me356: Celani Ni Wire replication

  • gio06 : Can you write in english please? Or write in russian and english?


    I am laughing so hard. Were you trying to be funny?


    @gio06 post, according to translate.google.com, says


    "I have an article in Russian, in which I described the process in the reactions of metal - hydride to release excess heat
    Unfortunately, I do not know English, so there is no translation of the article into English.


    Article Thermodynamic calculations and excessive heat generation mechanism example A.Rossi reactor.


    Where can we have this article, as well as in electronic form?


    Can you give us a link?"


  • A thermal imaging camera with filters?


    It drop question how thermalize efficiently 10G-1Thz? Thermalization show that some energy is present, energy levels/directions can see.
    Using hand sensing heat give some information, enough trust that this thing need to check somehow.


    But how get frequencies+energies=spectrum 10G-1Thz? Ideas?
    I have only ideas how change freguenzy, but I don't know if it works or not if can't see spectrum.

  • I dosn't trust any black magic. This is normal high energy physics. I try to avoid gammas, maybe imposible completely but moust I thin posible.
    I need some device to check RF frequency range 10Ghz to some Thz. My meter up 8Ghz show nothing.


    Hi Eros: As long as we have no agreed theory about all LENR related phenomas, nothing (no LENR experiment) is normal high energy physics.


    H* is no black magic. It is a real state of Hydrogen, which at lower orbits is no longer able to radiate in the optical range. Please read the very elaborate theory of Mills at http://brilliantlightpower.com/theory/. This will take some time.


    mfp has published a soft gamma spectrum of their reactor. You can find it somewhere in this forum or at theor page:


    http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…cookbook-is-in-the-signal


    There is more to tell, but take into account:
    If You are unlucky, the Darwin award ist looking for frontrunners.


  • The latest MFMP test used neutron bubble detectors to check for fast and slow neutrons. Two huge bubbles appeared during the test in the fast neutron bubble detector.


    I wrote MFMP this post to warn them of this danger involving Exotic neutral particles that you describe here as follows:


    Quote

    MFMP cannot tell if the bubble was formed by a neutron or an exotic neutral particle unless they have detected gamma radiation coming from that bubble. The bubble might have been produced by an exotic neutral particle (ENP) that has escaped from the reactor and catalyzed multiple secondary reactions in the liquid inside the test tube. No detectable radiation from the bubble means that the bubble was caused by a LENR reaction.


    If ENPs are floating around the lab, MFMP personnel could be breathing them in an LENR reactions may be happening in their bodies.


    I beleive the the ENP might be a nanoparticle of a LENR activated hydride that can exit the hot reactor. MFMP for some reason does not want to shield the reactor with a steel protective shell that can confine hydride nanoparticles from escaping from the reactor. One ENP can catalyze 10s of thousands of LENR reactions. Maybe that is why that bubble is so large.



    I also provided MFMP this post about ENPs as follows:


  • me356. "Conditions that are normally giving significantly reduced temperature are good for triggering the excess heat. So you will immediately know when triggering failed or was successful."


    Agreed. I tend to see more 'XSH-like' events at around 700-800C than at 1000C plus- and generally on the way down from 1000 rather than on the way up towards it. Though I am still gathering data and filming events so not claiming anything beyond a potential measurement error right now. I use a PID to set the reactor control port temperature with a 2 second cycle time -so when at the set temperature it cycles 'on-off' at that frequency. I have a hunch that this regular 'flicker' in both temperature and induced electromagnetic field is helpful, though I am for the moment unsure why .

  • Dear Nobody,


    thanks for Your kind comment. At first, sorry for late replay: I had another (important) meeting for several days and I didn't have time to replay.
    I agree with You that Forum needed OPEN discussions.


    * My point is that, at the moment, Me356 is doing a sort of (partial) replication of our previous experiments.
    In the replication it is necessary to discuss even very thin particulars that are taking a LOT of TIME.
    Usually the people NOT involved, from the experimental point of view, in the replication are bored of such kind of messages.
    I would like to avoid such unpleasant situation.


    * I think that in the Forum have to be discussed only the main/general aspects of the experiment, not the time-consuming details.
    Obviously, when all the problems will solved/clarified, will be published the proper long report, open to general discussions from everybody.


    * In short, I think that it will be necessary to MINIMIZE the discussions that are of not general interest.
    We have to keep the time to make experiments, not discussions.


    Sorry if I was too-much direct, but my English language is quite poor, I am Italian.


