Just a thought, why not control input power instead of trying to regulate temperature to a fixed point. Bar rapid changes in the reactor, a certain power should give you a certain temperature unless some other factor suddenly comes into play. It might be easier to spot any excess heat occurring if the temperature fluctuates with fixed input energy. I would imagine that coil power would be slightly easier to control than a somewhat non-linear temperature. Having a coil power that is fixed might reduce temperature and power fluctuations due to the temperature measurement/control process. Temperature limits or trips could be added to prevent runaway reactions if required but don't serve as the primary control.
A question regarding the suspected EM noise interfering with equipment. Did the interference occur with or without the wired TC being used in the reactor?
Regarding pressure. Aren't there safety valves that "burp" gas when the pressure exceeds a certain threshold? Perhaps in the future a safety valve could be added to the reactor tube so that if and only if the pressure should rise above expectations, the excess gas would be burped and you would not have to abort the experiment.
Thanks, I am studying Piantelli, Focardi papers and it seems that hydrogen absorption is occuring around 120°C and more. Actually with temperatures under 200°C it can be few times faster.
I think that we are doing this process incorrectly all the time. If it is done properly, we could see excess heat even at low temperatures.
The problem is, we are not seeing it. Maybe it is prerequisite for Rossi effect, which is boosted by the temperature + Li.
It seems as these papers are very usefull. Even excess heat triggering is described here. There is nothing different then in Rossi system, I think that Rossi found how to move from few watts to few kilowatts but the matter is very same.
I am sure that we are incredibly near the success.
I think you are going along the right track, but I would be careful about conclusions from temperature readings. Was 120°C inside or outside core? How was it measured? Hot spots/cold spots not only from the heater coil, but also locally inside the fuel material itself could be very different from any reading with a TC.
If the cause for pressure decrease is not H packed into the lattice of Ni, but because of surface SPP and Rydberg matter formation then - as learned from Svein and Axil - the process we want to trigger is extremely fast and local. Debye temp for Ni (~178°C) can be a threshold that must be passed, but the average/slow and by that integrated temp readings of a TC or even a pyrometer is far from the true temp in each small spot of the Ni micro powder.
I think you are going along the right track, but I would be careful about conclusions from temperature readings. Was 120°C inside or outside core? How was it measured? Hot spots/cold spots not only from the heater coil, but also locally inside the fuel material itself could be very different from any reading with a TC.
If the cause for pressure decrease is not H packed into the lattice of Ni, but because of surface SPP and Rydberg matter formation then - as learned from Svein and Axil - the process we want to trigger is extremely fast and local. Debye temp for Ni (~178°C) can be a threshold that must be passed, but the average/slow and by that integrated temp readings of a TC or even a pyrometer is far from the true temp in each small spot of the Ni micro powder.
Note that the Debye temperature for Ni probably is pressure dependent, eg.
Magnetic Susceptibility of Superconductors and Other Spin Systems:
Yes but the linked page cover superconductors at very low temps, < 100 K, nevertheless I find this information interesting:
lattice stiffens under pressure giving Debye temp increase giving superconducting temp decrease
and if so we also have the opposite:
lattice softens when pressure decrease giving Debye temp decrease
Most LENR experiments are performed at low pressure or vacuum which would trigger the effect at lower temperatures, "loading" start at a lower temp.
Lugano and Parkhomov hotcat experiments are performed at normal atm pressure, "loading" start at a higher temp.
Just thinking and saying... 
Display MoreI am thinking about getting excess heat.. I believe that to achieve it, we need contant pressure change.
Following steps should be performed periodically:
1. load hydrogen with nickel (slow process)
2. release hydrogen from nickel as fast as possible (theoretically fast process)
During hydrogen release we can observe excess heat if the pressure change derivation is high enough until nickel absorb hydrogen again.
The problem is, we don't know how to release hydrogen from nickel correctly. At least after latest experiments I know how to absorb hydrogen by nickel quite well.
My theory is, that this is only caused by abnormal temperature change and possibly EM stimulation. Thus the heater should be as close as possible to the fuel, because thermal transfer is faster too.
Hydrogen release from nickel can be easier, if Nickel has already enough hydrogen in it and/or if the temperature is higher. Thus few cycles of hydrogenation may be necessary.
I noticed ( see figure 4 and 7 in https://docs.google.com/docume…dxmOoX4FRhZOu6pnGNCFEBdho ) that when I had a dramatic drop in temperature, the pressure increased. It did it at time of death, twice, but it also happen a bit before death, once, making it a bit more interesting. It could be the core melting due to arcing, and degassing, but for the singular event before the first death one can speculate...
The Lenz group, who saw excess heat, also recommends a sudden change of either pressure or temperature.
BEC (afaik) recommends em pulses (Q-pulse) to initiate lenr.
Yes, this could be the event I am talking about - it could be the start of excess heat. I also think that we dont really need pressure under the atmospheric. Only pressure change rate is important. Sudden increase obviously is starting the process.
Maybe that is what is happening in the "ssm" mode. No power rapidly decrease temperature, onset of increased pressure and activity, until it dies out, and then power on again to put temp back on level, pressure leveling, then power off, trigger new pressure increase, and activity, etc etc ... Just a thought .....
FreethinkerLenr2: Yes, I am certain it is correct way. It is not so complicated as it seems to be. We have to do just more experiments.
Yes. When I do my next active run, I will do manual pull down of power (do anyway when I up the voltage to eliminate spikes) manually when I think I am in the zone . My only worry now is that with my insulation, the drop will be much slower, as compared to a non insulated reactor tube ....
I suspect, that you can release hydrogen from nickel by either sudden increase or decrease of the temperature. So in case of good insulation you have to rather increase it.
Hmm... Yes. it is like the charging/discharging a capacitor. But I was wrong about my situation (a bit). The rise time is slow in my system, the fall time quick as it seems (see excerpt of data from my insulated testbed in graph). A cut of power would cause a drop of about 60C a minute if approximating the temperature fall time between 1050 to 850C in the graph (checking another place with less fall I get 47C/min). It would mean a cut time of about 3-4 minutes to mimic the situation in my active run where I saw a peak. The time to get back would be longer, but on the other hand that time constant (or the general shape of the curve) could be used to deduce if there are other processes adding to the energy than simply the coil heating, if it is not obvious that there is a lot more heat after leveling out.
My only worry now is that with my insulation, the drop will be much slower
To be faster reactive, you can compute a curve reflecting the temperature needed, after amortized by your insulation, to generate the external mesured temperature. You can also smooth it then easier to read.
