me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

    Papa Moi we read:


    "guys,
    after 25 pages of posts, do we know how to replicate this?"



    Looking over the 25 pages it is clear the overall "winner" in number of posts is Hank Mills, and also in number of words, by far,. If one reads all the posts and follows the hints given by me356 and a few others, one would likely have a good idea of many things to try. Me356 gives us at least a partial outline of his readings and the efforts he made getting to his neutrons. I also would point the interested to my post on page 5 suggesting parallels between these efforts and the Lipinski's work.

    Edited 2 times, last by Longview ().

    Quote from Papa Moi

    guys,


    after 25 pages of posts,do we know how to replicate this?


    Don't forget there was Part 1 of this thread as well. I believe the answer is: "No, we don't yet KNOW HOW to replicate this for sure. But hopefully, me356, the MFMP team & some others are getting there. It seems to be a SLOW process- because it's complicated, unexpected and requires a multi-disciplined approach.

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    Perhaps this shows a worthy example of the hobbled thinking that may be
    pervasive among skeptic "physicists" with little knowledge of the real
    world. Microwave sourcing of protons from hydrogen is a long developed
    technology. Typical "how to" examples are seen in the AIP publication
    Review of Scientific Instruments, for example:


    ...

    Quote from Longview

    I have no idea how "it" works. I have seen varied approaches of this sort
    over the last few years of interest in LENR / CF.


    From your arrogant besserwisser comment one gets the impression that you
    knew what you were talking about. That is obviously not the case. Yes,
    there are high frequency ion sources in many accelerators. They use a
    strong varying electric field to ionize H and the positively charged
    protons are extracted with a high voltage. But the issue was if one
    could use a microwave oven    . For heating your lunch it is fine, but I do
    not think it is any good for making protons since the technique is
    completely different using electrons and magnetic fields.


    Quote from Longview

    Perhaps you have permissions necessary to download the full text some such
    article and can bring us up to speed.


    Yes I have access to the Indiana ion source article and I have read it. But I cannot see why I should do your job!


    Quote from Longview

    "Naked" protons are an interesting field of inquiry, and they are exceedingly
    reactive, so they are best generated in a rarefied atmosphere or in
    vacuo. Fortunately, from an experimental standpoint, the evidence
    accumulated over the last decades strongly suggests that protons per se
    are not the direct actors in CF / LENR


    In order to be able to have a meaningful discussion it is important that
    we use an agreed and well defined nomenclature. What are "naked
    protons"?     A proton is a hydrogen atom with the electron removed, and it
    can hardly be more "naked". And where is the evidence that protons
    (naked or not) are not important in CF/LENR? They are very reactive but not important. That sounds strange to me.


    Quote from Longview

    Personally, as a native speaker, I find the appearance of "sceptic" to be some somewhat odd and suggests a pronunciation like "septic" (no offense
    intended).


    I believe offence was intended.

    It appears Ekstrom believes what he wants to believe. I will avoid the invitation to a pissing contest. Sorry to not provide a venue to substitute for "arrogant" abuse of students, employees and colleagues.


    Since Ekstrom does not to want to share any constructive information here, at least not on proton sources, I'm dredging up a couple of my files and references on the subject for the benefit of those interested.


    I'll mention the Lipinski-UGC WiPO application of 2014 once again, where proton beams of very modest energies (100 to 500 eV) showed remarkable fusion rates with lithium targets in various phase states and configurations. For the experimenter, It's very clearly "do your own due diligence" of course, since implementing some of their ideas might lead to dangerous products (neutrons, beryllium atoms and gammas if we are to believe Ekstrom--- and on that I would take his word, until further evidence appears).


    The microwave sources go way back to earlier than this 1965 Review of Scientific Instruments article-- which is available online and is an excellent place to start. That particular microwave source is not from an oven, but is a medical diathermy unit, versus the earlier published sources in the 1950s as surplus radar magnetrons. The authors discuss in detail their own fabricated resonators of various sorts and give data on the percent reflected input (one wants low reflected input for maximum discharge in the gas of choice-- here H2, N2 and He):


    Fehsenfeld, Evenson & Broida Rev. Sci. Instrum. v.36(3) March 1965 "Microwave discharge cavities operating at 2450 MHz"


    at the other extreme we have this piece from an online venue that is largely amateur: At the Forum "Cyclotron Projects" and under headings "Cyclotron sub-systems" "Ion sources" and finally "Simple DIY Proton source" "Ash Small" an "offline junior member" posted a very detailed discussion of his approach to proton generation via microwave oven components. It is well worth the read since he gives very detailed instructions and shows a good understanding of the underlying operation. Here is an excerpt:


