Freethinker's replication attempts

  • The key to getting LENR to work is to generate nanoparticles. Rydberg matter is best. How does Rydberg Hydrogen Matter (RHM) form?


    Nucleation is the first step in the formation of a new crystalline structure via self-assembly or self-organization. Nucleation is typically defined to be the process that determines how long an observer has to wait before the new phase or self-organized structure appears.


    The probability that nucleation will begin is very sensitive to impurities present in the system. Because of this, it is often important to distinguish between heterogeneous nucleation and homogeneous nucleation. Heterogeneous nucleation occurs at nucleation sites on surfaces in the system. Homogenous nucleation occurs away from a surface. Rydberg matter formation begins with heterogeneous nucleation that occurs on a surface that hydrogen faces.


    Nucleation is a stochastic process where random factors dominate. No two identical systems are identical so nucleation will occur at different times and at different rates.] This behavior is similar to radioactive decay. nucleation theory predicts that the time you have to wait for nucleation decreases extremely rapidly when supersaturated. Supersaturation implies that a solution of more than one element and/or compound and/or their associated phases are present in a mixture and the state of this solution contains more of the dissolved material than could be dissolved by the solvent under normal circumstances. It can also refer to a vapor of a compound that has a higher (partial) pressure than the vapor pressure of that compound.


    For example, hydrogen and lithium can exist in a supersaturated mixture where hydrogen and/or lithium and/or lithium hydride can nucleate nanoparticles of hydrogen, lithium, and/or lithium hydride.

    The generation of nanoparticles in a gas mixture is responsive to the manipulation of the supersaturating condition of the gas mixture.


    Special conditions need to be met in order to generate a supersaturated solution. One of the easiest ways to do this relies on the temperature dependence of solubility. As a general rule, the more heat is added to a system, the more soluble a substance becomes. (There are exceptions where the opposite is true). Therefore, at high temperatures, more solute can be dissolved than at room temperature. If this solution were to be suddenly cooled at a rate faster than the rate of precipitation, the solution will become supersaturated until the solute precipitates to the temperature-determined saturation point. The precipitation or crystallization of the solute takes longer than the actual cooling time because the molecules need to meet up and form the precipitate without being knocked apart by the solvent. Thus, the larger the molecule, the longer it will take to crystallize due to the principles of Brownian motion.


    The condition of supersaturation does not necessarily have to be reached through the manipulation of heat. The ideal gas law PV = nRT suggests that pressure and volume can also be changed to force a system into a supersaturated state. If the volume of solvent is decreased, the concentration of the solute can be above the saturation point and thus create a supersaturated solution. The decrease in volume is most commonly generated through evaporation. Similarly, an increase in pressure can drive a solution to a supersaturated state. All three of these mechanisms rely on the fact that the conditions of the solution can be changed quicker than the solute can precipitate or crystallize out.



    The formation of nanoparticles are best supported in a supersaturated gas solution where the temperature and/or its pressure is constantly changing.


    Heterogeneous nucleation of an alkali metal which includes hydrogen is supported by another alkali element metal(or chemical compound isoelectric mimics of the alkali metals...Aluminum monoxide mimics potassium) sitting on a transition metal substrate. The alkali deposits provides a template form which the nanoparticle will nucleate and grow. Examples of such nucleation template masks are potassium or lithium on the surface of iron or nickel. In the analysis of the Lugano fuel mix, lithium completely covered the 100 micron nickel fuel particle.

    In theory, a mixture of potassium and lithium should support faster development at lower temperatures of a supersaturation condition of a hydrogen gas mixture than a mix using lithium only.


    As documented in the AIRBUS patent, an alternative method in nanoparticle production is electric arcing. The arc produces the high temperatures and pressures needed for supersaturation in the gas that surrounds the arc. As seen in the experiment of Ken Shoulders, the arc will produce a zone of temperature and pressure drop at some distance from the arc where nanoparticles will form. The temperature and pressure drop that results when the arc stops will also meet the requirements of nanoparticle production. A rapidly repeating high voltage electric arc on/off cycle will maximize nanoparticle production in a gas mixture.

