# Gold From Mats Lewan’s Impossible Invention Book (Engineer48)

• Engineer48 has given a lot more details in the ECW comments section. He's coming up with some interesting ideas and isn't as secretive as he appeared to be with his original post.

LENR,

Agree. Good thing he did too, as it seems that at least a couple of his ideas are not all that new. MFMP, me356, Connover, LFH have been-there-done-that. The beauty, and practicality of this open source concept, is that It prevents some of this "reinventing the wheel" stuff. After reading the LENR leaders here, there appears be enough of that in the field as it is.

Anyways, I am happy E48 has redirected his strategy somewhat. He does seem to be very knowledgeable, and it may just be that it is the garage tinkerers like he and others here on LF, that put the pieces together that makes LENR+ (NiH) work.

• @axil,
Encrusted is an interesting description.
How thick of a coating would a 1 gram charge be, if coating a roughly 20 cm long tube with a 7 mm inside diameter?

• How thick of a coating would a 1 gram charge be, if coating a roughly 20 cm long tube with a 7 mm inside diameter?

Classic Rossi mixes of Ni,Li, Al etc. as fine-to-nano powders are not very dense. A typical 1 gr fuel charge occupies close to 1cc in its uncompressed state. Your notional tube with its inner surface area of 22x200mm (44 sq cm approx) would thus have a coating approximately 10/44 cms thick = a nice recurring number = 0.2272727272 mm thick.

• Quote

Mary, please point me to your definition of "substantial power generation". Thanks.

I don't recall where that is exactly... Jed notes that it could be milliwatts but I disagree. A watt is arguable. Tens or dozens or watts are "substantial" and set apart those claims from the usual Pd-D work or Celani's stuff. But important to keep in mind, you need duration and power ratio (what is mistakenly called COP). And if the power out/power in is more than 6, the power is in dozens of watts and can be sustained, there is no reason why you can not route output back to input through a regulation system and then "COP" becomes infinite except maybe for a small amount of power for convenience in supplying electricity to the regulation and metering system. That can be supplied separately, completely apart and different from providing heater power to the "reactor".

So: dozens of watts, sustained operation (hey, it's nuclear!), and a decent power ratio, say 5 or greater. So find me one. Jed, of course, has dozens, until you go to look at them. Obviously, this isn't precise. The whole thing is a value judgement. You'd know it if you saw it. And so would a lot of main line scientists. Nobody questions the reality of the Bloom Box. Maybe it's economics, but not it's chemistry and physics.

And these people have NOT **PROPERLY** shown it: Rossi, Defkalion, Mills, Brillouin, Miley, Nanospire, Swartz, Celani, etc, etc. Nobody has.

• And if the power out/power in is more than 6, the power is in dozens of watts and can be sustained, there is no reason why you can not route output back to input through a regulation system and then "COP" becomes infinite except

There is a reason you cannot do this. The temperature may not be high enough. Dozens of watts that raise the water temperature from 20 to 50 deg C will not allow sufficient electric power generation, even with a small Stirling engine or thermoelectric chip, as far as I know.

As a practical matter this would be pointless. To an educated observer, it would not be more convincing than ordinary calorimetry. An uneducated observer could not judge the issue in any case.

So: dozens of watts, sustained operation (hey, it's nuclear!), and a decent power ratio, say 5 or greater. So find me one. Jed, of course, has dozens, until you go to look at them.

Well, 36 to be exact. You could look at them, but you refuse to:

They are listed in Ed's book, which is where that graph came from.

Granted, the power ratio is not listed, because it is not relevant. It does not reduce the s/n ratio enough to matter.

The post was edited 1 time, last by JedRothwell ().

• Jed:

Quote

There is a reason you cannot do this. The temperature may not be high enough. Dozens of watts that raise the water temperature from 20 to 50 deg C will not allow sufficient electric power generation, even with a small Stirling engine or thermoelectric chip, as far as I know.As a practical matter this would be pointless. To an educated observer, it would not be more convincing than ordinary calorimetry. An uneducated observer could not judge the issue in any case.

As I've often had to point out, heat is heat. You don't need electricity. No critic objects to a clearly and verifiably isolated mains connection for electronic instruments and control devices. The objection is, of course, to the honking huge electrical heater which seems to ALWAYS and INVARIABLY be a part of each and every LENR and cold fusion experiment and which can't be turned off for very long, no matter how high the claim to thermal power output and power out to power in ratio. ANYBODY, educated or otherwise, would be impressed if one of these devices simply fed back thermal energy (heat!) from output back to input via an externally powered control mechanism-- for example, a heat exchanger or heat pipe. And of course, once started, needed no external heat input in order to continue running indefinitely from a miniscule source of nuclear fuel.

You guys are so deep into the minutiae of this stuff (just as Rossi lawsuit observers are into the minutiae of law) that you can't see the forest for the trees. Nor the inherent opportunities for deception, fraud and errors inherent in what is being passed off as the state of the art in LENR research.

Of course the power ratio is important. Added to the other parameters, it determines the probable accuracy of the measurement and the overall signal to noise ratio. It also indicates whether input power can theoretically be disconnected without causing the machine to stop if the output is rerouted to the reactor via a control system. LENR people don't seem to ask the right questions of themselves which is why the field goes nowhere.

