Welcome to the 'Lookingforheat' Laboratory.

  • Welcome everyone to this new sub-forum created (as a surprise gift) by the ruling powers. We will post anything we think of interest to fellow researchers, readers, and lurkers here.

  • Thank you David. I agree that the field needs (where possible) de-mystification, Alchemy it might (nearly) be, but there is much to discover that doesn't demand the services of a lab like those at Berkely or Los Alamos. To which purpose we are trying to offer 'entry-level' documents and videos This is the first video in a planned series showing how to set up an LENR system from scratch. I hope to become a better presenter as I get more practice!


  • I've made a number of purchases now and always been very good service. I've been able to build a dogbone type reactor for around $60. I had issues getting ceramic tubes for reasonable price from China, a lot of suppliers have a minimum order amount and it was out of my budget. I was able to get what i wanted from you guys as well as advice for free to get up and running. Thanks for allowing that to happen.


    Very soon i will be trying out the Nickel Hydrogenated powder i just received from you. I hope others will benefit and make use of your services, best of luck!

  • HELP WANTED. Lookingforheat would love to hear from anyone with free time (A retired science teacher perhaps, or technician) who is interested in helping out 'hands on' in Lookingforheat's reasonably well equipped laboratory on the East side of London. This would mainly involve monitoring experiments, helping to build equipment and suggesting and researching possible new methods. Helping to shoot videos, and drinking tea. We are an equal opportunity company and pay all staff memers the same wage. By which I mean everybody has an equal chance of doing something dumb and we all pay ourselves nothing.


    If this amazing opportunity appeals, please contact me via Lookingforheat.com.

  • Hi all,
    I am a highschool student looking to participate in the google science fair 2016 and i want to make my project about LENR. Proving that it is real, explaining the requirements for heat production, metals suitable to become electrodes, increasing the efficiency of heat production ,etc by guidance from several papers that have been released and also by doing an experiment. My question is : Whether or not i should go with this and if i do, what sort of equipments and chemicals do i have to purchase from lookingforheat.com if i want to do my experiment? And also i have to finish my project in about 2 weeks (end at May 17), so will the items ship fast enough? Im in south east asia btw. Thx in advance!

  • Hi John.


    Choosing to do an experiment like this is not totally a good idea - since it involves (for a start) buying chemicals we only sell to over 18's. And also working with very hot things- 1300C+. However, if you go to our website www.Lookingforheat.com you will find quite a bit of information- and also videos showing experiments. Nobody on earth could guarantee you a working demonstration of LENR rith now though.


    Look at 'catalytic carbon' on our website though. The experiments are not so risky, the reults pretty much guaranteed and also it is totally new technology. A way to make clean hydrogen in whatever amount and in any place you need it.


    If you need any more help, don't hesitate to ask.

  • Some may be interested in this little presentation Sam and I put together showing the way we have developed our reactor designs (and continue to do so) since day 1. Modular design and careful choice of tube diamers etx means we need to stock less parts and makes things more flexible for us and our customers. There will (hopefully) be some new experimental data soon, too.


    http://www.lookingforheat.com/lenr-modular-design/

  • In 2009 when I was site-banned on Wikipeida for three months and topic banned on cold fusion for a year, I took the opportunity to set up a cold fusion project, selling materials useful for Galileo-class replications. One could buy everything needed for a single basic PdD experiment -- add power supply, supply the SSNTD etching separately -- for $100. With a gold cathode wire, i.e., most likely to generate neutrons. I still have all the materials. I sold some LR-115 SSNTD material to one researcher, and a complete cell, ready to go, with extra materials, to one student, Eric Golab, who is featured in the movie The Believers, having just received it. He did run the cell, and then there was some accident in development, and most of the detector material was ruined. He sent the SNNTDs back to me and I did find on one piece of material a triple-track, which indicates a neutron. But one track could easily be background.


    LR-115 is very nice stuff, generating very clear track images, compared to CR-39. The LR-115 has a 6 micron dark red cellulose nitrate detector layer, on top of 100 microns of clear polyester, so images are crisp.


    The idea actually was to have a standard kit with many replications by independent people, and then to publish collectively. A long-standing problem with cold fusion has been that almost everyone does something different, looking to "improve results," which isn't science, it is a kind of exploration, not nailing down what is found.

