Fusionist's NiO FiberFrax experiments

Quote from nickec

Would it be accurate to say, Longview, that you hope simpler chemical preparation methods might exist for both the Fiberfrax and the Nickel Oxide? (Simpler than those used by ogfusionist - meaning less time, less tooling, less cost.)

Methods which experimenters of modest means might implement?

Here is a more technical discussion, rather than the earlier that seemed influenced by some IPA ingestion.

Thanks NickEc, for picking this up. To review briefly for others here, I do have some hope at least for the possibility-- assuming the actual device was in quartz or silica. If it were Pyrex or other borsilicate, it would be harder for me to justify much interest.

[but of course if any modification of fusionist's work fails, we cannot blame him. For example, we then have to be wary of the possibility that boron or borosilcate itself might have been participating in some way.....]

Quote from ogfusionist

All the bickering and ranting on this subject now runs well over 1000 words.

What are you saying? This subject is essentially a non-issue.

You have taken quite a few varied positions on your own experiment. Is that where the conflict has been?

Best if we can see notebooks, photos, data logs.... otherwise its just a Pyrex tube that softened sufficiently to collapse under partial vacuum near the expected 821 degrees C.

I've offered you quite a bit of chemical advice, which you seem to have taken seriously. And I still think there are interesting and perhaps promising uses for Fiberfrax with transition metal oxides. But, without documentary evidence, yours is just an interesting story. I promise you that a couple of us here will not forget what you revealed [I may reprise it someday here]... but of course any potential replicators of your work seek full disclosure in the interests of simple efficiency.

You are not in the same league as AR yet... for better or worse.

In the interests of more open communication, you might consider filing a provisional patent application http://www.uspto.gov/patents-g…sional-application-patent

It is cheap, gives you a start on the process, and as a "micro-entity" your cost would be $65, and of course it allows you to promote your invention with protection of its unique features. Read all the stuff at the link. It essentially allows you to get your idea on paper and on the record with a priority date. The main disadvantage is that you must file a non-provisional within a year to keep any priority-- and you will lose up to a year of the patent term. Any ideas in the provisional have to be attributed to the actual inventors, as in a non-provisional. Further, any attribution to others not actually contributing to the intellectual content of the invention (often "the boss") cannot be included as an inventor. Both of those mistakes will make a patent unenforceable, in the US anyway. The filing of a provisional must happen within a year of the first public disclosure of the invention (that would include here at the Forum, by the way.) Any WIPO status for your ideas may be substantially different from the USPTO, in spite of considerable successful efforts to make the two systems completely compatible.

Longview is not a patent attorney nor a registered patent agent.

Quote from ogfusionist

I've certainly taken your chemical advice seriously and thank you for that.

One point is that the pyrex was at atmospheric pressure or greater because there were no restrictions to flow. Reduced pressure was not responsible for the tubing collapse. The transformer power available shouldn't have been enough to cause what I observed. My disclosure has been complete as I review all my posts, and at my age and financial security I have no interest in making money on this as an invention. Also there is the frustration at being house bound with no access to a laboratory for a repeat of the reactor experiment. I'd like before leaving the scene to have someone repeat what I've observed and report sucess or failure. Then I'd rest easy. No fishing here, never liked the idea of using bait. My approach to doing experiments has always been to take varied positions relative to interpreting results.

So, to reiterate simply take a colloidal suspension of green nickelous oxide and soak into FiberFrax (alumina fibers) and stuff into an alumina cylinder with a high temp fiberoptics probe imbedded into the reactor charge. Set up the reactor with hydrogen flow and slowly heat to 830 C. There should be a sudden thermal increase when fusion initiates. Let's do it rather than endlessy talk about it.

Thanks for the concise response.

As you know, I think it is at least worth trying, Whether I myself get to it or not time will tell. If other potential replicators want to discuss the details of your disclosures I am available. If others want to discuss any of my now approximately 10 separate ideas relating to this, I may be available. My current end-of-life commitment is to assist in finding catalytic systems (means to lower activation energies) for enhancing the rates of beneficial, or at least useful, nuclear transformations....

Quote from ogfusionist

"My current end-of-life commitment is to assist in finding catalytic systems (means to lower activation energies) for enhancing the rates of beneficial, or at least useful, nuclear transformations...."

Above is quote from your post. Interesting work, I have a patent resulting from a "seven year shelf life" study related to hydrogen permeation. Just about the time I'd decided that there was no way to change the dissociation of the hydrogen molecule on metal surfaces I found a way.

I guess I should not ask the number of that patent....since that would blow your cover. That is an important issue, and one where one might conceivably pick up modest over unity numbers w/o fusion, or so some think. In any case, I would very much like to read that patent. Maybe we can yet get to the private emails... I believe I once mailed one to you there after you registered as a member.... I haven't checked there for a long time.

Mail sent, see next post pleae.

Fusionist: Please check envelope symbol at my profile (click on "Longview" anywhere) such as above the cartoon of me. Email me back.

Or at least that is how I think it works.

Quote from ogfusionist

I sent patent number as you requested via private mail. Did you receive?

Sorry, I don't see it. Not forwarded to my regular email either. I don't understand what happened to the "envelope" symbol. I know that once I understand it, it will be obvious.

Anyway, thanks for the effort, looking forward to communicating via ordinary email sometime soon.

I do still see the little envelope symbol when I click your name and get your profile. No such luck when I click my own. Maybe I have to formally login???---I'm always on the same machine, have never had to log in, except at the very beginning some 8 months back. I've looked all over, no sign of your email to me, as yet anyway.

I'm sure it's all very intuitive to those who use this genre of Forum.....

Quote from barty

@ogfusionist and @Longview:
Maybe you would use the forums [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] feature? Klick on the two speech bubbles on the dark-grey navigation bar at the top of the page.
There you can write private messages.

It should look like this for you:

Thank you once again, Barty,

"Conversations" does look that way, and it looked functionally good starting out, then I noticed the box for hiding the participants-- which I thought might be a good way to proceed. But it would not allow me to place myself in that category even though I deleted out the more public box. I'm sure the idea is good. The way it works and exactly who sees what under what circumstances is not clear to me. I will respectfully back away until I can gain some more detailed view of it. You can see a couple of old attempted conversations there, by the way. Of course those were way too little, way too late-- probably on my part.

There are other work arounds, I can imagine at least.

Sorry it does not yet work well for this old guy.

So, ogfusionist, after a bit of hassle and a note / question to Barty, who is not likely reading right now, I just sent a note to you via "Conversations". I don't know how private it is. But I think you will see it there.

Quote from Longview

So, ogfusionist, after a bit of hassle and a note / question to Barty, who is not likely reading right now, I just sent a note to you via "Conversations". I don't know how private it is. But I think you will see it there.

I see you are visible to me, but are likely not visible to anyone else, since I marked you as "invisible" at the outset--- and it says that still, and there is an "X" beside your ogfusionist designation here. I am visible, so I guess the initiator is visible (?). But I get that I am visible to me, perhaps not to others as well. It is clear I can name anyone in the "[lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]" box, or at least in a new [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] box. So, for example our discussion as to how to privately communicate so I can send samples of the raw fibrous ceramic we have talked about. I do want to get some of that to you and to all plausible replicators who participate here. I know who many of them are, and still appreciate their work enough to pay for the mailing in the US at least.