Where replicators disappeared?

  • I am curious where all successfull replicators disappeared?


    All of them were active from the beginning and now, there is no sign of their presence or continuation of the work.
    Mostly they have presented the work in some way and responded to questions.


    Why they are not trying to reveal more about their findings? Where they are?
    If somebody is able to replicate it, I am sure that he will improve it overtime and find what is really necessary for succesfull replication.
    But we do not know any information about this.


    LENR can change everything and I am sure replicators must know it very well.


    What is happening?

  • There are at least 3 replicators that claimed to be successfull in Parkhomov replication and with repeatable results.
    All of them shared their findings, why they do not want to share more? It is hard to believe they are not interested in it anymore.

  • &"why they do not want to share more? It is hard to believe they are not interested in it anymore."


    My hydrogen fusion reactor is not a Parkhomov replication and I've posted the protocol. Reason for loss of interest is that as long as oil burning is profitable we will continue to do so. Why persue this energy source when there is not a chance in hell that it will be presently utilized? Check oil company patents related to hydrogen fusion. They are ready and waiting to make enormous profits.

  • David, the NiO reactor is easy to replicate if protocol is followed exactly. Not expensive to build or replicate. A ball mill is critical for the particle size of catalyst necessary for a nanoscale reaction.
    No sloppiness or it won't work. Interesting that this suggests that replicators are inherently lazy. I've concluded that they rather talk than do.
    OK for this experiment, it's best to be safe rather than sorry.
    Certainly not a game and good training for youngsters if they survive the runaway reactor meltdown.
    My advice is to not attempt this fusion experiment. The results are destruction of the reactor when fusion initiates.

  • ogfusionist: Can I find your protocol somewhere?
    I would be glad to replicate it. I am doing experiments for nearly year and spent hundreds dollars on it and also I think I am not lazy.
    If you are sure that there is some kind of fusion, there should be a way to throttle it.

  • &"ogfusionist: Can I find your protocol somewhere?"


    me356, I've posted protocols on this Forum under ogfusionist. Should be able to call up on search.
    I'll repeat that the catalyst must be protected from sulfide poisoning and it's not an easy task. The NiO requires extensive milling to reach the submicron particle size required. The alumina FiberFrax requires pre hydrogen firing for purification. When all is done correctly fusion will initiate at 830 C with sudden runaway and destroy the reactor. Operator response time isn't fast enough to prevent meltdown.
    Throttling could be with helium dilution of the hydrogen previous to its dissociation temperature.
    This fiasco happened in my lab about 50 years ago when there was little interest. Now hydrogen fusion is a big issue.
    But why live dangerously by replicating hydrogen fusion in a laboratory? It's just as exciting to nitrate glycerol and far less dangerous.
    OK, yeah one is a chemical reaction and the other is who knows what.

  • To: me356
    But it is always so. Breakthrough directions make single or small groups. Yet we should not forget about the effect of "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis". So it's okay - the lack of interest on the part of serious uncles.
    Who wants to sell yourself, someone already .. That secrecy. Business, damn it. While the researcher will depend on grants, he will do what he is told, not something that I want to.

    With regards to Russia - LENR undermines the economic component of the state. Maybe so researchers are silent.


    As for me - I have already spent tens of dollars spent. At the moment, I am waiting for the ceramic tube. Clay - is appropriate, melted. And learning to program microcontrollers. And equipment all homemade. Everything is fine. Precision small, but the effect will be noticeable.


    Do not worry, go on, like some other singles, solve problems for fun.

  • ogfusionist: Can I find your protocol somewhere?


    More information in this thread:
    Fusionist's NiO FiberFrax experiments


    Quote
    • heating done in alumina tube with nichrome winding
    • NiO ball milled for months in all alumina system
    • colloidal suspension in acetone test to insure colloidal dimensions
    • binder probably methyl methracylate although nitrocellulose was also used in the factory, recall banana smell of amyl acetate
    • FiberFrax firing time in hydrogen and then vacuum at least several hours for introduction in and out of furnaces
    • FiberFrax was dipped into a bath of NiO slurry and allowed to soak using capillary action to infuse the slurry
    • excess allowed to drain off
    • infused FiberFrax stuffed into alumina tube
    • hydrogen allowed to flow through at atmospheric pressure
    • slowly increased temperature where the 830 C incident occurred

    The particle size of the NiO is the most critical parameter in this process. A colloidal suspension is critical.


    In short, he is creating a supported Al2O3-NiO nanocatalyst and heating it in a flowing hydrogen atmosphere.

  • David, the NiO reactor is easy to replicate if protocol is followed exactly. Not expensive to build or replicate. A ball mill is critical for the particle size of catalyst necessary for a nanoscale reaction.
    No sloppiness or it won't work. …


    The NiO will be reduced in Ni and H20 in presence of H2. So in your protocol, there is a first step that reduce the NiO particles in to Ni on the fiberfrax support. The Ni formed should be on µm scale with a high surface per volume ratio. The Ni will adsorb a lot of H2 andwill produce a lot of monoatomic H in the surround fiberfrax. The fiberfrax contains Si02 and Al203. One of the 2 elements of fiberfrax should then react with the mono atomic hydrogen to form the reactant. Al203 has been widely used by replicants without success. SiO2 is found in the mulite used by Parkhomov. There is no Li in your protocol. Or could it have a hidden Li somewhere?

