

  • LION

    I like your use of the word CATALYST, Martin F. often spoke of them, once pointedly in a BBC Horizon Program. It seems Andrea Rossi was paying ATTENTION.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest Live Stream

    http://youtu.be/1XHE4ccw-Uo

    • Obvious

      So what is the general plan now?
      I see a couple of new bubbles.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The bubbles are from cosmic rays as they are in the fast neutron detector – this helps to show that the thermal neutron detector does not see them as we had 3 in the fast in a 10 hour period and nothing in the Thermal detector (the clearer one on the left).

        We are readying all the measurement equipment for a fast spike to really high temps.

        Last night (California time) we went to the highest temperature yet, and ecco has done a nice plot showing the increase in the count rate from the x-ray detector during the up down – it was even noticeable on the 10 min data from the large NaI where sequential samples showed counts over 16 in channels.

        http://imgur.com/jaYUQCB

        The sudden jumps are artifacts
        Thanks again to ecco for his analysis

        We hope that the fast spike might show a step in the rate count

  • Bob Greenyer

    Oh, Man – this is so cool, Dredlig found the exact time the 2nd Fast (cosmic ray) neutron appeared in the Right detector last night. Watch the bottom left window, it will change to the bubble cam view.

    https://youtu.be/1L-Oet3zPJc?t=1h5m

    This explains why I am convinces I saw the second thermal neutron appear at approx 250ºC internal, right in front of my eyes when I was showing Skip the first one that appeared between 170 and 250ºC.

    • Axil Axil

      MFMP cannot tell if the bubble was formed by a neutron or an exotic neutral particle unless they have detected gamma radiation coming from that bubble. The bubble might have been produced by an exotic neutral particle (ENP) that has escaped from the reactor and catalyzed multiple secondary reactions in the liquid inside the test tube. No detectable radiation from the bubble means that the bubble was caused by a LENR reaction.

      If ENPs are floating around the lab, MFMP personnel could be breathing them in an LENR reactions may be happening in their bodies.

      I beleive the the ENP might be a nanoparticle of a LENR activated hydride that can exit the hot reactor. MFMP for some reason does not want to shield the reactor with a steel protective shell that can confine hydride nanoparticles from escaping from the reactor. One ENP can catalyze 10s of thousands of LENR reactions. Maybe that is why that bubble is so large.

    • Ged

      That is pretty sweet to actually see happen like that. Literally, blinked and it was there.

    • hempenearth

      1:05:05 the bubble was not there and 1:05:06 the bubble is there ! Much better way to see a nuclear reaction than a mushroom cloud!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Agreed!

    • R101

      I thought it was Uncle Sausage who pin pointed the appearance 🙂

    • Matt Sevrens
      • Bob Greenyer

        Very nice indeed

      • Ged

        That is really nice, thank you again! Clearly nothing in the sub 400s, in agreement with hypotheses.

        • Mats002

          Do you mean the sub 400 Cs? And what is the hypothesis about that?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I do not know Ged’s hypothesis, but I would say if the difference rises with temperature and is not detectable at low temperatures it seems likely that radiative heat transfer differs on both sides.

          • Mats002

            OK and what could cause that if not LENR? Uneven amount of cement on top of the heater coils? Color shift in cement? What?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            As I wrote below, metallic condensate on the inner reactor walls which reflects the IR might be a candidate. Post-experiment calibration will clarify that.

          • Mats002

            Yes that’s a good one. I am out of suggestions now.

          • Ged

            Just that LENR in these “Hot-cat” setups doesn’t generally start till higher C than that. Nothing mysterious!

          • Mats002

            I thought maybe you refered to some theory or patent. So here we are with a replication of XH again. Hmmm.

          • Matt Sevrens

            From Parkhomov:

            “The system begins to produce anomalous heat at around 4-500C (as far as can be determined) but starts to ‘go critical’ and produce a more rapid thermal output at around 600/700C. then the thermal output takes off until you reach around 1000C. At this point the reaction may go ‘supercritical’ with a very rapid temperature rise until the fuel melts at around 1450+”

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer

    So the Optris was still indicating a 20ºC differential at the higher temperatures – it is just that the TCs have de-coupled and so are not reliable now.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe metallic condensate on the inner reactor walls acts as an IR reflector.

      • Ged

        A post calibration would control for that. But, that post calibration was done with GS5.2 and there was no effect of such seen then. Relative magnitudes I guess.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          They will certainly do that. But before they shut the reactor down it would be nice if we could see some freestyle stuff. Stimulation by mechanical vibration, RF, magnetic field…Provided that it can be done in a safe way.

          • Ged

            Completely agreed! Also, I would love to see them cool it down to room temp and then heat it back up through 250C again to see if more neutrons are spawned—assuming it’s not a first time trigger event.

          • Mats002

            Good suggestions!

            What about measure the voltage in the middle of the heat wire at high temperature before going into destructive mode?

    • Argon

      Just guessing without any calculations:
      – TC.s attached to tube actually partly prevents them to radiate part of the heat as you can see in thermal image, thats why they shows higher readings in the first place compared to Optris.
      – Still TC:ss leads part of the heat from tubes to bigger surface of TC attachment by conducting (thus lower surface temp of TC:s THEMSELVES according to Optris – tricky eh.)
      – Maybe it is active that came to loose, not other way around, thus conducting less heat away. It would be then about thermal flows, so even small difference in conduction would make a difference in these temps. But I cannot estimate is it still meaningfull amount, just guessing.

