MFMP: 18 steps to LENR excess heat (BasE-Cat recipe)


    Theory author dosn't say all, but if 1.4Mev positron fits..:


    --clips--
    In the H(p, e+νe)D reaction via the H-H bond collapse, D atoms/ions are produced in rest
    because their recoil energy in the positron and neutrino emission is below 0.1 eV
    --
    For the power released in the
    H-H fusion, average values of about 60% carried out by neutrinos
    --
    average energy of about 0.84MeV carried out by neutrinos in the H(p, e
    +νe)D reactions
    --
    As seen in the cases of Pd and Ni in Table II, the powers released in the D-D fusion
    are bigger than those in the respective H-H fusion by a factor over one billion.
    --
    However as argued in Section.9, even in a Li permeated metal hydrides
    with neither deuteride nor D2 gas, the D-D fusion takes place and generates
    neutrons, protons, tritons and 3He ions of a few MeV energies. Neutrons are captured by
    6Li after slowing down and produce tritons and α-particles.
    --
    In the reactor system charging ordinary hydrogen gas, contribution from the H-H
    fusion is only 1.1% of the total power released


    Table I. Cross-section factors S(0) and
    Q-values of hydrogen burning fusion
    reactions [16, 17].
    S(0) (MeV · b) Q (MeV)
    H(p, e+νe)D 3.4 × 10−25 1.4
    D(p, γ)3He 2.5 × 10−7 5.5
    D(d, p)T 0.053 4.0
    D(d, n)3He 0.050 3.3

    joshua cude
    Much of what you say is true. Replication will be the key. There are several replications being prepared.


    Most experiments of Ni-H LENR are not being monitored for gamma spectra. With a generous donation to MFMP, Alan Goldwater was equipped with the spectrometer to monitor his experiments. Alan is still learning the capabilities of the spectrometer, and replications at his end will have a number of improvements in the data sets. We were fortunate to capture this outburst.


    The measured spectrum has a 1/x^2 characteristic with no evidence of abating at energies below the lower limit of the NaI detector. I have speculated that heat must be carried away from the NAE by low energy photons so that the NAE's energy can go into the apparatus without the NAE becoming so hot due to local dissipation that it melts. It could be that the measured spectrum is continued down much more intense low energy photon emission that would be substantially absorbed in the reactor. I have measured the SI-8B pancake tube and found that it is still quite sensitive to at least 5.8keV and we are going to try to have that setup as an additional sensor in future experiments.


    I can't be held responsible for everything that is said by MFMP. Rossi does seem to indicate that lead thermalizes the radiation that is generated in his reactor core - at least the radiation that escapes the core itself. I suspect the lead is there to insure that the high energy tail of the radiation gets thermalized before escaping. It is not important that his product does not produce radiation - it is only important that it doesn't escape above regulatory guidelines. The old CRTs in our big TV sets produced a good deal of x-rays, but they were contained in the thick lead glass used for thermalizing them. Personally, I don't think Rossi meant to say that all of the energy generated by his reaction was being thermalized in the lead - only that which didn't get thermalized in the materials of the reactor housing.


    The characteristic spectrum of the lead and bismuth seen at 78keV is in the background - it is cosmic ray excitation of the lead and bismuth that surrounds the NaI scintillator detector. Even without the lead cave, radon deposits a film of lead and bismuth dust that falls out of the air as the radon reaches the end of its decay chain. These long spectrum integrations had a very repeatable background, including the characteristic x-ray peak at 78keV. This good repeatability in the background shows in the fact that the calibrated, background subtracted spectrum shows almost no sign of this peak.


    My article does not allege excess heat. It does not say that the spectrum seen is responsible for the excess heat (other than just what I have said here). The spectrum does, in and of itself, suggest a nuclear origin due to the high energies required to generate the spectrum.

    Bob Higgins wrote:


    Quote

    The measured spectrum has a 1/x^2 characteristic with no evidence of abating at energies below the lower limit of the NaI detector. I have speculated that heat must be carried away from the NAE by low energy photons so that the NAE's energy can go into the apparatus without the NAE becoming so hot due to local dissipation that it melts. It could be that the measured spectrum is continued down much more intense low energy photon emission that would be substantially absorbed in the reactor. I have measured the SI-8B pancake tube and found that it is still quite sensitive to at least 5.8keV and we are going to try to have that setup as an additional sensor in future experiments.


    That would be useful, because not only will you see if there is enough signal to account for the heat (seems unlikely, because that would be dangerous), but you should be able to see characteristic X-ray lines for Ni, Fe, Cr, and Mo, if there really are energetic electrons in the reactor. Such lines really would constitute a finger-print, and would be much more difficult to attribute to artifact.


    Quote

    I can't be held responsible for everything that is said by MFMP....


    Do I understand you correctly then that there was no lead in the MFMP experiment? And that the item in the recipe is not based on the recently performed experiment?