  • The idea actually was to have a standard kit with many replications by independent people


    That is exactly our plan. But -as you may have found, when to go off to our customers we seldom hear a great deal more, just the occasional request for more chemicals and spare parts. The keep progress (in most cases) close to their chest. Our base price including power supply, PID controller, thermocouples and pretty much everything else you need to run basic XSH testing is $250.00

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    That is exactly our plan. But -as you may have found, when to go off to our customers we seldom hear a great deal more, just the occasional request for more chemicals and spare parts. The keep progress (in most cases) close to their chest. Our base price including power supply, PID controller, thermocouples and pretty much everything else you need to run basic XSH testing is $250.00

    I sold only one kit, and the customer did communicate fully. There was even live video of the experiment while it was running. Watching bubbles form on a wire through a microscope. How exciting! For several weeks....


    What is generally missing in the field is full reporting of experimental results. This, then, leads to ready suspicion of the file-drawer effect. Scientifically, all results are interesting. I've encountered surprising resistance to that from surprising sources. There are well-known scientists with lots of publications who have only published a fraction of their experimental work. They think that negative results would be "boring." Sure. But they are still very important, often showing what doesn't work. Or didn't work, for unknown reasons. And then those can be explored, and if experiments are actually replicated, with controlled variation, progress becomes far more possible.


    What is often called replication is actually some sort of confirmation, as all NiH results are confirmations of other NiH results.... but not confirmation of the actual experimental protocol. So if someone gets XP with NiH, it does not confirm Lugano, as a commonly claimed example, unless the protocol is the same. MFMP negative replications are very important, in my view. What I hope to see from MFMP is better organization and reporting of results. Last I looked it was difficult to follow. They need someone dedicated to reporting and organizing the material they have generated. If that exists, I'd love to see it!

  • So if someone gets XP with NiH, it does not confirm Lugano, as a commonly claimed example, unless the protocol is the same.


    I agree - but that potential confirmation of XSH from almost any system together with the publised work of Focardi, Piantelli et al does tend to confirm (for me at least) that Ni/H is worthy of much further study and development.

  • Hat off for you gentlemen!


    Agree MFMP results are not well summarized from them.


    In a recent post at ECW their PL Bob G summarized their latest GS5.3 having a COP of 1.1 up to 1.25 and detected a few slow neutrons and (again as in the prev. GS5.2 experiment) detected some X-Rays.


    Anyway, Bob G should do the sum up, not me.


    About the neutrons:
    The detector they used covered only about a degree of a degree (think two dimensions; area) of the 360 sphere surrounding the reactor. The number of slow neutrons leaving the reactor might be 5 (that's a few) x 360x360=650000 slow neutrons capable of nuclear (screening or collective hammer) reactions worth about 650000x some MeV that was NOT part of XH.


    This was over one week of time.


    Is that something or nothing?

  • agree - but that potential confirmation of XSH from almost any system together with the publised work of Focardi, Piantelli et al does tend to confirm (for me at least) that Ni/H is worthy of much further study and development.

    "Tend to confirm NIH" is correct. However, none of this work has been nailed down. Instead, people keep looking for "tend to confirm," and much work is being done that is never reported, so ... file drawer effect, which looms very large if the reported results are not far above noise. Lots of sloppy work is being reported, much of it "interesting," i.e., worthy of further study. But no cigar, yet.


    The situation with Rossi created an impression that anything that wasn't kilowatts wasn't worth study -- or investment. That was having a massive negative effect on the field. Over and over, Peter Gluck praised "LENR+" with NiH and Rossi, and deprecated boring old PdD, with allegedly poor results. PdD could have commercial potential, but will take as much as billions of investment to reach that point. One could scale up PdD just as Rossi allegedly did with NiH. Experiments are kept small for very strong reasons: until there is good control of the reaction, scaling up is very dangerous and makes the work much more difficult. NiH will continue to be investigated, there is no doubt about that, but needs a systematic approach just as does PdD.

  • Are you volunteering Abd? We would love to have your clear thinking and experience contribute to the organization and analysis of our work.

    Just running a Glowstick experiment takes me about 2 weeks to set up and a month (or hopefully more) to calibrate and run a single protocol. Post-experiment analysis can be equally labor-intensive, and would be a daunting burden without our group of skilled volunteers, including Ecco and Sanjeev.


    GS5-3 was a close replication of the prior run (GS5-2) and still took that time, generating nearly 1 TB of data and video. All the data is streamed in near-real-time and available in one or more public archives.


    So dig in, pick a specific time or parameter space and tell the world what you find. We need all the help we can get!


    AlanG