  • @Arnaud: it's not my intention to write for him, but as far as I understand ogfusionist is reporting to have dipped his FiberFrax glass fibers (which he often recommended getting the version with the highest alumina percentage possible) in a colloidal NiO slurry/solution, which means the particles are in the several nanometers range and will be easily adsorbed on the surface pores of the glass fiber strands. It's not mentioned in the excerpt I posted, but I believe there's a further calcination step that should make the Ni/NiO tightly bound with the Al2O3, after which it won't be reduced with hydrogen that easily, although a partial reduction of the oxides before actual usage should probably help making the surfaces formed even more active.


    The process he's describing doesn't seem to be something completely novel and in fact documentation on similar NiO/Al2O3 dehydrogenation catalysts - commonly used in oil refining processes - already exists in the patent literature, and so on:


    https://www.google.com/patents/US2985598
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2581228.html
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2495700.html


    I would agree with @David Fojt however that it would really be better to collect all this information in a single, easy to read document. Patents aren't meant to be easy to read, and related information scattered around in several forum threads isn't easy to find.

  • @Ecco At 800°C, if H2 is coming close to NiO, it will be reduced whatever there is in the surrounding/support. See http://www.rafaldb.com/papers/…NiO-reduction-in-ETEM.pdf


    But if the content of H2 (per atomic number) is lower than the content of NiO (per atomic number), all the H2 could be converted into H2O vapor. And H20 could be the source of hydrogen (H+ + OH-) without killing the the rest of NiO. And as you said there would have also Ni on the surface to increase the reaction rate.


    So volume of reactor, H2 pressure and NiO quantities is a must to know before going further. If @ogfusionist could light up our mind to understand his process more clearly ... :-)


    In the parkhomov reactor the only oxygen available is coming from the air. Al2O3 and Si02 will not be reduced at those temperatures.

  • @Arnaud: admittedly, you're right on (Al2O3)NiO. Low pressure hydrogen would have to be used to avoid completely reducing the catalyst. Some researchers use low pressure in their LENR experiments which might be related with having to deal with similar issues, but I agree it's probably best to wait for more details from ogfusionist before venturing into further speculations.


    At ~800°C neither Al2O3 or SiO2 will be reduced by hydrogen, but at "Parkhomov temperatures" SiO2 slowly will. See these links:


    https://books.google.com/books?id=aA3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false
    http://i.imgur.com/uUIdkoY.png (excerpt)
    http://i.imgur.com/tJTF5t2.png (excerpt)
    http://i.imgur.com/4uSf06i.png (excerpt)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_monoxide
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0022459674900929 (paywalled)
    http://i.imgur.com/LzWemi1.png (excerpt)

  • I can only speak for myself in this, but I haven't gone anywhere. My two replication attempts so far, using Parkhomov-supplied fuel, produced null results. The experiments are not particularly expensive in materials, but do take considerable time to set up, run and analyze. This is particularly true of the isotopic measurements, which are useful but not essential until excess heat is seen beyond doubt.


    As far as other reported replications, enough questions were raised by crowd peer-review that the results should not be considered conclusive. We are all chasing Rossi in this technology, and while I'm fairly confident his system works as reported, we don't have the magic formula yet. My next attempt will use some Fe2O3 type catalyst, and I have some hope it will show convincing excess heat.

  • I would like to know, what was the easiest reactor design that Parkhomov was using. How this reactor looked like?
    Maybe it would be good to start from the beginning and look how Parkhomov managed to get excess heat.
    Maybe we should try to find each detail about it, because first experiments are not that sophisticated, altough it can work.
    For example, Parkhomov said he was using AC without any modulation, only variac - we do not have to bother with modulations.
    He used mullite tubes filled directly with powder - we do not have to use special fuel containers.
    He used Ni + LiAlH4 - it shouldn't be necessary to add anything else.
    So basically we should find everything that is different in our replications.
    Maybe we are doing it just more complicated even it is not necessary.
    What about fuel preparation? Or impurities that can get into the fuel by accident..

  • &"So volume of reactor, H2 pressure and NiO quantities is a must to know before going further. If @ogfusionist could light up our mind to understand his process more clearly"


    3/16" ID tube stuffed with RAGOEL NiO catalyst. Hydrogen at atmospheric pressure flowing over catalyst at 830 C. The retention of the green characteristic color of the NiO after the experiment indicates no substantial reduction during fusion.
    No lithium of any form was used in the reactor. The protocol for RAGOEL NiO is posted on this Forum.


    BTW this was done ~50 years ago before Parkhomov, Rossi, et al were on the scene. LENR was unheard of then.


    As a disclaimer, do not attempt this experiment!