jeff: E-Cat Replication Attempt


  • Oystla, that is true when the evidence is all ordinary. In this case if all evidence is ordinary we have no reason to believe extraordinary theories - they do not have the weight of support needed. There must therefore be some strong evidence.


    Consider, how could such nuclear reactions with enormous energy density, not be clearly and unambiguously detectable in some of the thousands of LENR experiments? I'm not asking for replication, just a single experiment which is well documented from a source capable of conducting good experiments and writing them up in detail (like Fleischmann).

  • Oystla, that is true when the evidence is all ordinary. In this case if all evidence is ordinary we have no reason to believe extraordinary theories - they do not have the weight of support needed. There must therefore be some strong evidence.


    Consider, how could such nuclear reactions with enormous energy density, not be clearly and unambiguously detectable in some of the thousands of LENR experiments? I'm not asking for replication, just a single experiment which is well documented from a source capable of conducting good experiments and writing them up in detail (like Fleischmann).


    Does this help any, Tom?


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSextraordin.pdf


    Quote

    Extraordinary Evidence


    Scientists at the U.S. Navy’s San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have produced something unique in the 17-year history of the scientific drama historically known as cold fusion: simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.

  • axil,


    No - that does not help at all. How many times do I have to say that journalistic summaries (making a point) are not evidence. The contemporary write-up is - and if of sufficient quality it is all that is needed to be very interesting.

  • Axil,
    The Defkalion device never showed excess. The Papp engine could not be reproduced either by the Rohner brothers or a very good experimenter Russ Gries. What I don't understand very honestly is why you use them as almost de facto references, they don't seem to add anything useful by way of theory or results.


    The Defkalion reactor and the engineering department that developed that reactor suffers from a reputation that is not deserved. Dr. Kim is the guy among the old guard I most admire as a scientist and a LENR researcher. When Kim says that the DGT reactor works, you can be assured that it works.


    The key to getting the Papp engine to work is draining the feedback current that the LENR reaction produces. To do that, the Papp engine used alpha radiation produced by radioactive material stored in the "bucket" electrodes.


    At that time, Russ wanted to have more children so he was afraid of the radioactive nature of the Papp engine so he stopped his experimentation on it. Bob Rohner uses thorium in his buckets and unlike Russ he does get a significant feedback current in his popper but that feedback current is not strong enough to power spark reaction ignition in the other cylinder. IMHO, Papp used radium in his buckets and this was the ultimate cause of both his death and the death of the younger Rohner brother.


    As Holmlid has shown recently, the Papp type reaction produces lots of electrons as the ultimate decay product of mesons production. IMHO, both Holmlid and R Mills have rediscovered the Papp reaction where meson production produces a shock wave of neutral particles from nanoparticle explosion.

  • @oystla,


    Thank you very, very much for the link to JCMNS. I didn't knew their existence and their journal. Now I have read nearly all the publications in volume 13 (2014). For me, it is quite a relief to discover so much reliable scientific publications about LENR.


    In volume 13 I have find nearly everything that confirmed what I know about the influence of background electrons to the BEC-like mechanism of enclosed H-nuclei. But there was another surprise too, the research of Pamela A. Mosier-Boss (page 422). In this forum there were some rapports about the “ash” from the reactor pipe during the Lugano experiments. Nuclear transmutations by fission. I thought this was because of the type of Rossi's reactor (too much heat on small spots). My assumption was wrong, the publication of Pamela Mosier-Boss shows.


    But this has implications. Using palladium as a catalytic metal for cold fusion is impossible when the process of cold fusion slowly transmutes the palladium. There is not enough palladium on the planet for cold fusion all over the world during a long time. Thus there have to be a replacement for palladium. So now I start diving into the data of all the elements to calculate some promising alloys.

  • The attached foilset details the latest run using Ni + Li + Al in a SS capsule at 20-30 psi of H2, depending on temperature. Calibration using a pulsed power source is a bit more involved than for DC, but it can be done by taking advantage of the fact that the heater element is monitored by an IR thermometer, so it is always possible to know the heater's temperature (and hence its resistance.) The rest is just a bit of Ohm's law.