    Quote

    My article does not allege excess heat. It does not say that the spectrum seen is responsible for the excess heat (other than just what I have said here). The spectrum does, in and of itself, suggest a nuclear origin due to the high energies required to generate the spectrum.


    Right, but it does not mean they had to come from the Ni-H or even from the reactor cell. It does not show that LENR is occurring in this experiment. It shows at most that gamma rays over a wide continuum of energies may have been produced in the room. Have you run the detector for similar time periods in similar geometries without an ecat replication running, or running without fuel? Is there any likelihood that this excursion could be attributed to some kind of electrical glitch? Did the GM tube register a big excursion at the same time. Gamma rays of that energy could be easily measured with a GM tube.

    Bob - I agree with what you say that excess heat should be ignored -at least as an indicator of anything unusual. The data is not robust.


    You have this x-ray observation, from a new (to you) instrument, shaped as 1/x^2. I'd bet there are such artifacts.

    joshua cude


    Quote from joshua cude

    but you should be able to see characteristic X-ray lines for Ni, Fe, Cr, and Mo, if there really are energetic electrons in the reactor.


    Yes, that would be a wonderful test, but it would require an x-ray spectrometer that we do not currently have. I know exactly how to do it, but we need additional equipment for detecting these characteristic x-ray lines that are all below 20keV.


    Quote from joshua cude

    Do I understand you correctly then that there was no lead in the MFMP experiment? And that the item in the recipe is not based on the recently performed experiment?


    Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "in the MFMP experiment". The NaI scintillator was placed inside a cave of lead bricks with an opening facing the active reactor. To my knowledge, no other lead was present in the reactor materials or the fuel.


    Quote from joshua cude

    Have you run the detector for similar time periods in similar geometries without an ecat replication running, or running without fuel? Is there any likelihood that this excursion could be attributed to some kind of electrical glitch? Did the GM tube register a big excursion at the same time. Gamma rays of that energy could be easily measured with a GM tube.


    Yes, the NaI detector has been run other times than when the reactor was fueled. However, for this experiment, the background was taken as spectrum integrations -01 and -24, which were identical in photometric calibration (except for a small noise). Spectrum-01 was taken before any power had been applied to the fueled reactor. The GMC-320+ GM detector running at the same time uses a cheap M4011 tube that is fairly insensitive below 100keV - it has no mica window, only a thick glass envelope. I have the data from a calibration experiment that Alan Goldwater performed where various gamma emitter check sources were placed at the position of the active reactor and both the NaI spectra and the corresponding GMC-320+ counts were taken for each source. This data is being analyzed. From analysis of the NaI spectrum, it is seen that the intensity of the detected signal was down to 10% by ~94keV. Once I have analyzed the calibration data for the GMC-320+, I will look for outburst correlation in the GMC-320+ data and estimate its probability of detecting the signal seen in the NaI scintillator.


    Of course, there could be other sources of error. There always will be. Please tell us if you can think of some possible source of error we may not have evaluated. That is the beauty of LOS.

    Bob Higgins wrote:


    Quote

    Yes, that would be a wonderful test, but it would require an x-ray spectrometer that we do not currently have. I know exactly how to do it, but we need additional equipment for detecting these characteristic x-ray lines that are all below 20keV.


    The definitive evidence is always just out of reach...


    The alternative is to put some lead or tungsten in the reactor. Then you should see characteristic x-rays well above 50 keV if there really are highly energetic electrons being produced. (Tungsten may be better if you don't want it to melt, and it has x-rays around 60 keV.)


    Quote

    Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "in the MFMP experiment". The NaI scintillator was placed inside a cave of lead bricks with an opening facing the active reactor. To my knowledge, no other lead was present in the reactor materials or the fuel.


    The lead shielding would not participate in the bremsstrahlung, because the electrons would never reach it. The metal would have to be in the reactor.


    Quote

    Yes, the NaI detector has been run other times than when the reactor was fueled. However, for this experiment, the background was taken as spectrum integrations -01 and -24, which were identical in photometric calibration (except for a small noise). Spectrum-01 was taken before any power had been applied to the fueled reactor.


    I understand you took background spectra. But this was an excursion, which may be caused by some random event. You'd need to run the detector for a similar time (or preferably longer) with a blank reactor to be sure such excursions aren't caused by some other trigger.


    Quote

    The GMC-320+ GM detector running at the same time uses a cheap M4011 tube that is fairly insensitive below 100keV - it has no mica window, only a thick glass envelope.


    There was plenty of signal indicated above 100 keV.


    Quote

    Of course, there could be other sources of error. There always will be. Please tell us if you can think of some possible source of error we may not have evaluated.


    That's not easy to do remotely. And, while it's important to consider all sources for such results, it's far better to try to design the experiment to get more specificity. It would be surprising that something nuclear is going on and the only thing produced are betas up to 1 MeV. But even so, it should be possible to see characteristic X-rays proving the origin of the activity. And maybe there are other elements that might become radioactive if exposed to radiation (alphas?) inside the cell. Again, this would give specific evidence of the origin, which is absent so far.

