MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

  • StephenC

    I have discussed this issue before - at the core, you have to ask yourself what is the carrier of the LENR energy? If many LENR events occur in a small NAE, and the energy carrier is phonon, then the temperature of the NAE will be the hottest with temperature falling off quickly with radius due to the small wavelength of the phonons. This would make the NAE burn out before significant energy is transferred to a lattice. On the other hand, if the energy is being carried away by low energy photons, they will not be immediately absorbed at the NAE, but can be absorbed in the condensed matter volume around the NAE. This could make the environment hotter than the NAE, allowing it to continue generating LENR events. It is like your microwave oven heating a potato - the potato can get hot without the plate the potato is sitting on. In this case the NAE is the microwave oven and the potato is the surrounding condensed matter. The heated volume in this case will depend on the energy of the photons being generated.


    Of course, this argument applies to LENR being generated at NAE's as Ed Storms prescribes in his theory. Peter Haglestein suggests that phonons are involved in carrying away the heat. How does he address the temperature issue with the phonons? He says there are no NAE, but instead LENR happens one event at a time distributed in the condensed matter lattice. For example, a pair of D's fuse at a vacancy in the lattice but the next LENR event will occur somewhere else in the lattice. Peter's distributed LENR theory doesn't really seem to address the volcanoes that were seen peppering the surface of an active electrode - those don't seem to be distributed events, but rather more like a super-active NAE.

  • David Fojt

    David, I am considering dead volume and compaction as two separate issues. In general, I control the pressure with a back pressure regulator. I am not closing it off and heating which could cause the pressures to be extreme. The only reason that it seems that this experiment's tube fractured was from a plug that prevented the gas from escaping quickly enough.


    Separately, is there an issue for LENR itself where the fuel should be spread out more thinly in the reactor tube? This could be for getting the heat out. As I posted to StephenC above, if the LENR outputs low energy photons, and the fuel is too compacted, then the photons could go into heating the fuel, whereas if the fuel is more sparsely loaded, the photons could be absorbed in the reactor tube. This could prevent local over-heating of the fuel.

  • BobHiggins thanks those are good points. I had a feeling I might have been bringing up ideas that have already been considered. I think if individual isolated simple particles are implicated as I suggested they would need to be quite small maybe fractions of a micrometer if my calculations were correct.


    In the case of larger objects such as large particles, wires or foils then I suppose they would need to have complex surfaces structures. These surface structures I suppose could serve several purposes. 1. To potentially limit or somehow control heat conduction or phonon transmission. 2. To increase the surface area compared to the volume. 3. To maybe have in some cases particular relatively thermally isolated structures of characteristics size to produce LENR effects with in a time scale before the heat or stimulation is wider distributed by conduction. But as you say allowing the LENR energy to be radiated with out destroying the source would be desirable as well. Maybe this is a difficult balance. To me I think Ed Storms NAE could well be this kind of structuring. But then I can understand there are also plenty of other possibilities to explain his NAE such as nano cracks etc. I agree there is increasingly good experimental evidence for these localized events on larger particles foils and wires.

  • Bob , I have taken a short hiatus to complete a solar project. Even still, I am working with other researchers on their LENR projects. One of the other researchers asked for suggestion for next fuel to try and I suggested an additive that I have bought and plan to try: LiFePO4. The elements of this compound were found in Rossi's ash during the Swedish analyses. He tried it with Ni and LiAlH4. At high temperature it showed 26W of possible XH at about 1200°C. So, I may move this fuel additive up in my schedule. While he tested it at high temperature, it was believed to be a component of Rossi's low temperature eCat fuel, so experiments with cycling from 200°C to 450°C are also going to be tried.


    My experiments will resume in August, in the same manner as before.

  • Bob , I have taken a short hiatus to complete a solar project. Even still, I am working with other researchers on their LENR projects. One of the other researchers asked for suggestion for next fuel to try and I suggested an additive that I have bought and plan to try: LiFePO4. The elements of this compound were found in Rossi's ash during the Swedish analyses. He tried it with Ni and LiAlH4. At high temperature it showed 26W of possible XH at about 1200°C. So, I may move this fuel additive up in my schedule. While he tested it at high temperature, it was believed to be a component of Rossi's low temperature eCat fuel, so experiments with cycling from 200°C to 450°C are also going to be tried.


    My experiments will resume in August, in the same manner as before.

    Thank you for the update and again, thanks for your work and openness.


    I state the following, (realizing it is none of my business) with only the intention of understanding your thought process and perhaps "instinct".