    Thanks for Your time,


    Francesco CELANI

  • Dear Francesco,


    thank you very much for your comments!
    I am very glad that you are visiting this forum and giving us your knowledge.
    It will be pleasure to discuss with you in any way.


    Regarding my experiments, I have received all necessary materials. Now I have to construct new reactors and we will see.
    One reactor will be 5kW prototype and second one will be utilizing plasma discharge in a non-arcing mode with very high H1 production.

  • With the utmost respect for Francesco Celani, I believe most (if not all) members of this forum have spent a great deal of personal time following LENR for years and is craving more information (not less) at this very exciting time. And from what I have seen there is an abundance of time during the experiments for communication : )

  • Yes, boring details are good. We (in the forums) spend half the time talking about E-Cat kerfuffle and Mr. Rossi, and the other half looking at what could be happening from a scientific point of view. I think most if not all understand that it is a real effect. But that the method is not down pat.
    The theory can come in time.


    Everyone, the more detail the better. The more references the better. The way the Internet is now we can translate anything.
    I have nothing better to do than either listen to my wife, or study LENR.


    I personally look up almost every reference. Please consider boring is good.
    Also to MFMP I do not mind looking at the live tests. But after 4 hours or whenever Youtube thread stops working I can never find the new stream. I can do boring. But the B.S. and insulting people not so much.

  • @Francesco CELANI
    I would like to agree with the others above, we want boring details! @me356 is not the only one attempting to replicate your experiments on this forum (perhaps just the most successful). Myself and other replicators would love to hear boring details. These boring details are often the most challenging and time consuming to get right on experiments.

  • Dear Colleagues,


    for what I can understand, most of You like details, even boring one.


    So, don't complain me now, for the latest test, almost failed:


    " We tried to add some amount of "graphite-graphene" to our next set-up in a controlled way, but it failed in the new open-air preparation procedure.
    * We had success only in previous test when we added carbon content material (like acetone, 1 cc) inside the reactor (Volume 250 cc), under partial vacuum condition.
    The adverse effect was that the ultra-thin carbon produced make conductive all the reactor (electric connectors included) and made impossible to continue experiments because uncontrolled short-circuitry.
    The dissociation of aceton was due to the high cathalitic effect of sub-micrometric Constantan wires, at 200-400°C, put inside the reactor."


    Now we are thinking new procedures to overcome the problem: work in progress.


    Thanks for the attention,


    Francesco CELANI

  • Dear Ecco (and Colleagues),

    THANKS a lot for such kind of information You provided.

    So, If I well understood Your sentences/quotation (about the Prof. Holmlid work), what it is really necessary is a LOW amount of graphite (hoppefully graphene) to increase the cathalityc proprieties of Fe-K cathalyser (home made at INFN-LNF).

    Luckily, we are able to provide just LOW amounts of such material, in situ or even in open air preparation, with the present procedure.
    In other words, it is NOT necessary to study new procedures.


    *I will inform all of You on the progress about.

    * Short comment: sharing information also on "failed" experiments can be useful for the progress of the field.....


    Francesco CELANI

  • I uploaded in attached file your article on the chemical reactions in the device A.Rossi.
    Sorry, that is not the subject for the e-cat did it.
    I hope will be useful.


    excuse my bad English.
    my article in Russian and require translation into English

  • So, If I well understood Your sentences/quotation (about the Prof. Holmlid work), what it is really necessary is a LOW amount of graphite (hoppefully graphene) to increase the cathalityc proprieties of Fe-K cathalyser (home made at INFN-LNF).


    Yes, this is basically what Holmlid is writing. Only small amounts are useful.


    Quote

    Luckily, we are able to provide just LOW amounts of such material, in situ or even in open air preparation, with the present procedure.
    In other words, it is NOT necessary to study new procedures.


    The manual application of a collidal graphite layer like Holmlid does would indeed overcome the issue of coating the entire internal reactor surface with carbon, but my guess is that adding small amounts of a simple hydrocarbon such as methane, perhaps as a preliminary preparation procedure in a separate environment, would potentially work better.


    The catalytic cracking of methane on active catalysts (which are generally ceramic/oxide-supported) can occur at relatively low temperatures and form filamentary carbon deposits. This process is also often specifically used for the synthesis of carbon nanotubes.


    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef0101964
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi…1080/15533174.2013.797452
    https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/47_2_Boston_10-02_0262.pdf


    (etc...)