  • "The key to getting LENR to work is to generate nanoparticles. Rydberg matter is best."


    Yes, the key is submicron particles. But why go this tortuous route? Submicron particles of nickelous oxide are easily produced and fuse hydrogen at H2 dissociation temperature.

  • Hydrogen and oxygen have a narrow range for explosive properties. Yet surprising results will occur when a container with oxygen is exposed to hydrogen permeation and then brought up in temperature. Gas safety release valves are useless for protection against detonations.

  • Well, a lot of good ideas, and suggestions. Thanks. I think I will consider to cut the filler a bit to allow for a larger volume. Of course, I could lower the mass of LAH, but that would mean lowering total mass as well, as I do not want to departure to far away from the 1:10 ratio. (I have done so too much).


    With regards to the latest developments with Rossi's patent and the revelations therein, I have ordered Li granules, and gas setup for Argon. Have also found a local supplier of graphite powder for security reasons to keep in the glove box, to quench spontaneous combustion of the Li.


    Today I made a new run using a better quality tube, reusing the old coil. The swagelok and transducer seal worked out very well, and at 600 C I had 58 bars. But that is my current headache. I used baked Ni powder, 830mg, 70mg LAH, 50 mg Alumina powder. The Ni was baked 2 hours at ~ 200C. I am seriously concerned that I see no obvious signs of loading in the diagrams. There is still room for it, despite the very high pressure, but I am worried that the Ni powder and LAH is loosing it's pristine qualities, and has become contaminated, loosing the "oomph". The LAH obviously has some go still, otherwise I would not get that excessive pressure. I will power up the reactor Monday and try for excessive heat.


    Another concern is that the process need the very rapid temperature and pressure variations that you get from exposing the shell to ambient air, that you don't get with the insulation. It could also be that the current in the coil is too low, failing to give whatever EM kick possibly needed. This I will not address right now because of the effort gone into calibrating the current setup. I will have to stick with the insulated setup for a while longer. One thing that may be explored is the mode of deploying power. I now use manual control of the voltage to set the setpoint temperature, having effectively bypassed the SSR. In my first run, where I had some interesting data, I used the PID controller for the most part, especially, it was used during hydrogenation.


    But let's see what happens. I have yet a few experiments to do before giving up ;)

  • One way to achieve a quick cool down (thermal kick) is to cool the whole setup using a fan. I.e. forced air cooling.
    If its cooled very fast then it can crack. I'm not sure what will be a safe rate of cooling here.


    A fan? Yes.
    If the pressure is less, then cooling like that could be attempted to be made ( less internal stress). The first step in cooling is to lift the top brick of the insulation, though. It is quite efficient. The fan would accelerate that convective dissipation.. To be considered.

  • I have been busy doing runs, and struggling with either loss of pressure or being unable to rise to high temperatures due to a high pressure. Why cannot things just be "lagom"? (Swedish word for "not too much, not too little". Like "good enough").


    At any rate, was doing a run and had some 50+ bars in my reactor tube, at 400, so I terminated, the reactor cooled down, was unmounted and tube evac'ed. When remounted, the pressure was comfortable 1.78 bar.


    A run ensued, slowly rising the temperature to 1000C. At this temperature the background cpm on the Geiger raised from normal 25-35, to a mean more like 50 counts, and continued to rise roughly linearly or even with a slow exponential slope (in a MA sense). It had a decent number of values at 100 counts, for a total of 1.5 minutes the cpm value was about so high (not a singular value). Highest value was 107. The peak value suddenly and abruptly fell to the elevated baseline.


    I let it run for a while but I'd didn't peak like that again. Solar activity was low, but there were an X-ray event of fairly low magnitude earlier on the day, but I ponder the odds that anything but a really intense solar storm would give me such peaks that otherwise are highly correlated and causal with the actions I take with the reactor. Like, when the power was cut, and the rector cooled, the elevated baseline was gone.