      Suggest you study BOTH TC contacts carefully after test.

      • Ged

        There are high quality pictures of the TC attachments that Bob posted below. The null is definitely falling off more so than the active, but the active TC’s attachment is still slightly cracked. This is why the null TC reads so much lower than it should.

  • Alan Smith

    No surprise about the RF. I have found that even a powered-up but empty reactor will emit enough RF to set off a MW alarm at 6 feet away. Stray EM harmonics from the coils I guess.

  • Mats002

    Mid-wire-Volt-test-at-high-temp-while-temp-diff-remains!

  • Ged

    If my eyes aren’t deceiving me, it looks like there’s another large bubble in the thermal neutron detector (left), almost at the very bottom of the detector.

    http://s3.postimg.org/pyzdyurjn/Untitled.png

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are right, it has happened at low temperatures, but we have not added the H2 yet – that comes later today.

      Actually, he manual says you cannot count the ones in the bottom dome.

      The two in the Fast detector appeared as I held it in my hand after a reset. spooky.

      • Axil Axil

        Why, spooky?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Just holding a fast neutron detector in your hand and then witnessing 2 bubble appear between looking up and down… just spooky… those neutrons had to pass through my hand.

          • Axil Axil

            One way that we can tell if the bubbles where caused by fast neutrons is if the fast neutron detector is placed in a neutron moderator which would reduce the energy of the neutrons to a lower level below the detection threshold of the detector, Water or hydrogen are good moderators. Place the fast neutron detector in a bottle of water and the bubbles should all go away as the fast neutrons are turned into thermal neutrons.

            If the bubbles were cause by muons, we should still see bubbles in the detector placed in water.

          • Axil Axil

            There seems to be a tremendous number of bubbles in the high energy neutron detection tube. Be realistic, can there be that many high energy neutrons at large in the lab?

  • charlie tapp

    @mfmp what would happen if thermal couples were not directly attached but spaced a millimeter away to avoid them from detaching. seems the biggest problem is this. as long as they are calibrated this way should be very reliable it would just be a little bit off but the calibration would be the same amount off so no problems other than exact temp data. it may need shielded from air movement but that is fairly easy. or maybe a saddle stand attaching thermal couples to them and setting reactor on saddles. just for thought

  • Steve H

    Some time back – I read that type N thermocouples were used in a brick manufacturing business. They have many positive and stable properties with a good output voltage.
    This is an excerpt from the information that I submitted to MFMP back in 2012, comparing type K to type N.

    Type K thermocouple:-

    Sensitivity 41 µV/ °C, Range -200 °C to +1250 °C.
    Causes a deviation in output when the material reaches it’s Curie point (magnetic state change), at 350°C.
    Prone to a gradual and cumulative drift in thermal EMF on long exposure at elevated temperatures due to a compositional change caused by oxidation, carburization or neutron irradiation that can produce transmutation in nuclear reactor environments. Manganese and aluminium elements from the negative wire migrate to the positive wire resulting in a down-scale drift due to chemical contamination. This effect is cumulative and irreversible.
    Experiences short-term cyclic change (hysteresis) in the temperature range 250 to 650 °C.
    Produces random perturbation in thermal EMF between 25 and 225 °C due to magnetic transformations.

    Type N thermocouple:-

    Sensitivity 39 µV/ °C, Range -270 °C to +1300 °C.
    The Curie point is below 0 °C.
    Resistant to oxidation with enhanced thermoelectric stability relative to other standard base-metal thermocouple alloys.
    Type ‘N’ thermocouples are not merely an improvement but should be considered as the optimum – overcoming all the disadvantages of not only type ‘K’ but any nickel based thermocouple.

    A paper presented by Barbara Hudson in relation to the use of type K thermocouples in the clay-brick manufacturing business concluded that they should change to type N.
    They were concerned with the problem which occurs between 500 °F to 1020 °F (260 °C to 549 °C) due to short-range ordering, where an erroneous EMF is produced. The paper goes on to discuss the problem caused by hysteresis and cumulative drift when cycled at higher temperatures – which is an area we would expect this research to achieve with further work. (this was in 2012 before LENR was capable of delivering temperatures above 600 °C – hence my comment).

    Their ultimate solution was to select a type N thermocouple – (developed by Noel Burley at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation in Australia).

  • Matt Sevrens

    Reprocessed Optris data is here:

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3RxsouGjrzFREF1X2RzYTdEa1k&usp=sharing

    Includes both original Active and Null areas as well as the Active L / Active R and Null L / Null R defined later in the run.

    Looks like there’s still a temperature difference and it’s larger than what was seen in 5.2.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • US_Citizen71

    For the next version of the GlowStick why not just have the thermal-couples pressed against the outside of the reactor? Put them on the end of an alumina rod with double holes for the wiring. Put a block of alumina underneath with a hole drilled for each rod. Drill a smaller hole through the bottom of each mounting hole to bring the wires out. Put a spring in the larger hole to push the rod up. The spring will hold the thermal-couple against the reactor body. Any thermal expansion will be taken up by the spring. If needed add a shield between the block and the reactor to prevent the springs from getting to warm to flex.