    I personally would not consider anything Rossi has put out as worth the paper it is written on. He has been proven fraudulent and completely deceptive. None of his claims have been verified to any degree of confidence and all have had quite likely explanations other than LENR. Actual fraud and lies have been amply proven with him.


    With that in mind, why would one continue down the path of Rossi's leading? I would look towards true and honest scientists such as Cravens or Piantelli for clues and direction. While they may not be as open, what little they provide is surely a thousand times more likely truth than Rossi's continual deceptions. I am truly and not simply "anti-Rossi", but "pro-LENR". I want it to become a proven entity, but I sincerely do not think Rossi is the path to it. This is why many people think Rossi has been so damaging. By his flamboyant claims which turn out to be lies, lead to some pursuing his leading which most likely is a dead end.... his claims based upon nothing of substance.


    Please understand that I applaud your efforts and support them in general. But I personally would look towards Cravens, PIantelli or possibly some of the Japanese works for guidance. I would not pay any attention to Rossi as what he has proved, is that he is nothing but fraudulent.


    Just my opinion however and since I am not doing the work, I do not find fault as well.


    Thanks again! :thumbup:

  • With that in mind, why would one continue down the path of Rossi's leading?

    I have never met Rossi. From the proceedings we see, he certainly appears to be a scoundrel. Yet, on the other hand, his work with Focardi seems to this day to have been genuine. I trust Focardi to the extent that he could have known what Rossi was doing and for the measurements he made of Rossi's device. Focardi measured gamma and saw the excess heat. So there may have been something there in Rossi's eCat days when he was working with Focardi. The ash delivered to and analyzed by the Swedes are from this more probably true time period. Because of my faith in Focardi, I consider that there is a greater probability that there may be some value that can be extracted from the composition analysis of the ash of that period. It was Rossi's work with Focardi that got me re-interested in LENR.


    I follow the work of Cravens, Piantelli, and other LENR researchers. I consider that these people are the "real deal". So, what I plan is tempered with what they are doing as well.

  • The summer is almost over... it has went by much too quickly! (Yet the Rossi circus continues on indefinitely! :()


    With that passing of time, I am curious if there are any updates Bob H. would care to share with us?


    I look forward to hearing of real and competent tests, by real and competent scientists, regardless of their findings.

    All findings is knowledge gained and valuable. If positive even the better! :thumbup:

  • Quote

    Focardi measured gamma and saw the excess heat. So there may have been something there in Rossi's eCat days when he was working with Focardi. The ash delivered to and analyzed by the Swedes are from this more probably true time period. Because of my faith in Focardi, I consider that there is a greater probability that there may be some value that can be extracted from the composition analysis of the ash of that period. It was Rossi's work with Focardi that got me re-interested in LENR.


    Except, of course, that Rossi told IH that he spoofed (faked, cheated on, lied about) those isotope results (Ni --> Cu) in order to "mislead competitors" (of which he notably has none after six years of claims). Some value those have!

  • Except, of course, that Rossi told IH that he spoofed (faked, cheated on, lied about) those isotope results (Ni --> Cu) in order to "mislead competitors" (of which he notably has none after six years of claims). Some value those have!

    And how do you know it? Did Darden tell you during your usual coffee break? The evidence, please.....otherwise these are just small talks.

  • Quote

    maryyugo wrote: Except, of course, that Rossi told IH that he spoofed (faked, cheated on, lied about) those isotope results (Ni --> Cu) in order to "mislead competitors"

    Jed Rothwell: Did he really? I missed that. Was that in the trial docket


    I don't think it was in the trial evidence but that's so voluminous it's hard to be sure. It was something a third party close to Rossi said. IIRC, and I am not sure I do this part, Rossi was bragging to some third party about how he managed to hide his true IP (LOL) from Kullander and Essen. Lying about nickel to copper transmutation is also the only thing that makes sense because the copper that was found had isotopic ratios that were the same as the naturally found element. That is not compatible with the origin being transmutation from Nickel in a nuclear fusion reaction.


    Cheating and lying to deceive Hydrofusion was something entirely different having to with the failed test by Swedish Technical Institute IIRC. Rossi bragged about failing that test deliberately, to Darden in emails. That, I think, is part of the trial docket.

  • With that passing of time, I am curious if there are any updates Bob H. would care to share with us?

    I had a side project to create a solar supported camping trailer - done. Camped in the Rocky Mtns. Also took a trip to the centerline (800 miles) to view the eclipse. Now I am back and planning new LENR work. No schedule yet until I decide the right thing on which to work. I have the seeds of microwave plasma and DC plasma experiments, and may continue the Parkhomov-like experiments with new fuel mixes.