    "The most difficult items to source will probably be the quartz glass tube and the capillary tubing. First, find an old 'working' microwave oven. This must be the older type with a big, heavy MOT (microwave oven transformer) not the newer 'inverter' type. (I'm working on a method utilizing the inverter type, and I'll post details later, but it is much more complicated) Remove the MOT, MOC (microwave oven capacitor), HV diode and magnetron. Take care not to damage the gasket seal around the waveguide on the magnetron. Discard the MOC, but replace it with one about a 50th of the capacitance. The voltage rating must be the same or better than the original. Using a smaller capacitor reduces the power available to the magnetron (reduces the current, to be precise, and it is this that controls the magnetron output. Fig.3 in the paper linked to here: [dead link removed, try this instead: accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/l98/PAPERS/TH4055.PDF ]. This achieves three things, 1.It allows you to run the magnetron in CW mode (constant waveform), rather than the intermittent mode it runs in in the oven. 2.It reduces the power to ~20 Watts, which is plenty for this purpose. 3.It makes it much, much safer. Connect these items together as they were connected originally, but using the smaller capacitor. (details of these 'doubler' circuits are plentiful, use google) Next, you need some quartz glass tubing, maybe 1/2" diameter, but the size isn't critical. It must be quartz glass though, pyrex (borosilicate) or other types will absorb too much of the microwave energy."


    As readers here will guess, there are many other sources of good information on microwave generation of protons.
    Note added as Edit: Wyttenbach points out that the link included in Ash Small's quote above is dead. I have removed it and will try to find an equivalent link as a replacement --- [now inserted above], Thanks .




    BTW, this is what you said, Longview:

    Quote

    BTW: A common microwave oven can and does readily make free protons from hydrogen gas. Not seen with induction heaters, that I know of.


    This is quite different from your last statement:


    "The most difficult items to source will probably be the quartz glass tube and the capillary tubing. First, find an old 'working' microwave oven. This must be the older type with a big, heavy MOT (microwave oven transformer) not the newer 'inverter' type. (I'm working on a method utilizing the inverter type, and I'll post details later, but it is much more complicated) Remove the MOT, MOC (microwave oven capacitor), HV diode and magnetron. Take care not to damage the gasket seal around the waveguide on the magnetron. Discard the MOC, but replace it with one about a 50th of the capacitance. The voltage rating must be the same or better than the original. Using a smaller capacitor reduces the power available to the magnetron (reduces the current, to be precise, and it is this that controls the magnetron output. Fig.3 in the paper linked to here: accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelco...ERS/TH4055.PDFdemonstrates this). This achieves three things, 1.It allows you to run the magnetron in CW mode (constant waveform), rather than the intermittent mode it runs in in the oven. 2.It reduces the power to ~20 Watts, which is plenty for this purpose. 3.It makes it much, much safer. Connect these items together as they were connected originally, but using the smaller capacitor. (details of these 'doubler' circuits are plentiful, use google) Next, you need some quartz glass tubing, maybe 1/2" diameter, but the size isn't critical. It must be quartz glass though, pyrex (borosilicate) or other types will absorb too much of the microwave energy."


    Another BTW, there are certain types of contests that old men should abstain from taking part in.
    ---
    Douplasmatron: http://linac2.home.cern.ch/linac2/sources/source.htm

    Edited once, last by H-G Branzell ().

    My "last statement" as you put it, is a quotation and is so designated by italics and a citation [Contributor "Ash Small" at the "Cyclotron Forum"]. And regardless of the many "microwave of hydrogen" proton sources in the literature, all are a long way from your rather irrelevant "1360000" photons. The main advantage of microwave discharges seems to be that the ionization can occur without electrode erosion. Atomic hydrogen arc welding has, since the 1930s given a source of highly reactive hydrogen ions, surely including protons but is usually thought to be giving neutral hydrogen atoms whose reaction yields up the energy of recombination. To have such reactive species in the vicinity of electrodes is clearly not going to be sustainable. By using microwaves and tuning appropriately it is easy to excite a discharge sufficient to dissociate not only the H2 to atoms, but further to strip the electron associated with the proton. There are surely tuning and resonance parameters that would maximize the production of atomic and hence neutral hydrogen atoms in such a system. Such "clothed" protons appear to be far more likely to be functional (give fusions) in situations claimed to be LENR / CF.


    On the other hand, I completely agree on the "contests"!

    Quote from Longview

    It appears Ekstrom believes what he wants to believe. I will avoid the invitation to a pissing contest. Sorry to not provide a venue to substitute for "arrogant" abuse of students, employees and colleagues.


    I have, over time, become allergic to poorly demonstrated claims of new nuclear effects. Piezonuclear reactions (I think someone mentioned that in this thread). See
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
    for a demonstration that things can go wrong even with work published in reputable journals.