    Unfortunately, the calorimetry is depressingly accurate and repeatable, yielding no measurable excess power. While the plots do not show the data point, I ran the heater temperature up to 1120 degrees and still observed no excess power. The one good thing is that the apparatus is readily disassembled, and it takes only a 15 minutes or so to tear down, replace the SS capsule, and reassemble things.


    Jeff

  • Good work, jeff, albeit the results are negative for excess heat.


    I have long thought that if LENR were as simple as heating NI, Li, and H2, we would all be basking in LENR-heated luxury by now. But no - the suggestion of "internal structure" in the Lugano cell, the (apparent) lack of replications of replications (although I should not be altogether surprised if the dead hands of the Russian and Chinese state apparati were operating here) all suggest to me that there are a lot of things we don't know we don't know besides those we know we don't know.


    Let's face it, without a viable theory for LENR, we are relying rather a lot on serendipity and hunch. No reason to stop, though!

  • I'm wondering if the assumption that just using the same fuel proportions as in Rossi's Fluid Heater patent will result in a successful experiment is correct. Has anybody looked at the patent more in detail, especially at how the powder might be distributed? Earlier today I posted this image on quantumheat.org:




    By drawing the "exemplary wafer" using the provided thicknesses, the fuel layers appear to actually be very thin!


    Curiously, some thicknesses are missing. It's possible this is because otherwise it would be quite clear that the "fuel layers" might be much thinner than expected. The reason I believe this is that recently I dug up from my memory a german LENR patent (see thread here. It's old, but the information could be relevant) which concisely describes that sintering (a huge problem in LENR experiments) can be prevented by using sparse thin films of nano/sub-micrometric partices sandwiched just like Rossi's Fluid Heater might be actually describing.


    So, it's not clear whether a high temperature Parkhomov experiment using a similar powder composition can actually work. In my opinion it could be using a completely different mode of operation, and just filling it with powder won't yield any relevant result, as countless null experiments have showed so far (except for Parkhomov's and a replication by another group in Moscow who used his close collaboration).



    Further, an early version of the E-Cat model described in "Fluid Heater", probably composed of multiple stacked modules ("wafers"), was briefly filmed in a 2012 E-Cat documentary by Swedish television SVT. Here is a screenshot from the video on Youtube, minute 8:10.



    Slightly larger: http://i.imgur.com/AXTo52V.jpg


    Here's another one, source unknown (likely from the same video, but I don't know where exactly. I found this screenshot from old messages on Cobraf):



    Larger: http://i.imgur.com/DH3CBwjl.jpg


    I remember "Cures" writing about it on the Cobraf forum a few years ago. It used externally supplied hydrogen (this can also be inferred from the previous photo), which implies that LiAlH4 is probably not needed.



    (as a side note: it also was reportedly quite dangerous due to hydrogen pressure buildup. Apparently the clamps were for safety purposes)

  • The use of a nickel metal foam might be functionally equivalent to fuel encapsulation with steel. The tendrils of the nickel foam would enclose the fuel particle on multiple sides thus providing the anti sintering effect. This use of nickel metal foam may be a development that Rossi came up with in the Lugano test reactor that replicators are not picking up on.

  • One of the lessons that Godes has taught us is that if power is applied fast enough in a pulse then the fuel does not heat up. This is why I prefer a nanosecond level of pulsed power applied to the fuel to avoid heating and the problems that heating causes. A large amount of Instantaneous power might be effective if applies fast enough without melting the fuel. This might have been the way DGT avoided fuel sintering problems: that is, a very fast spark passing through a nickel foam. The spark is over before the foam or the fuel melts or sinters.

  • @axil
    we all have a lot of ideas. only the results will speak. you told about fast heating frequencies but not speak about thermal inertia of wires around central tube! this system generates too much thermal mass to cool quickly!
    we must approach the other patent rossi with the heater on axes periphery.


    The closer that the energy of stimulation is to the fuel, the lower will be its thermal inertia. In the fuel wafer that ECCO explains, the heat source in right next to the fuel in the center of the wafer.


    For example, Holmlid applies laser energy directly and very quickly onto the fuel. Maybe, the heater should be inside the tube very close to the fuel instead of on the outside of the tube where the thermal inertia is very large. And power might be applied in a fast burst and terminated before the reactor heats up. Remember, the fuel must be stimulated, not the reactor structure. IMHO, any energy used to heat the reactor structure to heat the fuel indirectly is wasted energy.

