me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

  • So: the issue is that the thermal conductivity might change even though you were not "trying" to change it. In the excess power case the inside of the rod will be hotter, and therefore something might change phase (melt, alter crystalline form, etc).

  • The center rod is a lead filled tube. The molten lead transports heat into the part of the tube that is outside of the heater. When you blow cold air on this part of the tube the lead will solidify and heat cannot be transported outside the heated zone.

  • Indeed, but it was repeated for a few times. At the beginning and at the end - same result, same behavior.
    Of course we can find many, many reasons why it was not excess heat...

    The mechanism I propose would be repeatable. It could BTW be a chemical equilibrium change rather than just a physical change inside that alters the thermal conductivity. I think COP=1.5 would be clearer to detect than this type of unusual but not inexplicable behaviour.

  • OK, Me356, I'll bite and ask the obvious question: if "One photo was taken while excess heat was On, second one while excess heat was Off (just 3 minutes later)" what, exactly, was the process or source of the "excess heat" you are referring to?

    What changes? What changed? How was it changed?

    With respect, have you found"secret sauce?"

  • A stimulating signal is producing the excess heat. By adding and removing the signal in his control connection, the LENR reaction responds to the signal by generating a LENR catalytic force that reacts with the stainless steel pipe and generates heat in it.

    This looks like how the Cat and Mouse configuration might be produced. The Mouse produces a LENR catalytic force* that activate the LENR reaction inside the unpowered Cat reactor.

    me365 might be on the doorstep of the means to amplify the COP on his reactor in a major way if he were to add some unpowered satellite realtors that surround this powered unit.

    Getting the Cat and Mouse configuration to work would be a major accomplishment for me356.

    * I beleive that the catalytic force involves the production of muons when the LENR stimulate signal is applied.

  • me356 . PLEASE consider a simple calorimeter to definitively measure excess heat.

    Configure the reactor to boil water, preferably water that is distilled or demineralized by reverse osmosis. A simple kettle will suffice, but insulating the system so all heat loss is through evaporation would be better.

    With the system heated to boiling, record the water level. Run the device for 30 minutes with excess power off mode, measure the amount of evaporation.

    Repeat. Same starting conditions (refill the water and bring it to boiling), but run in excess power on mode. Everything else the same: power input, 30 minute duration, and same water level measurements. Excess heat should cause more water to evaporate.

    The difference in water evaporation between the two runs will give us a lower boundary for excess power with no room for bickering about thermocouple stability, IR camera calibration, or other secondary minutiae.

    That heat is enthalpy of vaporization of water is 40.65 kJ/mol.
    A mole of water weighs 18 grams.
    1 gram of water = 1 cc.

    Excess heat in kJ = excess water evaporated (in cc) * 1 (gram / cc) * 1/18 (mole / gram) * 40.65 (kJ / mol)

    If you prefer kWh: 1kJ = 2.7778*10^-4 Kilowatt hr

  • @me356: unrelated, but are you using the Streaming Python API to upload real-time data to the online graph at ?

    There's an easy way for increasing the number of datapoints shown. You have to set the 'maxpoints' dictionary key when creating a Stream. In my personal tests I found that it can be set to several thousands points without any problem, meaning it can span several hours (possibly even days) of data at a relatively good sample rate.

  • Congratulations me365! I had a few experimental setups in my life and know how it is to get "a feeling" for their behavior. Your observation of termal runaway is also quite interesting in my eyes because thats the same behavior that is reported by SPAWAR engineers from their experiments in the early 90´s (youtube video with szpak). And I´m burning to see the day when you reveal how you switch the reaction on and off :-)

    From my first thoughts a phase change of an internal material is the most convincing objection to your finding. Hope you can rule it out in the coming weeks.

    Perhaps you can share your strategy regarding the publication of the details of your findings: silence until you reach COP 3 or verify it over and over again until you are absolutely sure and then publish or complete transparancy etc...

    Good luck with your experiments and always wear a dosimeter :-)!

