me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

  • Interestingly, half year ago, I have performed experiment that was repeatedly giving excess heat (COP 1.2-1.4).
    Everything was documented and data were available from the beginning.
    Nobody even tried to replicate it.


    There is already everything you need…


    ME, or anyone else for that matter, could you link me to the specific documentation for that experiment. I'd be delighted to replicate it, I've studied your progress through the previous thread and while the earlier posts were more descriptive there was still a lot of missing info.

  • me356 thankyou for your dedication and relentless search for LENR.


    Purely out of interest - do you think it possible that high density, storage heater bricks could shield from the products of radiation that you have experienced.
    It would provide a perfect synergy for a space heater and also provide stable, thermal output with an intermittent or erratic input.


    Old, second hand storage heaters can be bought very reasonably - providing a cheap source for these bricks.

  • axil: I have did few tests with pulsed control driven by IGBT circuit with programmable PWM and it works well.I am convinced that I know how both mouse and cat are working exactly and I can tell, that to start the mouse process with Parkhomov design is…



    I wish you success Alan! Do you plan to use any source of stimulation?A proper stimulation is what we are missing in our experiments and reason why all replicators are not seeing positive results.There are many possible stimulations including phononic resonance achieved by very precise temperature control management. Unfortunately implementation and decent stimulation amplitude is problem{/quote]


    [quote='me356','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2596-Glowstick-5-2-Test-series/?postID=12829#post12829']Main purpose of the lithium in the reactor is to make it breathe as I have described few months ago.You can create sudden pressure changes in the reactor (of few bars) up and down just by faster temperature transitions.This is used for nickel lattice…

  • me356 wrote:
    axil: I have did few tests with pulsed control driven by IGBT circuit with programmable PWM and it works well.I am convinced that I know how both mouse and cat are working exactly and I can tell, that to start the mouse process with Parkhomov design is…


    me356 also wrote:
    I wish you success Alan! Do you plan to use any source of stimulation?A proper stimulation is what we are missing in our experiments and reason why all replicators are not seeing positive results.There are many possible stimulations including phononic resonance achieved by very precise temperature control management. Unfortunately implementation and decent stimulation amplitude is problem{/quote]


    Further, me356 wrote:
    Main purpose of the lithium in the reactor is to make it breathe as I have described few months ago.You can create sudden pressure changes in the reactor (of few bars) up and down just by faster temperature transitions.This is used for nickel lattice…


    Longview comments and asks:


    It is perhaps not a coincidence that square wave stimulation (1400 Hz, 1000 v) was associated (causal?) with the Lipinski's highest Q results (COPs in the thousands) of their 2014 WIPO application. By cross-referencing such parallels we might reach some mechanistic common ground, and from there, perhaps solid working hypotheses and ultimately pro-active design parameters and perhaps then even some strong theory.


    Another useful thing, aside from simplicity, about the Lipinski experimental test bed is that much higher COPs can be sustained without catastrophic results, or so it appears. It reminds us of Mitchell Swartz' emphasis on OOP (optimal operating point) in his phusors and other such devices.


    Finally, the point on "breathing", has an analogy with varying bias voltage in the Lipinski experiments, further it may have homology with the role of varied Nernst Pressure (cell over voltages) in electrolytic devices such Pd-D F&P cells.

  • Me356,


    "Interestingly, half year ago, I have performed experiment that was repeatedly giving excess heat (COP 1.2-1.4).
    Everything was documented and data were available from the beginning.
    Nobody even tried to replicate it."

    Why urge people to go the the time and expense of replicating your older, low-COP technology when you claim to have discovered a new technology to create high COP at will?


    Surely the older tech where the COP is low and easily muddled in the noise of experimental error is less persuasive evidence than the clear, unmistakable COP of 5 or more in your new tech that can melt a reactor in moments!


    Or are you saying there is no new secret for generating LENR at will different than that revealed in your older experiments?


    "Interestingly eastern mentality is completely different ... They trust each other."

    As for "trust," should we trust DGT? Oboro? Or Rossi?

  • Me356 cannot answer a simple question: how did he detect the neutrons? What was the device for that?


    Should I trust him after that?
    Instead of explaining the process in few words, he start lamenting about absence of trust. For me, there is no doubt: he is simply cheating the community (similarly to Rossi) in hope to get fame or perhaps even some investment.

  • As I said a long time ago to me356 - if his claims are correct it will be mega-exciting - and he would be in line for a Nobel Prize.


    I have no critique of me356s work - because he has released no details of the evidence on which he bases his hopes.


    I'm sure he will understand that, for me, until there is some evidence, his claims are not science.


    I await something worth critiquing with interest.


    Tom

  • Me356 cannot answer a simple question: how did he detect the neutrons? What was the device for that?


    Should I trust him after that?
    Instead of explaining the process in few words, he start lamenting about absence of trust. For me, there is no doubt: he…


    I agree with what is in bold, although without necessarily forming long term opinions from it.


    Nothing's been proven either way, because no evidence has been presented. Opinions should be based on the analysis of evidence.

  • In the law practice there is the principle of "presumption of innocence". Prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty. In science, everything is the opposite way. Anybody who claims a discovery, must prove his claim. In science, there is kind of "presumption of being wrong". If you claim something, you must present undeniable evidence. Until that - you are wrong. Any doubts (like not answering simple questions) act against the person who claims a discovery.

  • Apart from cold fusion there are tree methods that work:
    1 Gravity (in the sun's centre)
    2 Magnetic fields (tokamak)
    3 Inertia (laser fusion)


    It seems reasonable to conflate 1 and 3, certainly under relativistic considerations. That leaves "magnetic" which is another approach to the Lawson Criterion. Beam density is high and injected into an inductively heated and magnetically confined circuitous vessel. (Corrections invited, but that is my current recollection.)


    There is another interpretation / explanation for the Teller fusion, and that is the trigger fission device is accelerating the nuclei in parallel by x-rays from the moderator foil and thereby creating a relativistic extreme time dilation with respect to one another. The particles become attractively interactive due to their shared and enduring phase space. As old acquaintance once noted, this makes coulomb repulsion become attractive. I don't know if he was correct, or if he is relevant, but he once gave me the argument in the context of Aharonov - Bohm and subsequently I saw something by Carver Meade in PNAS that lent credence to the principle of the idea. If co-acceleration is key to the thermonuclear device, then stellar "hot" stationary approaches would have had predictable difficulties now often seen. BTW, the Sun is an example of nothing similar to an H-bomb, but a super nova may AFAIK.

  • I personally want to keep getting updates from me356.


    So it would be nice if sharks could go to the shark discussion thread and leave this one alone.


    This isn't a court of law.


    This is the thread where me356 can update us on his experiments at whatever pace he decides.


    We can discuss what me356 has published so far, but attacks are not very productive.

  • @nobody
    The reason to replicate older lower COP devices is to learn what is happening.
    Almost anybody can build a simple homopolar motor from scratch (for example), but pretty much no one goes about building a three speed ceiling fan motor from scratch without a bit of learning and practice with increasingly complex motors beforehand.

  • Here something for the people which can't find anything about frequency stimulation of LENR Cells! (Storms knew this, see his citation indexes..)


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf


    More in ICCF11 (many papers - and a treasure.. 900p.'s)
    http://www.fulviofrisone.com/a…tober_5_November_2004.pdf


    (2003 first occurace of the superwave "theory".)


    More elaborate waves can be found in
    SuperWavesTM as the Natural Origin of Excess Heat
    Irving I. Dardik, M.D.
    ICCF 15 proceedings p.307


    The later is more words than facts but contains intersting references.. (to Italy)