  • Ged

    On the live stream, MFMP just tested the wire resistance between the two sides while the device was hot.

    dredlig posted the results in the Youtube chat: “From Bob: From Alan Goldwater ‘It’s 16.94 v on the active side and 17.02 v on the null side. The difference of .08 volts is just 0.5%. The test partly melted the plastic probe clip, so I won’t repeat it but I think this puts the question to rest.'”

    • Obvious

      That is pretty good.

      Tip: I made some test probe extensions from gas stove igniter electrodes, which have porcelain tube bodies and heat resistant extension leads, after melting several test leads.

    • Mats002

      I am sorry to be a picky follower especially as Alan burnt his fingers :/ but at the readings there where about 300 W of power in which gives just below 400 C and XH starts above 400 C. If change in resistance is the cause of diff in temp that could not be measured at less than about 500 W power in.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Plots of temperature different and Null vs Active Optris data. Two sampling methods:

    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/6/null-vs-active/?share_key=UdtiyDcvYiYTOGBaSjuhk7
    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/7/avg-nlnr-vs-avg-alar/

    • Ged

      Beautiful, thank you so much.

      It’s good they tell the same story, though the new sectioning of left and right to avoid the cool spot caused by the TC’s cement lump is much less noisy. Both still show the slight temperature dependence. Also, that the max temperature cycles seemed to have killed it slowly. Break down of the active sites/geometries perhaps.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Really nice Matt – around 37ºC in when the core is at 1280ºC – that would be the highest differential yet.

      • Mats002

        Nice Matt!

        Now: how to rule out diff in power-in? Or any systematic error that explains this difference?

        Of course some new/extra stimulation that kicks up the new fire would be exciting but until that happens, what scenarios – no matter improbability – could be the cause for the diff in T behaviour?

        • Mats002

          Like if the wire on Active side have one more turn but same length from middle to power feed terminals. With a resistance meter it would show half ohm on each side but under load the extra turn will give higher inductance dissipating more EM radiation on that side. The more power in, the more the extra turn will impact the skew in T.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The resistance same before, likely afterwards, same length, turns. Voltage very similar in operation.

            I want to have a look at the other side using a mirror in the same frame, just to check.

          • Charlie tapp

            Along with e dog I am kinda lost on what all is being tried out on free testing 2. I have checked all posts on every thread but not a lot of posts about it. Also wondering how long are you guys able to keep going and befor you destroy it do you have some kind of list you are going to try to stimulate from the viewers? If so I still want to see full power cycling every 2 seconds ( on off) if not I understand. Just curious what’s going on. Thanks for all your work.

        • Ged

          There are plenty of examples of limited chain reactions, in that sense, like photosynthesis, the respiratory chain or any other network of linked reactions. Since LENR has been proposed to use multiple reaction mechanisms within the overall reaction (proton fusion, isotope shifts), if the gammas enter at the top of the chain, they could certainly result in the rest of the chain going off, leading to much higher energy output (again, ala photosynthesis). It isn’t a true chain reaction like the sort that makes nuclear bombs, indeed, as each step in the chain is lower energy than the previous, until the final step is too low to result in any further reactions.
          Chemistry is repleat with such examples, and most proposals for LENR are also the same sort of linked (limited) chains of reactions moving down an energy gradient till ground (ala oxidative phosphorylation).

  • Ged

    I guess we’ll see ;).

    If it stimulates the reaction noticeably, then a chain reaction it must be. Recall, a chain reaction does -not- mean a -self sustaining- chain reaction. In nuclear fission, a subcritical fission reactor uses non self-sustaining chain reactions to generate power in an inherently safer way than a controlled self-sustaining chain reaction. That is, if the chain reaction depends on the radiation from the cesium, then removing the cesium will cause it to peter out eventually. It would just be seen as a production enhancement, and then a return to normal non-enhanced production rates–exactly as the patent is saying the cesium could be used for.

  • e-dog

    any chance of a summary? And where we are at now?
    In the mean time i will read the thread.
    Im guessing no signal … yet

  • Bob Matulis

    Well done MFMP! It appears that excess heat is reliably being produced with this set up. (Two consecutive successful tests!) At what point will Calorimetry be pursued? I would love to see a Parkhamov style set up that would accurately and reliably measure the quantity of excess energy produced and determine a COP.

    • US_Citizen71

      I’ve been saying that since January.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Difficult to measure radiation and as tedious as looking at a *GlowStick* is for a few hundred hours, try looking at an old enamel pot for the same length of time!

        • US_Citizen71

          It won’t make good TV, but the data will be more accessible mentally to a wider range of people. I understand why you needed to do the replication first. : )

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I like Parkhomov’s water bucket method, but I think you would need a higher COP (let’s say, around 2) to get reliable results.

  • Ged

    I think I am not making myself clear enough, and you are misunderstanding? You keep using absolutes, but you missed the point which your own example of combustion makes. I guess it is my fault for not directly debunking your earlier arguments, but being gentle. Also, I am well aware what a chain reaction is, donut airy to your presumptuousness.