    Test on the same reactor continues today.


    https://drive.google.com/file/…b0k/view?usp=docslist_api

  • A quick question regarding the circumstances around the event. Did anything get close to the reactor during that time? Did you move close to it? Do you have anything nearby that can emit low levels of radiation like a good quality watch with luminous dials or an old CRT computer monitor? Just thinking of possibilities.

  • A quick question regarding the circumstances around the event. Did anything get close to the reactor during that time? Did you move close to it? Do you have anything nearby that can emit low levels of radiation like a good quality watch with luminous dials or an old CRT computer monitor? Just thinking of possibilities.


    You are right. It is a must to walkthrough.


    For a while, where the buildup occurred I wasn't even inside the lab. I have modern lcd monitors, my watches are new smarties connected to the phone. Nothing in the setup has changed, or what is close in proximity. So no, so far I cannot see anything else but that this is a real and local event, emanating from the reactor. I will push for similar behavior today.

    • Official Post

    moving the sensor seems not a good idea (vibration may trigger hits) , but moving a screen (lead, metal, pot of water...) could give a hint if the source is the reactor, or is the sky, the ground, your banana fed rabbit, or interference with GSM...


    if really you have a reproducible phenomenon, one idea could be to make a screen appear and disappear in rhythm and see correlation.


    if water is a good screen, an idea could be to fill and empty an aquarium in front of your sensor (hope your water is not too radioactive). It will eliminate many artifact theories.


    otherwise make a lead shield turn around the sensor, or between reactor and sensor

  • Another possibility would be to have two detectors, on near the reactor and one further away in a line. Assuming the detectors are fairly matched, the detector further away should give an indication of background count to correct the reading from the detector close to the reactor. However that is probably a very expensive solution.

  • Ecco: standard C799 Alumina COE tube (closed one end) 250mm length, 250 bar transducer in open end mounted on swagelok tube fitting connector. ID 5mm OD 8mm, filler rods 3mm diam, SS core tube 85mm, loaded with Ni spherical 5-15 micron, baked 2h at 200C,
    LAH, and Al2O3 sawoff dust from bricks in the follow proportions: (830:70:50) mg. Powder was grinded in mortar about 2min.


    The initial hydrogenation run gave an excessive pressure of 29 bar at room temperature. Integrity of tube and seals class act. Too high pressure for operational work, tube evac'ed to 1.8 bar, before resuming operation, for planned target temps ranging 800-1000C. Elevated baseline in excess of 50cpm detected at 1000 C.


    @Alain: for sure, it should be done. I have no good shields except some AL plating. But put into this perspective: I have now made quite a number of runs the same way, on never have I seen this. Previously, a few weeks ago the device was differently placed, no LOS for the device, change when I saw mfmp setup in one of their latest experiments.


    @GlowFish 2 detectors would be good, but will not happen right now.


    At any rate. As the level of background is also increased, there is some correlation with the reactor temperature. The device is standing 12 cm away from the testbed, looking at the closed end of the reactor, that is exposed to the milieu. There is the odd chance that this is a thermally triggered internal jitter in the detector. More reasonably, the baseline increases may be thermally triggered noise in the detector.


    But we'll see. I continue.

  • Adding that I found a number of Copper coated pertinax boards, intended for etching your own circuit boards, and I have boxed in the GMC. Also the ambient TC has been placed infront of the GMC. Temp is about 35 C. With these changes, the baseline remain at a slightly elevated level of 40cpm (eyeballing) on average, where it's been since temp increased to 700C.

    • Official Post

    yes two detectors, with coincidence detection is the best solution, but it is expensive and complicated.


    NB: about radiations, note that for some LENR scientists (Pam Boss, Ed storms...) it is probable that high radiation, neutrons, tritium, is anticorrelated with heat.
    Like dark smoke and yellow light, in a Bunsen burner, it may rather indicate bad reaction.
    However gamma background of low energy may be good sign. Ed Storms even predict coherent X-rays.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.