me356:
My last test series (GS4) used a mullite tube and AC heater power controlled by a variac. The fuel was supplied by Parkhomov, ground and mixed to his specification. No excess heat was seen.
I consider this an accurate replication, with null result. The only difference was my use of Swagelok seals rather than cement.
&"It seems that the quantity of H2 (gas) was not enough to reduce all the NiO present in the reactor: Only a small part get reduced, no change in the color of the NiO."
The hydrogen was flowing continuously in the reactor at 830 C. The bulk of the catalyst maintained its green color. There must be a periodicity that's maintained on the catalyst surface that allows dissociated hydrogen to fuse.
This reaction is unique for nicklelous oxide and not related to any Parkhomov or A. Rossi catalysts or experiments. The fusion initiates suddenly and is magnitudes above a simple chemical reduction process.
Very dangerous experiment! I'm intentionally redundant in stating this because the reactor quickly becomes a molten pile although fortunately the photons are mostly IR with little out of this range.
magicsound, these experiments will always depend on luck as to the necessary ingredients being present in the correct nanometer alignment. When the correct catalyst is used the experiment becomes expensive and dangerous. I was lucky and only the apparatus melted. The laboratory arrangement forced me to be a safe distance from the reactor when fusion suddenly initiated. On second thought wouldn't one expect some danger when successfully initiating a stellar reaction on a tabletop?
magicsound I'm worried that you may ignore my disclaimer and attempt using nickelous oxide in your reactor. Your setup appears ready for a successful fusion attempt. Please don't try the RAGOEL NiO protocol in your testing. Without a helium damping injector its very dangerous and expensive.
The only difference was my use of Swagelok seals rather than cement.
You wouldn't happen to know exactly what cement Parkhomov uses and its composition?
Also, did you follow a different preparation process in any way? E.g., perhaps he used an acetone or aqua regia cleaning step that was omitted?
@ogfusionist if there was a constant stream of H2 flowing in to the reactor, then my previous sentence about H2 quantities is no more relevant. This hypothesis can be ruled out.
How long was the reactor with a stream of H2 below 830°C ? Could be that H2 was captured by NiO to form atomic metallic hydrogen as described here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6851.pdf The accumulation could be very strong below 830°C (Faster than at room temperatrure as for the KSX25 batteries). Then at 830°C the metastable atomic metallic hydrogen is released back with a lot of energy accumulated when the atomic metallic hydrogen was forming.
Arnaud, my protocol posts from experiments done years ago were meant to put on record one method to possibly initiate hydrogen fusion. With a safety disclaimer that relates to the danger associated with this reaction.
&"How long was the reactor with a stream of H2 below 830°C"
The reactor was quickly brought up to 830 C to maintain the bulk oxidation state. I visualized the reaction as simply proton interaction with the (-Ni-O-Ni-) array.
But where did the replicators apear from. That is the most interesting question.
&"In this case, you should learn how to write a report rather than sending confusing sentences ."
David Fojt, actually you should learn how to recall and read posts on this Forum.
@'me356
Regarding Parkhomov's cement, he gave us (MFMP) the formulation and I tried it several times, but was unable to get it to seal hydrogen, due to micro porosity. See my online note for details:
http://www.evernote.com/l/AXem…FyblbYyTSrJdswl9cGew0w4k/
At ICCF19, he told me several coats, individually dried were needed. I had already tried this, and found that Parkhomov's cement formulation will not bind to alumina:
http://www.evernote.com/l/AXeK…FMpLYlLx85OpP_c-MaaApbfs/
We then asked him "what kind of ceramic are you using?" and found it was some kind of mullite but further details weren't available.
By then I had started working with Swagelok aluminum ferrules, with good results. But for GS4 I tried a mullite tube and found it deteriorated and became leaky, finally breaking after about 100 hours. I attribute this to the reaction of molten Li with the silica in the ceramic. Pictures of this are included in the GS4 report at:
http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…log/502-glowstick-gs4-run
But you could be right, that a certain critical leakage rate is needed for this design to work.
&"I'm happy ogfusionist what you find good results BUT could you share it by a normal paper as PDF or PPT with pictures ?
It will be easier to understand!? Less than 5 pages.. not as them of some physicist who live only with what they would write ...smile.."
I've already shared the protocol for the fusion reactor, why should I waste more time as you suggest? If you don't understand that at 830 C. hydrogen gas dissociates and if flowing over a nickelous oxide reactor some protons will fuse to produce helium, then more wordage won't help.