    1. Can their be a chain reaction in LENR to some stimulation? Yes, or course. Contrary to your earlier reasoning, a true chain reaction can certainly happen and release both only modest energy and last briefly. You forgot that all reactions need favorable condutions, and even a critical fission reactor works by moderating the probability of a reaction to start the next one, so that energy release is slow and controlled. Just because it is a chain reaction does not mean infinite rate, nor unlimited production.

    If the probability rate at which an LENR reaction triggers the next one is low, then the energy release is slow (low power). If the reaction has limited reactants, it doesn’t last long. Better yet, if the reaction need reactants in particular concentrations and states, and the reaction affects those states, it is self limiting. If the reaction makes product’s poisoness to itself, it is self limiting. In such cases, the chain reaction occurs for a bit and ceases.

    Combustion is a perfect example. As the chain initiator, heat, grows and dispersed the reactants, the reaction dies despite there being fuel. If the reaction is contained so that doesn’t happen, the products of the chain reaction poison it and it dies, despite there still being fuel. Only by cycling out the products can a reaction be pulse sustained and you get an internal combustion engine. Even more interesting, the reactants have to be in the right state in a very narrow range of concentrations to allow for combustion. Combustion can be sustained for a long time only if the heat changes a larger body of reactants from unreactive state to reactive in the right concentration range, and the products are free to disperse (e.g. candle).

    See, nothing crazy with a chain reaction, nor does it mean it’ll go for long or produce high power. See also the hydrogen-bromide reaction, which while being a chain reaction also has a resulting inhibition reaction and termination.

    2. Can the radioactivity spark a chain of reactions that greatly multiply it without re-initiating? Sure, absolutely. If the radioactivity activates an actual atomic or molecular catalyst which enhances the LENR reaction rate, we would see much higher power output. This is the same sort of process seen in the atmosphere where a photon of UV light activates chlorinated compounds (e.g. CFCs), which then catalyst the breakdown and energy release from ozone. Without the UV light, the catalyst would stay inactive and ozone breakdown (power release) would be much slower.

    In either case 1 or 2, orders of magnitude affect the probability, not the strength of the reaction increase. But probability plays a role in reaction rate, and thus power. But how big a role depends on mechanism, so you can’t claim 9 orders of magnitude is a problem without giving a yes tanky mechanism hypothesis. In super critical nuclear reactions, it takes a single stray neutron, so in that mechanism orders of magnitude mean nothing, as even one event is enough for full power output; while in a controlled nuclear reaction, the mechanism is different, and the rate of neutron production with their associated probabilities for further reactions controls power output.

    3. Can the radioactivity spark a chain of subsequent down stream reactions that are not a reoccurance of the original reaction, multiplying the original input? Absolutely. This is akin to #2 above, but without a catalyst, and with a series of different reaction that are enabled by the product of the initiating reaction. See radical chain reactions for examples of these. For instance, the production of 4-hydroxynonenal; once that sucker is accidentally made in your mitochondria, all sorts of resulting reactions fan kick off leading to destruction of proteins, membrane lipids, and DNA.

    So, the fact is your arguments of orders of magnitude for the source energy is a complete red herring and incorrect. Even for combustion, the source energy is unimportant so long as it is above the threshold of activation for whatever first reaction must occur to allow subsequent reactions that release energy stored in the system.

    And as we have seen, there are multiple ways subsequent reactions could occur following an initiator, from classical chain reactions with strict parameters like combustion has, to catalyst activation, to secondary reaction chains. Despite your straw man argument, none of this requires any weird explanations or implausibilities for LENR. But which if any or none of these might be true depends on what mechanism(s) you hypothesize are occurring and their parameters. So until you lay down that framework, your arguments are rather pointless (though you have implied mechanism parameters in the assumptions of your arguments).

    Best of all is empiricle dats of course! So, just gotta run tests to find out the truth :).

  • Slad

    Assuming the coils are producing the same amount of heat, a 37C surface temperature difference at 1022C (null side) gives a calculated COP of 1.11

    http://www.thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/convect/natural/horiz-cylinder/horiz-cylinder.htm

    • Matt Sevrens

      How exactly is the COP calculated using that link? What values did you use for everything?

      • Slad

        e = 0.45
        L = 0.2
        D = 0.019
        Tc = 1060 or 1022

        All the other values are left alone.

        q is the heat flux (“power”) required to maintain a cylindrical surface at Tc

        The ratio of q (active) / q (null) is the COP

        • Matt Sevrens

          Why an emissivity of 0.45? They’ve been using 0.95 in the Optris software settings.

          • Slad

            The Optris works on a narrow band of IR frequencies, for alumina this band emissivity is about 0.95

          • Matt Sevrens

            I’m not sure I understand. Shouldn’t the emissivity used to calculate the temperatures match the emissivity used to calculate the COP?

          • Slad

            The alumina emits radiation over a range of frequencies, this whole range has an average emissivity of 0.45 (at 1000C).

            The optris only sees a narrow slice of these frequencies, which fall in an area of the emmissivity curve where the values average to 0.95

          • Obvious

            What was the actual power in at the peak? It would be interesting to see if the ε’s can be tightened up or if the other losses are big in comparison to the ideal case.