    I have access to machines and 3D printers which could fabricate some of these parts. Do you have drawings? Would it be helpful to make a dozen or more of these parts? Could kits be made and distributed so that the replication would be extensive? I even have an old lithium battery that might be useful.


    don

    @dartin


    You should contact Bob Greenyer, the head of MFMP and discuss that with him. The actual reactor has very little machining. The 3/8" mullite tube is from CoorsTek - off the shelf. The end fittings are Swagelok with aluminum ferrules OTS. The heater wire is Kanthal which you can buy on eBay. Internally, Alan's SS capsule might need a little machining, but not much. The computer data acquisition, Geiger counter, gamma scintillator spectrometer, vacuum pump, valves, fittings, etc. are all OTS. Alan uses a plastic bag as his dry box. Hardest to obtain are the fuel chemicals. MFMP has enough of most that arrangements can be made to share small amounts. The scarcest is the micro-encapsulated Li powder.


    Still, vendors like CoorsTek have high minimum orders. Even if the 3/8" mullite tube is only $5, CoorsTek has a $150 min order. We have grouped together to get some of these components. I am sure Bob Greenyer would ultimately like to put together a kit of parts.

    joshua cude

    Quote from joshua cude

    he alternative is to put some lead or tungsten in the reactor. Then you should see characteristic x-rays well above 50 keV if there really are highly energetic electrons being produced. (Tungsten may be better if you don't want it to melt, and it has x-rays around 60 keV.)


    I really like this idea. Why don't we just put a length of tungsten wire in/at the reactor? Then if the tungsten characteristic x-ray shows up, we will know precisely where it came from. We would get this characteristic x-ray whether the source from the reactor were high energy beta or gamma - both would excite the characteristic x-ray (that excitation is not specific to beta). In fact, the tungsten doesn't even need to be inside the reactor since high energy gamma is coming out anyway. We could just wrap it around the reactor.


    We couldn't use lead for two reasons - the reactor is too hot, and we already see an x-ray peak for lead that could mask some of the observation.


    Quote from joshua cude

    The definitive evidence is always just out of reach...


    Such is front line research. Best we can hope to do is to instrument better where we can for the replication.


    I am working on the GMC-320 geiger counter data ...

    @lenr Calendar
    After a note from Bob Greenyer, I now believe the SSM comments seem to have stemmed from a misunderstanding of Bob's "way forward" strategy to get from where we are today to the kind of reaction that Rossi is apparently delivering. It was not meant to be a description of a result that has already been achieved.

    eros wrote:


    Quote

    Lead (Pb) inside reactor is not good idea. It may go fission with deuterons.


    Could you justify that. Lead is not fissile or fissionable with or without deuterons, as far as I know. But if it did fission, so much the better. That would leave unmistakeable evidence of nuclear reactions.

    MFMP has only run this experiment 1 time, but with careful notes taken by Alan Goldwater and Mark Jurich. For the first time, we have a complete open-kimono description with nothing hidden. There are 6 people discussing replication now. I am pushing for Alan Goldwater to do it again - only he can be sure it is done exactly the same way. I know that everyone else will change something - guaranteed.


    How many times have we been successful in replicating Parkhomov? None. None of the experiments were an exact replication.

    Bob Higgins wrote:


    Quote

    We would get this characteristic x-ray whether the source from the reactor were high energy beta or gamma - both would excite the characteristic x-ray (that excitation is not specific to beta). In fact, the tungsten doesn't even need to be inside the reactor since high energy gamma is coming out anyway. We could just wrap it around the reactor.


    Pretty sure the primary radiation is not gamma. If it were, it would likely have well-defined energy. The photo peak could be off-scale (or do the recorded spectra include higher energy than shown), but even so, the background is wrong. So, wrapping the tungsten around the outside probably would not tell you anything.

    Here the omitted reference (2) for one of the first serious replications documented 2013 I mentionned before (COP up to 10).


    Each step is well documented and professionally performed . Extend Your learning!


    http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf


    Study on Anomalous Heat Evolution from H-Ni Nanoparticle
    System at Elevated Temperature with Mass-Flow Calorimetry


    A. Kitamura#1,2, A. Takahashi1,3, R. Seto1, Y. Fujita1,
    A. Taniike2, Y. Furuyama2


    The newest Takahashi paper for ICCF 18 http://vixra.org/pdf/1309.0070v1.pdf

    Quote from joshua cude

    Pretty sure the primary radiation is not gamma. If it were, it would likely have well-defined energy. The photo peak could be off-scale (or do the recorded spectra include higher energy than shown), but even so, the background is wrong. So, wrapping the tungsten around the outside probably would not tell you anything.


    It doesn't matter if the primary spectrum is gamma because by the time it gets to the outside of the reactor it will be gamma. That would be enough to excite the characteristic x-ray of the tungsten.

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.