MFMP: Next replication - GlowStick 5.4 aka GlowShell

  • I asked Bob Greenyer if he could do some "tests" during the experiment, like playing with magnetic fields or mechanic shocks with a hammer.


    Then Bob Greenyer asked me for "wish list" of such "tests":

    Quote from Bob Greenyer

    Do a wish list and perhaps, Alan, Mark and Skip will find ways to try.

    I am excited that with the work of Alan Goldwater, Bob Higgins, Brian Albiston and others, and kind donations, Alan is now in a position to test faster. There are bugs to fix - but it is a huge leap forward in detection on data accessibility.

    If we can get him the process board for the Optris - he can read 3 separate regions and this will make building reactors far faster as we will not need to put on TCs and all the problems they create.

    If as the Italian General said to me on Dec 14th 2012 in Rome "you need to add an alkaline metal" is true, perhaps, in part, and as intended/devised, this experiment in combination with 5.5 (that adds only Li to the SAME fuel run in 5.4) can answer it. There will need to be some further iterations also to deal with the permutations.


    Maybe we can collect some here?


    This is not about changes on the fuel, but about things which can be done immediately around the reactor.


  • This is not about changes on the fuel, but about things which can be done immediately around the reactor.


    Here's one: introduce hydrogen at a controlled rate (for example, over the course of 30 minutes) up to 1-1.5 bar or more while keeping the reactor at elevated temperature. Then do the same by removing hydrogen down to the very mild vacuum range. Repeat a few times.

  • This is not about changes on the fuel, but about things which can be done immediately around the reactor.

    Normally, one would one to setup a test protocol and stick with it, so variables are well understood and controlled. Then later replication can be attempted with more confidence as the test is well defined and documented. Introducing things mid-stream is not usually recommended.


    Is this suggestion being raised because the designed test is functionally "over" and no excess heat / radiation was detected?


    Thanks.

  • This is a trial-and-error process and it is simply moving too slowly to be effective. Hundreds, if not thousands, of trials will probably be necessary to explore the variables. The current approach is, frankly, cumbersome. Too much emphasis seems to be placed on gadgetry and not enough on throughput.


    How can these experiments be done in bulk? Three approaches come to mind:

    A) Run lots of smaller, simpler test cells in parallel. Just look for signs of ignition.

    (less data per cell, more like pass / fail evolution, radiation monitoring of the ensemble instead of individual cells)

    B) Crowdsource tests with the current design. Get lots of labs going.

    (Requires coordination, less control of conditions, expensive, high data volume, trust and safety issues)

    C) Scale up the current fully instrumented operation to run several tests / week at a single site.

    ($$$, space, and manpower)


    What would Thomas Edison do?

    "'I speak without exaggeration when I say that I have constructed three thousand different theories in connection with the electric light, each one of them reasonable and apparently to be true. Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory. My chief difficulty, as perhaps you know, was in constructing the carbon filament, the incandescence of which is the source of the light. Every quarter of the globe was ransacked by my agents, and all sorts of the queerest materials were used, until finally the shred of bamboo now utilized was settled upon. Even now,' Mr. Edison continued, 'I am still at work nearly every day on the lamp, and quite lately I have devised a method of supplying sufficient current to fifteen lamps with one horse-power. Formerly ten lamps per horse-power was the extreme limit.'"



  • @hendersonmj - I agree with you completely. But without a breakthrough reactor design or a clue on the mixture it will take thousands of attempts.

    A better integrated reactor would able to test EM stimulation along with Heat. Also allow for coherent light stimulation. These are 2nd generation reactors. But the MFMP have really improved their software. Maybe can can triple the length of the reactor tubes and pot different mixtures in sections to check the emissivity. I am working on a reactor design but it would be an upstanding cylinder about 3'by3' that could handle more samples. It is one of many designs but by the end of the day I will find something wrong with it. So we should have a contest here to improve the design. What do you have in mind for testing many samples? I suffer big science bias, it would take months to just get a design review. The control software is daunting, that is why I like what MFMP has done. The reactor that I would design also would need to be modular shielding as I would have an electron gun that could be swapped in and out if needed.

  • This run is serving two purposes: it is a beta test for a completely new data software system, and a science experiment to test a particular aspect of LENR theory. Our preparation work took only two weeks, record time for such a complex system. This would not have been possible without the solid groundwork contributed by Brian Albiston over nearly two years, and the investment of several thousand dollars in rare isotopes, funded by donors. We solved many small problems along the way, and the next test will build on this progress, resulting in faster turn-around time.


    Regarding the data system, it has performed well, and a couple of bugs have been identified that will be dealt with before the next run. The power monitor interface needs better network fault tolerance, and the streaming and archiving software needs better integration and documentation.


    As far as the experimental results, no definite signal was detected, although we did see several instances of simultaneous detection of 511 keV gamma and increased GM counts, both apparently over background. The neutron detectors also showed slightly increased counts concurrent within a few minutes of the photon peaks. These small signals give me confidence that our array of detectors is working properly, but are unlikely to have emanated from the cell. Given the relatively short time we had to run the active test, there was a low probability of seeing a strong signal from it, and this will be discussed further as we analyze the data.


    I am about to add a pulse of H2 to the cell, up to 3 bar, so keep an eye on the radiation counts. The Youtube stream has just been restarted, and you can find the link to that at the top of the GS5-4 live doc at

    https://goo.gl/W1i0pY

  • Majicsound how about saying when you put the lead over for that experiment as we can still watch the data but the stream has gone.


    Or update us on what you are doing so we know what to watch for in the ploty stream


    Cheers

  • We did a series of three pressure pulses yesterday morning. The first two showed similar peaks concurrent with the H2 pressure pulse in the 511k (ROI) detector, but the third did not. This is inconclusive, so we'll repeat it a few more times before shutting down the cell.There will not be a live video stream but the data will be available on the plot.ly site. I'll post here when those tests begin.

  • magicsound

    The idea is something in the order of several minutes (for example 10-15 minutes, but the actual duration isn't that important as long as it's not fast) to reach 1-1.5 bar from a vacuum condition, then reverse the process by applying a vacuum at the same rate and possibly repeat a few times if time allows.


    If this requires constant manual fiddling with the pressure, nevermind!


    EDIT: the rationale for doing this comes in part from the studies of A.J.Groszek et al, who found that certain metals such as Pd that have previously adsorbed hydrogen show an anomalous oscillatory behavior in heat evolution during further sorption, if subject to a flow of H2/N2 (or H2 and a noble gas) at a low, controlled flow rate starting from a very mild vacuum. The conditions here in GS5.4 are different in that only hydrogen gas with Ni is used and different flow rates likely can't be consistently tried within reasonable time and effort, but perhaps it's still worth a try. The group didn't check for radiations. [Paper 1, 2]

  • magicsound

    The idea is something in the order of several minutes (for example 10-15 minutes, but the actual duration isn't that important as long as it's not fast) to reach 1-1.5 bar from a vacuum condition, then reverse the process by applying a vacuum at the same rate and possibly repeat a few times if time allows.


    That is pretty much what we did yesterday. We went higher in pressure, 3 bar absolute. That was added over maybe 5 minutes. The bleed to vacuum also was done over several minutes. At no time during the entire run did we see a deviation (above measurement jitter) between active and null temperatures, nor did we expect to.