          • Slad

            As far as I can tell, each half of the reactor was receiving about 500W.

            By setting e=0.2 and Tc=1022 the calculator outputs an approximatley ‘correct’ answer

            Re-evaluating this way gives an excess of 50W and hence a COP of 1.1

          • Obvious

            I am having trouble finding the timestamp for the area of the largest ΔT. There is a lot of data….

          • Matt Sevrens

            I didn’t know how to sync the Optris data to any particular time stamp. The time scale is just seconds since the beginning of file 9.

          • Matt Sevrens

            Where are you getting 500W?

            This original graph from Ecco shows an input power of 1030W when the temp diff was 37.

            http://i.imgur.com/mS07Hwa.png
            https://plot.ly/30/~msevrens/

          • Slad

            1030W divided by 2…

            500W per side

          • Matt Sevrens

            Ah

          • Obvious

            So, (correct me if I mess this up) looking at the 0.5% difference in V between sides, the high V side has higher R, which has lower current and therefore lower Joule heating. This is the null side.
            So we divide 1030 W by 2, and get 515 W.
            Multiply 1030 W by 0.5% and get 5.15 W (I’ll round to 5 W)
            Subtract 5 W from the null side, and add it to the hot side, so:
            null side 510 W, hot side 520 W. Not enough to move the T very much, but affects the calculated COP.

          • Slad

            In your method I think the 0.5% also has to be divided by 2, hence about 512W and 517W

            Which… if the voodoo e=0.2 method is a realistic correction and the excess heat is about 45W, gives a COP of 1.09

          • Obvious

            I’m not following you on that.
            As I understood it, one side had 0.5% more voltage than the other. Since the Joule heat changes with ΔI^2, it may actually be higher for W on the hotter side rather than lower.

          • Slad

            The current is constant so the power to each side is inversely proportional to V.

            If V changes by 0.5%, the difference in joule heating between the two coils can only differ by 515W * 0.005 = 2.5W

          • Obvious

            It is more complex than it seems, once the ΔT gets significant. The hotter side will increase resistance naturally as a result of the temperature-related coefficient of resistance of the heater wire.
            It seems so simple until the details start getting picked away at.

          • Slad

            True, but I think if you analysed the temperature vs resistance of the kanthal wire, a 37C difference would only equate to a tiny/negligible difference in joule heating.

          • Obvious

            About 1% change in R over 100°C

          • Slad

            Based on that, I reckon that any more detailed analysis would show at least COP=1.09

          • Obvious

            I doubt it.

          • Slad

            The active side has a 0.5% lower resistance at low temperatures, but this would be cancelled out by the approx. 0.4% increase in resistance at the elevated temperature… The joule heating to each core would be essentially the same.

          • Obvious

            I think it is surprisingly more complicated than that.
            I would like to see it work, but I don’t think the GS5.3 does excess definitively.

          • Slad

            Well, It’s all about the radiation really, innit?

            Sounds like you are volunteering for the math being done properly… 🙂

          • Obvious

            No. Not right now anyways.
            I am focused on getting my lab space re-organized and fireproofed, so the math part of brain just isn’t fully in the moment right now.

            I would like to go over the GS5.2-3 null and active charge details a bit. There is something going on there, but probably not nuclear.

            I will be doing some tests with supposedly inactive charges for thermal effects once I get organized. I have some stainless tubes, black rods, etc., to insert and just haven’t gotten around to doing anything with them. I nearly set the bench on fire last time, and severely cracked the heat shields, so that needs to be really spiffed up before I start up again.

          • Ged

            The calibrations, pre and post, control for a lot of this already. Given the energies and radiation types, it could only be nuclear, unless it is something quite exotic; or there is something really big missed in both pre and post calibrations. But I don’t see what could be the latter, particularly as now this has been a replication of a previous time, and the other GS’s don’t really show much of anything–where the big difference then and now is the pre-treatment of the fuel.

            I guess we’ll all just have to keep looking.

            But there is something I am confused on in this conversation. You were saying the null is getting less heat due to having a higher resistance (less joule heating), but then have been implying that the active being hotter would drive up its resistance and make it hotter? But that would be the opposite–if the active was hotter and that drove up the resistance (less joule heating) it would be getting less heat from the coils by the same logic that was applied to the null’s example. I mean, one of these statements must not be true as they currently read, anyways, or I am just being silly and confused and misread your later statements.

          • Slad

            Sounds like fun! And I guess it’s a bit too early to be talking COP figures before the post calibration is finished… But… If the graphs from the Glowstick 5.3 are correct, and there’s no grievous errors in reactor heat-transfer design (I don’t see any), it’s already well outside of any “chemical” regions of a Ragone plot.

          • Ged

            I must give them huge props for their continued verification tests on the current reactor (trying to see the backside and such). All this due diligence is increasing confidence, and if there is some weird error, they should definitely find it.

          • Obvious

            I don’t think it is chemical, but I do suspect it is a radiance or heat capacity thing of some sort.