  • Thank you.
    I am working at least on a three very different reactors while one is ready for production. I have verified it many times and it works for half year.
    Because of latest findings I believe that COP of 7+ can be achieved with a new design that utilizes plasma.
    This design is even not patented and probably can't be.
    I want to not use lithium since it is very problematic and its usage throws many problems and instabilities. But it is easy way to get high COP, easy from the beginning. Hard to maintain for longterm.

  • me356

    I'd just like to agree with hendersonmj above. You are claiming extraordinary results that will make you famous if they can be verified. To verify them you need some recognised form of measurement that onlookers can trust. Straight phase change calorimetry is a good one because very simple and bomb-proof - as long as you make sure that the evaporated water is dry vapour and does not condense until it is well out of thermal contact with the vessel containing it or the reactor etc. An open system with a lid and a hole makes that pretty easy. And, as Hendersonmj suggest, you can easily compare active test with a control under otherwise identical conditions.

    COP = 1.5 measured from such a setup would make a lot of people take notice.

  • For sure I will manage independent measuring when it will be fully usable.
    For now I am only focusing on the COP. With higher COP it is not that easy to make false conclusions by anyone.
    I believe that working reactors can be shipped anywhere for testing when time will come.

  • You are right, but I wanted just to express that it is not "absolutely" necessary.
    With a proper construction you can still change pressure without affecting Li/LiH - for rapid research it is very usefull.

  • me356, You impressed me when I started to follow your blogging a year ago, and now you blow my mind. If you have high COP and also are able to turn the effect off and on, it is almost too good to be true.
    I have not managed to start my own experiment yet, but I have collected most of the equipment, so I might start soon. What sort of nickel are you using, or do you have success with several types of nickel?
    Keep up the good work.

  • @ me356

    In the Lugano Report, page 29 is speculated cheerfully, looking for a theoretical explanation:


    One can speculate about the nature of such reactions. Considering Li and disregarding for a moment from the problem with the Coulomb barrier the depletion of 7Li might be due to the reaction (H Proton)p + 7Li -> 8Be ->4He + 4He. The momentum mismatch in the first step before 8Be decays can be picked up by any other particle in the vicinity. In this case the large kinetic energy of the 4He (distributed between 7 and 10 MeV ) is transferred to heat in the reactor via multiple Coulomb scattering in the usual stopping process.


    From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of C and O.

    ... C was in the 'ashes' no longer detected!

    On page 53


    Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash

    So my suggestion for you, it could be that we deal with a kind of carbon burning and the 'Rossi Effect' sometimes work and sometimes not, because of the purity of the fuel, if it is TO PURE and does not contain traces of C than there is no 'Rossi Effect' if there is any C in it, it works; and if there is the exact right balance of C and the rest of the fuel we have a self sustain LENR reactor (Maybe Rossi found the formula of this balance). It is just a suggestion and C is already under suspicion to be the secret catalyst, but maybe it is not the catalyst, but the fuel.

  • I believe that there are no emmisions, at least with this reactor.
    I am doing constant measurement with 3 detectors (measurement of alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons), including NaI 2x2" scintillator probe (extremely precise) and it is holding around the background level.

    Even that it was not intended for public, I can share one video from excess heat onset.
    The video is of very poor quality. Maybe it will be interesting for you.
    Excess heat onset from 0:15.

  • A quick question regarding the experiment. Is the housing made of alumina like previous "Glowstick" experiments or is it stainless steel? I read that steel has an ignition temperature of about 816degC odd. If the reactor was made of steel or had steel components, might not the high initial temperature cause them to ignite and burn?

  • GlowFish: This stainless steel chamber is able to operate at 1200°C safely. It can operate at 900°C continuously without any oxidation. I have never had a problem like this.
    Heater is cemented on the alumina tube.
    This issue can be completely excluded as I am able to get excess heat with completely different reactors (made from alumina).

    axil: Not yet. I have just verified that RF noise coming from the reactor is quite intense. Emmision can be shielded with 5mm thick aluminium block by 1/3.
    I am preparing new very sensitive pancake detector for a soft beta radiation measurement.