As for Storm's histogram, it leaves the glaring question of why, given that there are three studies above 100W, why these were never replicated and why there are not dozens or hundreds instead of huge numbers of very tiny results.

The post was edited 3 times, last by Mary Yugo ().

• The objection is, of course, to the honking huge electrical heater which seems to ALWAYS and INVARIABLY be a part of each and every LENR and cold fusion experiment and which can't be turned off for very long,

That is completely wrong. Utterly, 100% wrong. There is no electric heat in most experiments. There is electrolysis in electrolytic experiments, but it can be turned off, and it often is.

You just made that up. Your problem here is that you have not read the literature, you have no idea what you are talking about, so you make unfounded assertions and nonsensical assertions. Let me once again advise you: If you too lazy to read the literature do not comment on it. Anyone who has read it will see that you are wrong. You make yourself look foolish. You confuse the issue and spread misinformation. What is the point?

You have chosen to remain willfully ignorant about cold fusion. That's fine. No problem. I have thousands of readers every week at LENR-CANR.org; I don't need you to boost the numbers. But do not pretend you know something about the subject, because you will only make yourself look foolish and arrogant.

As for Storm's histogram, it leaves the glaring question of why, given that there are three studies above 100W, why these were never replicated and why there are not dozens or hundreds instead of huge numbers of very tiny results.

Again, if you had actually read Storms, you would know what studies those were, and this would not be a glaring question to you. It is only glaring to people who remain willfully ignorant about a subject for 20 or 30 years while posting message after messages after message attacking it. People such as Creationists in a biology discussion group. They think they are being clever and they suppose they are challenging the experts, but actually they are just demonstrating that they are uneducated fools.

• Error duplicate post.

It would be great is LENR experimenters could validate sup-atomic particle emission from LENR reactors. Specifically, try to convince the replicators to verify your statement via experiment.

• "Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us, we may repeat the above calculations taking the weight of the entire reactor (452 ± 1 g) into consideration:"
-page 26, Lugano report

• Quote from Engineer48: “Of course powered by energetic protons leaving the Ni+H reaction.”

It would be great is LENR experimenters could validate sup-atomic particle emission from LENR reactors. Specifically, try to convince the replicators to…

Piantelli did that and stated in his patents that he found proton energies up to 6.7MeV.

Quote

protons that are expelled by the nuclei, which have a determinable and characterizable energy. For example, in case of Nickel, the expelled protons have an energy of about to 6.7 MeV

• &quot;Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us, we may repeat the above calculations taking the weight of…

Try this one:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/GEC16/Session/MW6.27

• Piantelli did that and stated in his patents that he found proton energies up to 6.7MeV.

That particle track looked straight to me. If it were a proton, it would have followed a circular path under the influence of a magnetic field.

Without that positive indication of positive charge, a tract bending in the proper direction, the identification of that particle is inconclusive. The particle may well be a muon.\

The post was edited 1 time, last by axil ().

• Engineer48,

I thought you arrived to the conclusion that mixing Ni+Li+LAH together is NOT a good idea. Why do you bring out one of the very few successful replications (so reported at least) that incidentally has been made with the collaboration of Parkhomov?

• Engineer48,

I thought you arrived to the conclusion that mixing Ni+Li+LAH together is NOT a good idea. Why do you bring out one of the very few successful replications (so reported at least) that incidentally has been made with the collaboration of…

Hi GaameOver,

Where do your see LI that melts at 180C?

Quote

Initial fuel consisted of a mixture of uniform mixture of Ni powder weighing 0.9g and lithium aluminum hydride (Li[AlH4]) - 0.1g.

• Quote from Engineer48: “Quote from axil: “Quote from Engineer48: “Of course powered by energetic protons leaving the Ni+H reaction.”

It would be great is LENR experimenters could validate sup-atomic particle emission from LENR reactors.…

Hi Axil,

Any you know this is how he measured the proton energies?

BTW that was a cloud chamber. Did it have a magnetic field?

• Engineer48,

Lithium Aluminum Hydride melts at 140-160°C, then solidifies again when it decomposes into Li3AlH6. At higher temperatures Li3AlH6 converts in two steps into LiAl, which is liquid above 700°C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride

At the temperatures reached by Parkhomov et al. there is liquid coating on the Ni particles even when only LAH is used.

• @Pierre

Watch my mouth with respect to what/who?

What were those wrong reasons? What are the right ones? Why?

I was being facetious, Mary, just joking!

• Engineer48,

Lithium Aluminum Hydride melts at 140-160°C, then solidifies again when it decomposes into Li3AlH6. At higher temperatures Li3AlH6 converts in two steps into LiAl, which is liquid above 700°C. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride</a>…

Hi GameOver,

Why do you think the NI, LI and LiAlH4 are all mixed together as the fuel in a Rossi reactor?

The energetic photons from the Ni+H reaction can react the Li7 without needing it to be melted over the Ni.

Same for the H- released from the LiAlH4, why does the LiAlH4 need to be in contact with the Ni for the released H to get to the Ni?

Rossi has given hints the reaction chamber design is complex.
.