          • Slad

            You can plot heat capacity on a Ragone plot 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            Latest stream – Low temperature bubble cam watch

            http://youtu.be/C39M7GPcqRQ

          • Ged

            Yet another new bubble (not counting the one at the very bottom). We may be able to estimate a neutron rate if this keeps up for a few more.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Ged,

            You get the award for chief bubble watcher, I might take the temperature lower to the point we fist saw bubbles appear in the initial run up after adding Li + LiAlH4.

          • Ged

            I think that would be a good idea. It may be a narrow temperature range where this reaction mode takes place that allows neutrons to escape.

            Seems at the higher temperatures, the mode changes and different sorts of radiation are produced but neutrons don’t seem to make it out enough to see in the current set up. But I don’t think we yet know where the upper or lower temperature thresholds are for this activity.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A good summary.

          • Bob Greenyer

            9 seconds after this point in the video stream, a neutron is detected in the upper right portion of the thermal neutron detector.

            https://youtu.be/FJHy_PXjL3s?t=1h32m18s

          • Ged

            It’s gorgeous. Such a surprising number of neutrons; potent evidence. Now to figure out what parameters are triggering their release (and what parameters inhibit) and what it means for the mechanism. That should lead to designing superior reactors/fuel mixtures.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Stoyan Sarg predicted slow neutrons from Ni + 7Li + H2 a long time ago, and re-asserted that before the recent GS 5.3 experiment

            Stoyan Sargs plenary presentation at the NanoWorld conference, 4-6 Apr, 2016, before the start of *GlowStick* 5.3 in which we apparently observed thermal neutrons on multiple occasions, only in lower temperature ranges.

            http://goo.gl/GpWKe7

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Ged

            Does the manual say anything about if bubbles up by the label count or not? As there is one way up in that region too (it’s been there for awhile though).

          • Bob Greenyer

            No – you cannot count them also

          • Ged

            Figured as much. Thank you for clarifying!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yesterday it was at 80W, today 55W – I am moving to 65W in the current step… tomorrow I will try some low temp up/down cycles.

          • Ged

            That is, more heat per input power? And cycling could prove very interesting. Perhaps the neutron a are generated when the fuel enters an active state… So many potentials, need more data :D.

          • Axil Axil

            What causes all those small bubbles in the high energy neutron detector?

          • Bob Greenyer

            It just comes like that, that is in its ‘ready to detect” state- if you look at the live stream now – you can see what a proper bubble looks like. Each detector type has a different formulation to only detect certain types of neutrons and nothing else, that is what has made them industry standard.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Bob, the one on the right is the high energy neutron detector with thousands of little bubbles.

            the on on the left is the thermal neutron detector (says “mrem(2.7”) with what looks to me to be two bubbles, one on the top center right, and one on the middle left of the test tube???

            Thanks

          • Bob Greenyer

            In the low temp test (to try to confirm if low temps would generate Thermal Neutrons) we saw 3 bubbles over the period, at least one themal appearance event was identified on the live stream by a watcher.

            The fast neutron detector shows thousands of little bubbles anyhow – if you want to see a real fast neutron detection bubble appear, we caught one of those on camera also!

            https://youtu.be/1L-Oet3zPJc?t=1h5m

          • Anon2012_2014

            Also looks like there was a spike in both low energy protons and high energy protons due to a solar storm on the 18th through the 20th, more or less. Could these neutrons be associated with that event??

          • Bob Greenyer

            Longer and more experiments will show for sure, but me 356 had already seen neutrons in same kind of detectors but was not monitoring so could not say at what point in the experiment. Whilst correlation is not necessarily causation (and that goes for solar flares) we did not see any thermal neutrons in the preceding week when we went over the full range of temperatures in calibration with just Nickel in the cell. During that time we saw 1-2 fast neutrons per day, perhaps there were solar flares during those days that only produced fast neutrons and left the other ones out. We did not see any thermal neutrons at high temperatures – just at low temperatures and so after the main replication and some other tests, We did a period of low temperatures and again we saw thermal neutrons again. More testing by more people is needed. We did not see thermal neutrons until H2, Li and LiAlH4 was added.

      • LuFong

        Another quick and dirty way, assuming both reactors are nearly identical, makes use of the fact that P ~ T(kelvin)^4. This gives a COP of about 1.12 for the numbers given (1060C->1333.15K)^4/ (1022C->1295.15K)^4.

    • Mats002

      I think COP is higher than that because XH from Active side conduct and radiate over to the Null side so the Tdiff should be compared with the calibration run and that should make COP slightly higher.

      COP 1.1 is a conservative calculation and that is ok with me anyway. Next goal kick it up!

      • Slad

        The crosstalk between reactors at 1060 and 1022C is about 0.4W

        assuming A=0.000157m^2, k=4W/m°C and L=0.06m

      • Slad

        Are the two halves blocked off, or can gas flow between them? If no gas flow, the crosstalk can only be about 0.5W

      • Matt Sevrens

        There does seem to be some temperature bleed into the null reactor but it happens after the supposed peak temp diff.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Latest stream – Active and null backside differential check test starting

      • Obvious

        The mirror view is cool.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is not ideal, but best we could do for a quick test to attempt to support or refute the data over the last week. Unfortunately we seam to have foo-bared the Nickel to a degree (if you believe their is excess) – but this is data that helps discussion.