  • Phonon frequencies are in the hundreds of THz, while the highest edge harmonics for chopped AC are in the Mhz range. So I don't see any mechanism for direct transfer of energy…


    If I understand your question (always dubious, I'm just a fanboy), there is a 4-part lecture series on "Cold Fusion" (LENR) given by two former MIT professors where this issue appears to be resolved, at least from the perspective of a theoretical model.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    See discussion climax starting about minute 43.


    Prof. Peter Hagelstein confronts the puzzle of how energy is exchanged from the input to the needed phonon frequencies. Best I could gather, Hagelstein took the standard model's spin boson expression, then added to it a new fundamental condensed matter Hamiltonian that accounts for how a multiple layered system might fractionate the quantum. He called it a "lossy" spin boson model, which he referred to as his "toy model."


    I highly recommend carefully viewing the whole series of lectures from start to finish. Like most non-scientists I didn't know what the heck to think about "cold fusion" since the early days with the apparent scientific fiasco, which never made sense from a motivational point of view. Why would a couple of highly respected scientists ruin their careers with a hazily conceived presentation of unrepeatable nonsense?


    A quarter century later, two men that initially sought to disprove the cold fusion phenomenon have now come up with a theory for how it actually works, and some devices that are producing repeatable, radically improved results. The race is now on to commercialize this LENR effect. Tragically, the guys that did all this analytical and experimental work don't appear positioned to benefit much from the commercialization of the amazing products we may be seeing in a couple years.

  • So; the fan was not supposed to blow energetic particles fra the active cell towards CR39, as my impression was from your comment.


    (Not reacting to your comments specifically.) It seems the fan significantly increased the number of pits in the CR-39 chip that was 3 cm out. I doubt very much these pits could have been due to prompt particles (protons and alphas) emanating from the cell, if only due to considerations of geometry. Also, those pits are not easy to make. If the low-power fan is sufficient to alter the trajectory of something, I doubt it has enough energy to create a pit.


    One possibility I like is that what was altered by the fan was the trajectory of radionuclides, which then disintegrated further away from the cell.

  • The use of a nickel metal foam might be functionally equivalent to fuel encapsulation with steel. The tendrils of the nickel foam would enclose the fuel particle on multiple sides thus providing the anti sintering effect. This use of nickel metal foam may be a development that Rossi came up with in the Lugano test reactor that replicators are not picking up on.


    What about a dispersion of LENR-reactive nanoparticles (for example: Ni) on within a sintered matrix of micro particles of a different material having a significantly higher melting point (a metal like Tungsten, or an inert oxide like alumina)?


    Porous foams composed of sintered particles are often employed instead of "proper" foams.


  • I have also posted on Safire before.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…ring-in-safire-axil-axil/


    The Safire team seems to be seeing fusion in the dusty plasma condensation layer when the hydrogen plasma first recombines into the non-plasma state. IMHO, this layer of condensing de-ionized hydrogen is likely Rydberg Hydrogen Matter(RHM).


    The Safire method of producing this RHM seems like a simple way to produce RHM. The Safire experiment has a positively charged anode in the center of a hydrogen leak proof box carring a high DC potential. The walls of the box are negatively charged. The power pumped into the box is 1800 watts.


    Safire is seeing power spikes of between 2 to 10 megawatts and transmutation products.


    The main obstacle in LENR engineering is producing RHM for use in the LENR reactor.


    It might be possible to extract this RHM as fuel for a LENR reactor. Or setup a LENR reactor which maintains a Safire like high voltage DC potential between the centrally located high DC voltage anode and the negatively charged reactor walls.


    It would be interesting to see if any overunity heat is produced by this method.

  • Has anyone considered heating the cell with induction heating? The circuits are simple and the process is well understood. I once visited a plant where they were heat treating railroad car couplers. So it is possible to generate enormous amounts of highly localized heat using this technique. Another advantage is that there is no heater element to burn out. The max cell temperature is limited by the cell's materials only. There has also been discussion that LENR may require magnetic energy. Induction heating provides plenty of that, and the field can penetrate some distance into ferromagnetic materials.


    I have simulated using HSPICE a simple 2-transistor, self resonant design that should not be too difficult to build. See attached file for the schematic.


    Jeff