me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

  • 1. Yes, but temperature and pressure must be controlled very carefully. With LiAlH4 you have easier control but also more margins to stay in (thus more safe but more possible issues).
    2. Hopefully no.
    3. Boiling.

  • /* Can any skeptic explain me, how this can be achieved (other than with some source of heat) if you have no heater inside? */

    I'm not counting myself as a skeptic, but it could be faked by flow of cooling gas, for example (hydrogen coming from the right side, being more specific)...

  • @me356
    Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions. You have already brought so much clarity to what I have seen and witnessed with my experiments.

    Just a couple of quick questions:
    -Are you using bulk Lithium or powdered Lithium for these experiments?
    -In the video you posted what was the temperature at when you initiated excess heat?
    -Did you initiate excess heat by a sudden reduction in pressure to initiate Lithium boiling?

    @Hank Mills
    Look up the Antoine equation for Lithium.

  • /* Yes, I am sure that you can create similar effects but I have no time to make fakes. It will not help me in any way. Also I dont need any investor or any additional money.*/

    Nobody accuses you here - on the contrary: the experimentalists are the live water of cold fusion research. You just asked the question and I replied.

    But could you for example attach the oscilloscope and to demonstrate for us, how the RF level noise measured correlates with spreading of heated zone? Could you measure the magnetic field intensity or just hang a magnet at the proximity of reactor?

  • me356,

    Very interesting work. Some here have called for you to do water calorimetry. I personally would not recommend that for the type of researcher you are (you rapidly iterate, make changes, and run a lot of experiments). It would be an unnecessary and difficult distraction trying to set up the system. I would recommend conduction calorimetry, which will give you a consistent way of measuring output power. That said, you may already be comfortable with how you are measuring output power, but it is not clear to me how you are doing it.

    Bob Findlay developed this technique.…propose-a-new-calorimeter

    When I was attempting replications, I used a modified version of the technique by converting a tube furnace to a conduction calorimeter. Discussed here in the comments section:…lioh-excess-heat-results/


  • me356: As you might be aware, MFMP is currently doing a replication of their previous GS5.2 experiment.

    Given their setup, is there any specific method they could use to trigger the reaction that you could suggest?

    I second that. Pass it on !
    Let everyone replicate your successful results, while you move on to next version or production.

  • wishfulThinking: pure Lithium in a wire form, temperature was approx. 960°C on the heater.
    Internal temperature was so high that nickel melted at the end of the test.

    I have already created design that allow precise calorimetric measurement nearly without thermal losses.
    I can connect my reactor even to a water grid, tank, etc.

  • 3 cheers to your success!!

    I am wondering how long it takes you after powering on the device(s) how long it takes before you can turn on the excess heat. (Maybe there is a range depending on which device you are using.)

    One reason I'm asking is that it was reported that for Lugano, Rossi had to start up the reactor, and it took him awhile (a few hours if I recall) before getting the reaction going and turning it the controls over to the replicators. The reason given was that the start-up required some finessing and he wasn't ready to give away that secret. So how long does it take you before you can turn on the excess heat?

    Also, have you discovered any trade-offs: for example, do you get more excess heat if you wait longer before turning on the excess heat?


  • @me356
    So - I don't have anything new to contribute here, except a restatement of my very early comment which still looks most likely, and my suggestion for how to get round that.

    The observation of strong differential heating in the reactor rod away from the heater is equally explained by:
    (1) the fuel morphs into a form with an exothermic reaction (presumably nuclear - if it continues)
    (2) the fuel morphs into a form where it reduces thermal conductivity

    (2) could show a fairly sharp change from "more conductive" to "less conductive". Basically the idea is that above a certain temperature the fuel etc behaves like the material inside a heat pipe. This can be a phase change cycle, or a chemical reaction cycle, either can transfer heat from the hot part to the external rod, but only switch on once temperature is high enough.

    To distinguish between (1) and (2) is easy if you have enough excess heat - do calorimetry and as suggested phase chnage, boiling water, is the easiest and most bomb-proof form.

    Best wishes, Tom

  • With my other reactors RF is present too and is even stronger and starts to appear with temperatures around 200°C. It is so intense that even scintillator can see it as
    extremely low energetic gamma peak (or peaks) that are at the specific energies (each reactor has slightly different).

    Silly question, but have you experineced that some reactor/test produce something that hurt eyes? Or make some bad feeling after?

  • me356,

    Even if you simply put it in a large diameter pipe (say aluminum or copper) and put insulation in the ends, you can get a more accurate reading of power output by measuring the temp even in one spot on the pipe. The good thermal conductor of the pipe serves to collect the heat over the whole area of heat produced by the reactor. Since you can turn the effect on and off so easily, you should see a corresponding change in the temp of the external pipe.


  • eros: Fortunately no.
    Jack Cole: Yes, I have tried it a few times.
    wishfulThinking: I recommend so that the pressure is around 1 bar absolute - without external control it is not too easy. Because of safety and reactor integrity it is good to keep pressure low. Then you have to decrease it before triggering excess heat.

    Normally the problem is, that LiAlH4 will give you too much hydrogen, on the other hand you have not too much Lithium for the reaction. So you have to wait very long time if you have no additional pressure control until the pressure is low enough - can take hours - weeks if it is a wrong ratio.
    To allow reversible reaction of LAH that will give you good "control" you need more Lithium - this is very dependent on the composition of LAH.
    Alternatively you will lack aluminium if the reaction is too strong if too much of pure lithium was needed to add (but I guess that this is acceptable for the first tests).
    I recommend to not use LAH at all for the first tests if you have an external pressure control.

  • To explain success of Parkhomov I am convinced that:
    - his reactors were leaky to some degree thus excess hydrogen was wented out, yet there was enough lithium to produce LiH when needed - bad timing will result to null results - different nickel, LAH, reactor design - will not allow excess heat triggering. Absolutely nobody really replicated his work precisely and I think that even Alexander was not able to reproduce it always.
    - his manometer was not calibrated properly so the output was not precise and/or readout in the important events were not recorded, were overlooked or manometer simply not worked correctly (especially due to optical and manual records).
    - he used extreme conditions to start the excess heat that were always at the edge of used materials.

    Even if the fuel was prepared carefully it could be useless due to contamination during the run.

    Stephen Shorland: I think that parallel and serial connection of the reactors where one can interfere with each other can lead to these results. For example if there is some output from one reactor that can stimulate reaction of a second reactor (unused output - e.g. some sort of radiation) it can be utilized for boosting the reaction when second reactor is in SSM. By such cascade you can achieve much longer SSM periods just because you can cleverly harness all the output products. Thus COP can be multiplied a few times even that the basic technology is very same.