          • Obvious

            Any chance of aligning the Optris lens parallel to the mirror, after the planned run, but before shutting down, and doing a few temp steps?
            And measuring the angle relative to the lens now? It will help us argue less endlessly about normal versus oblique IR reflectance and stuff. (Just for us geeks).

          • Bob Greenyer

            We might arrange the camera to see the other side more

          • Obvious

            I am just wondering how much the mirror (stainless steel?) angle affects the IR temp.
            Like if tilting it back and forth a bit, if there is a sweet spot where it is hottest in the reflection.
            Not something to fiddle with mid-experiment, clearly.

          • Ged

            Ironically, the nickel getting messed up would be supporting evidence of what was seen before it was degraded. There is definitely some difference, but it does look to be quite a bit weaker than before.

  • Ged

    Looks like a new stream is up!

    http://youtu.be/I7z8_Lt3Uhk

  • Bob Greenyer

    After a Long Cool period, we re-heat and see another Thermal Neutron…

    • Matt Sevrens

      Are thermal neutrons dangerous?

      • Obvious

        depends on your lifestyle …?
        Yeah, they’re bad.

      • Ecco

        Slower neutrons are more likely to interact with matter than faster ones.

    • Ged

      Now that is something fantastic to see.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the relative position to the cell – the image is nearly horizontal.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Top positional reference and shot of backside IR reflector arrangement.

  • Obvious

    The outside TC just did a 5 °C drop. about 11:10 pacific time.
    16:09 time stamp

  • Bob Greenyer

    Testing stimulation with very low 1uC Cs137 check source.

    Cs137 Translator Video

    https://goo.gl/heetsN

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Impressive! What did your instruments say?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well the NaI sees that it is Cs137. The Geiger counters increase. The x-ray probe and CdTe doesn’t see much, but then it is not in line and they are not able to see much above 120keV

        As for heat… not a lot of difference, as predicted with such a small source at a distance – but worth doing the test just to know.

      • WayneM

        After reading much of this, i can’t decide if it clear or not.

        Did the “signal” get replicated?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well, we learned a lot!

          – by following the recipe, we appear to have witnessed excess heat evidence of a similar scale
          – The temperature data is more compelling with the Optris in play and the backside test
          – We saw small number of thermal neutrons only after adding Li and LiAlH4 to the mix, and only during periods of lower temperature
          – We seem to have shown the temperature above which the system either fails – OR – needs ‘re-invigorating’ somehow, this perhaps sets an upper band for this fuel mix.
          – We seem to have shown the temperature around which evidence of excess heat appears.
          – We need more analysis of the spectrum, but what we have not seen is a short time frame x-ray emission, we did think it may have been over a long time frame since the ‘Signal’ bled from trace 7 to 8 in GS 5.2 and this supports Edmund Storms report from 2012 that says that the soft x-rays, when created, have a half life of 109 minutes. Groups of 10min traces need to be analysed to see if there is something of this length

          In short, given the analysis done thus far, we have repeatedly seen evidence of radiation (Neutrons) at low temperatures and excess heat.

          • Ged

            Beautiful summary. Thank you, Bob.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            I’m in awe of you guys for the dedication and time you all put in there. Really great experiment!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks, I got 1 h 10mins last night… looking for a snooze after a bite to eat

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            That’s though… You know, if I ever meet you, the beer’s on me 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            cool, mmm beer…

            Where do you prefer it, on the head?

          • Argon

            Bob, thank you for dedication and big big effort on digging the the truth for humanity.

            My question. Have you ever considered to use spark plug or similar setup as trigger for reaction. Sparks contains lots of frequencies and generates pretty strong fields (ever heard bike sparks from FM radio in all frequencies if faulty plug lead on bike ).

            Additionally, if spark could be caused inside reactor, it would contain UV frequencies even generating ozone (O2) so pretty many flies with one spark.
            After ‘spying’ Rossis competitor (Br…) site and videos, they also really seem have used normal electrical ‘dot welding’ station in their first generation demo and latest demo sounded and looked like normal electric welding also.

            Just a thought.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes, we built the ‘sparky’ cell in Minnesota and Stoyan Sarg built a Tesla type HV generator for us – spark gap and all, currently they are awaiting resurrection because they only had a quick experiment .. it was all before much of our current knowledge and experience was accrued, we had not visited Piantelli etc, etc – but it takes quite a bit of money to run things even when people are volunteering!

            We have discussed it over this week and we would like to put it back in play when we can.

          • psi2u2

            You guys need and deserve a big grant from somebody.

          • Mats002

            No beer! First food and a full night sleep. You guys must be exhausted – boy what a marathon – well done, thanks!

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have just eaten – I am going to investigate the park up the road, try and remind myself what the outside world looks like.

          • psi2u2

            Sounds like a good combination to me. Not that I know anything, but if I did, it would.

            Its just the having three different signals, even if they are at a low frequency, altogether, well the whole of the evidence becomes more than the sum of its parts, seems to me.

            Do you agree?

  • Matt Sevrens

    Assuming LuFong’s quick and dirty equation for COP is correct (I have no idea if it is) the COP over the course of the experiment would look like this:

    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/51/cop/

    • Ged

      Really looks like the high temperature cyclings did break something in the fuel, and hobbled it.