&"you think Superparamagnetism influences in cold fusion ?
ferro fluid phenomenom too ?"
No complex influences required: the reaction is simply proton fusion that results from dissociated hydrogen interacting with the reactor charge.
ogfusionist;
I'm having some difficulty to really understand your method of argumenting. Let me explain:
For months you have in various posts and threads mentioned about your findings in experiments some 50 years ago. In these posts I've sometimes interpreted a frustration and resignation from you, as seemingly no one has showed any interest in your findings. I have shared same feelings - I've also been puzzled why no one have showed interest in what you clearly claim being a reproducable protocol.
Now - in this thread, several members have expressed interest in your findings, and ask for more information. But the replies from you shows a flawour of rudness instead of seeing the upside that (finally) people are taking interest in your findings!
Is it not great that people want to learn more about your findings? Is it not possible for you to compile a description of your protocol? Or at least include a link in a post where we can find it?! Just saying that "the protocol exists in this forum" doesn't lead people into this specific information.
&"Is it not great that people want to learn more about your findings? Is it not possible for you to compile a description of your protocol? Or at least include a link in a post where we can find it?! Just saying that "the protocol exists in this forum" doesn't lead people into this specific information."
On the upper right hand corner of the LENR Forum page is a section labeled Search All Forums, enter RAGOEL NIO and click enter. This will take you to all my posts including protocols for my reactor.
bjogen, your interpretation of frustration in my posts is correct also rudness was never intended. With worldwide reports indicating that nanoscale hydrogen fusion has been replicated, I'm convinced that what I witnessed years ago was interpreted correctly.
Now with this recent interest my recourse is to post this warning: With the correct reactor charge hydrogen will fuse and suddenly produce a large quantity of IR photons. If I can prevent people from injury by showing a flawour of rudness then I'll show it. Don't attempt performing my protocols as previously posted.
Fusionist's original post about the RAGOEL reactor material
MFMP: New Dog-Bone run tomorrow!
A couple of comments
Several different grades of Fiberfrax fibers exist.
www.unifrax.eu.com
Product lines / Fiberfrax
http://www.unifrax.eu.com/web/Audit.nsf/ByUNID/2F0E7708C6339BF185257EFA002085FA/$File/Fiberfrax Bulk & Chopped Fibres EN.pdf
Some of the grades have fibers coated with an organic lubricant.
Other grades are without the organic lubricant.
The surface of fibers may have different kind of composition depending on the grade after heating the fibers at high temperature.
Heating fibers coated with an organic lubricant in reducing atmosphere (hydrogen) may leave some carbon (in the form of elemental carbon, graphite?) on the surface of fibers.
Grade temperature 1250 °C and 1350 °C fibers contain aluminum oxide and silicon dioxide in the form of aluminum silicate.
Grade temperature 1400 °C fibers contain aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide in the form of aluminum silicate and possibly zirconium silicate.
The fiberFrax I used for my reactor was the material used by plant maintenance for furnace lining. It was cut from a slab of material that was a compact of alumina fibers. No organics were in the material.
Where did Brian Albiston go? I gave him some advice that I
would like to get feedback on.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…at-patent-brian-albiston/
Has he been successful? He seems to have dropped out of LENR on-line.
Axil, I wish my silence was because I had been successful. Unfortunately it is just because I haven't had time to be on-line the last couple of weeks. I just completed a very long thermal cycling test that I will post results on soon. No excess heat unfortunately. I hope next to complete a test with added graphite. I will try and do a better job of keeping everyone updated.
All ready for the next experiment. The basis used tube MKR 26 * 21 * 260mm. For her wound Nichrome spiral 0.5mm, winding resistance - just 52nd.
The composition of the catalyst mixture (by volume): 25% carbon, 25% - Tio2 25% - NiO, 25% - Al2O3 (cement secar 71).
Li did not add.
The catalyst is a metal tube, on the one hand, hydrogen is supplied, the other thermocouple is inserted to monitor. Fixed tube, thermocouple - heat-resistant cotton MKRRH-150.
The process will be long.
1. Since spiral top coated high-alumina cement - it is desirable to heat it slowly heated at certain temperatures for several hours.
2. nickel oxide nickel to do, then it H.
All it will take a couple of days before the start of the main heating.