    And what about the naked proton and it's importance for LENR or not? I'm intrigued....

    @Peter Ekstrom


    I too find this intriguing. The apparent fact that acidic conditions in Pd-D electrolytic CF Pons & Fleischmann style cells are almost never shown or claimed to be giving excess power, whereas nearly invariably those cells "work" when the conditions are basic. That is one clue.


    The sheer difficulty in overcoming coulombic repulsion at least becomes a more tractable problem if the deuteron / proton is neutralized by association with an electron. In a hot fusion environment there is never a chance for atomic hydrogen or other neutral, or even negative species such as H2 minus to persist. In CF / LENR there at least appears to be this possibility. A negative charge on a deuteron / proton assembly is all the better, changes the electrostatic repulsion into some degree of attraction.


    Beyond that, I'm beholden to others who have speculated in this direction with strong and sharp tools. I welcome quantitative arguments. I know some have used quantum mechanical modeling programs to investigate these possibilities. I suspect that assumptions present in say Hartree-Fock may break down when the model is moving toward femtometer domains near nuclei.

    Edited once, last by Longview ().

    Quote from Longview

    I too find this intriguing. The apparent fact that acidic conditions in Pd-D electrolytic CF Pons & Fleischmann style cells are almost never shown or claimed to be giving excess power, whereas nearly invariably those cells "work" when the conditions are basic. That is one clue.


    Sure, if you accept the data as good. You still haven't shown me a naked proton. :(

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    ---
    Douplasmatron: linac2.home.cern.ch/linac2/sources/source.htm


    Thanks. Fortunately, many examples in the literature appear to make for much simpler devices.


    However, study of the details of the Duoplasmatron should provide insights to improving such smaller and simpler devices.

    An open comment to all:


    Peter Ekstrom has a distinguished career as a research Physicist and educator, and his experience in the field may exceed that of the rest of us combined. While his viewpoint may thus be skewed toward the mainstream, he is open-minded enough to participate in our discussions, and I hope continues to do so.


    Personally, I'm grateful for any professional willing to share skill and knowledge toward our common goal of understanding LENR. This doesn't mean a "free pass", as anyone can make mistakes or overlook important details. However, I think we should keep in mind the value of such professional experience in our forum and offer the respect it deserves.


    AlanG / MFMP

    • Official Post

    Im getting even more off-topic now than this has already become but who cares


    @magicsound and @sveinol


    I asked myself if you two + Holmlid could not join forces and prepare a replication
    of the Holmlid-style setup instead of trying to replicate Rossi?


    If you need funds for this, maybe the forum could organize something like this for you?


    Sorry if I insult Rossi fans but his work is and has been unscientific crap.


    The Holmlid concept is the only real scientific one that is worth to be pursued.

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    And where is the evidence that protons (naked or not) are not important in CF/LENR?


    From the context, I gather that the second "not" was a typo?


    Energetic protons have long been reported by Francesco Piantelli. (Note that there is a lineage of influence starting with Piantelli and going through Sergio Focardi to Andrea Rossi.) Protons are also reported elsewhere, e.g., Lipson. A search of lenr-canr.org for "energetic protons" will turn up some examples. Caveat emptor and all of that.

    Quote from Majorana

    magicsound and sveinol
    I asked myself if you two + Holmlid could not join forces and prepare a replication
    of the Holmlid-style setup instead of trying to replicate Rossi?
    If you need funds for this, maybe the forum could organize something like this for you?
    Sorry if I insult Rossi fans but his work is and has been unscientific crap.
    The Holmlid concept is the only real scientific one that is worth to be pursued.


    I agree about Rossi, but you should not go for one possible LENR solution. You may go for the wrong one and it will just create unhelpful bickering. Accept criticism from people with relevant knowledge. Improve your instrumentation and procedures. And forget about those who have made promises for years without delivering.


    I'm not too optimistic about the final result, but it is worth a try. If a device with excess energy is found, I think it will look and behave very differently from what most of you imagine.


    There were many other very successfull tries in the past! Just to name two;


    1) Have a look into the ICCF 11 (2004) Proceedings p: 101 ff. (Work by: I. DARDIK, T. ZILOV, H. BRANOVER, A. EL-BOHER, E. GREENSPAN, B.
    KHACHATUROV, V. KRAKOV, S. LESIN, AND M. TSIRLIN)
    2) JCF 15 (2014) p. ff ; A. Kitamura*1,2, A. Takahashi1,3,..


    Both use low Temperature.


    The latest Holmlid experiment was not LENR, it was a kind of "lower power" ignition, room temperature fusion. Instead of some keV Electron beam/XRay he used a focussed laser. Looking at his claimed output I would recommend a tripple radiation shield...

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.