      • Ecco

        I don’t think this is a good assumption.

        The temperature differential might have varied both ways over time, but reactor temperatures only increased all around. See this comparison using bits of a graph I previously made:

        http://i.imgur.com/c4uR5HB.png

        Five days ago at 900W the average IR temperature of the split sections in the Optris camera was >50 °C lower for both the Null and the Active side.

        • Matt Sevrens

          What’s the implication of this?

          • Ecco

            Artifact, or the excess heat not coming from what was previously assumed.

          • Ged

            Or the heat just spreading better than anticipated (breakdown of the alumina felt between the two for instance). There is still a difference between sides much above the calibration, too. Gotta consider all the evidence.

          • US_Citizen71

            It should also be considered that the temperature was taken above the boiling point of Lithium many times. Lithium vapor may have condensed on the cooler null side and during cooling cycles as well.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hmmm – are you seeing the calibrations when you do this?

          By that, I mean, for the DEVICE in options are you able to see the calibration data… if not perhaps it is embedded in the RAVI.

          Can you let me know the two files in question and I can load them in to check this end.

          • Ecco

            The files:

            1) Part 10 – 23:00
            2) Part 24 – 07:30

            The process:

            1) Load one of the video with split sections (e.g. Part 24)
            2) Menu > Tools > Layout > Insert a name
            3) Menu > Tools > Layout > Save layout
            4) Load one of the videos with single sections (e.g. Part 10)
            5) Menu > Tools > Layout > Select the previously saved layout name
            6) Menu > Tools > Layout > Load layout

            Under “Tools > Configuration > Device” I can’t see anything related to calibrations. If you meant “temperature ranges” or “optics”, they’re grayed out; I’m assuming they can’t be selected when there is no Optris camera connected. However, if I enable the status bar (View > View bars > Status Bar) I see on the bottom:

            1) Part 10 – 23:00
            Temperature range=200-1500°C, epsilon=0.950, ambient=29.2°C

            2) Part 24 – 07:30
            Temperature range=200-1500°C, epsilon=0.950, ambient=28.2°C

        • Ged

          Well then, I stand corrected. Excess heat is more heat out than power in, ultimately. So, the heat spread by convection, or perhaps the reactants did.

        • Obvious

          That’s a big jump.
          The 600W area is similar.

  • Sanjeev

    Does someone know what me356 is doing here?
    http://lenr-experiment.tk/
    This is from 16th. I see something strange, when there is a power cut, the temperature shoots up, and there is a rise of 60C with almost constant power input.(I guess).

    • Ecco

      He is not posting information or data at all besides this limited 15-minute window silently updated when he’s working on it. Sudden jumps might not necessarily be due to actual temperature increases. It’s hard to tell.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I will meet up with him again when back in Eastern Europe.

      • Sanjeev

        May be he uploaded it to plotly unknowingly.
        Note the pressure pulses 0-2.7bar. The spike seems to be correlated to the sudden pressure vents. Almost 100C in 10 secs. It will be nice to know his secret recipe.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, that’s very interesting. I wonder what would happen if he’d let the power on. Would the generation of anomalous heat continue, or would it be stopped? The second scenario would be consistent with Rossi’s statements about the necessity of an external power supply to control the reaction.

          • Sanjeev

            From the plot, it does look like the heat will continue to grow rapidly. The PID shuts down the power completely. So yes, I guess, a pressure pulse to start it and power cut to stop it.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I rather thought it went the other way round: Release pressure, and as soon as the temperature rises cut the power. Cutting the power completely could be more effective than just reducing it – maybe because the EM field of the coils would be counterproductive in this particular situation.

          • Mats002

            Agree, maybe not only release but avtively pump out pressure for maximum drop. Only a guess from what he said over at LENRForum.

          • Ecco

            It might also have to do with the mean free path of the atomic hydrogen getting desorbed from the metals used during the unloading steps. It would survive longer at a low pressure.

        • Ecco

          It does seem that temperatures suddenly increase when hydrogen is almost completely vented off, at least according to pressure readings, which might come from a pressure transducer not suitable for correctly measuring a vacuum.

          I previously wrote that it’s hard to tell because we don’t actually know what’s going on and what he might be changing (for example on the IR temperature probe); I did not put too much thought on the data.

          • Bob Greenyer

            *GlowStick* 5.3 LowHigh temperature cycling

            http://youtu.be/__Bd04bf0ao

          • Ged

            Look like another bubble in the refreshed thermal neutron detector. Can’t tell if it is real or a background thingy without a full screen view, unfortunately.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is an artifact of the new placement.

            I am going to do the highest power step of the experiment in a moment 1250W and then park, probably at around 80W (seamed to be a good temp for thermals) overnight with the bubble cam front and centre in a new stream – just debating with ecco if to place it at 160W given the past data.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Bob, did you read this report by Mats Lewan from October 2011? It seems to contain some interesting information about power management and triggering SSM (for the low-temp E-cat, though):

            https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/test-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have that report, I cited it in my first video of the on-going ‘Signal’ release – but thankyou for reminding me – I hadn’t considered this aspect of what it may be revealing.