I don't understand, what this mess is all about. One of claimed reason why Me356 withdrew from lenr-forum was, his reactor generates radioactivity (neutrons?). If so, it shouldn't be difficult to detect it and it would prove his point.
The second thing is the evolution of heat and COP ~ 10+ and it indeed would require more careful preparation of reactor and reaction mixture.
So it will. But there is a huge difference between igniting and exploding - and anywhere short of (or over) the perfect ratio
The detonation range for a hydrogen/air mixtures (%vol) is 18% to 59% - pretty large (compared with gasoline which is in the narrow range of ~1.0 - 3.5%)
Igniting the hydrogen/air mix in the beaker would have resulted in an unconfined deflagration and therefore transition to detonation would have been extremely difficult.
In the case of AURA, this was confined, and even a slight overpressure during deflagration should have been noticeable.
In terms of burning as it slowly leaks - perhaps, but it's a helluva risky business hoping that the interior pressure of the actual reactor is low enough, and that the leak is slow enough, to allow that controlled, "slow" burn.
It was confined, of course. But the space and the air within it was already hot- so no sudden expansion of hot gas as you would get in a 'cold space'. Hydrogen has a terrible reputation, but in my very real 'hands on ' experience over around 5 years it is way less dangerous than liquid natural gas or hydrocarbon vapour. So not 'helluva risky' but mildly risky. Especially as the reactor casing was (probably) not hermetically sealed. I think you are worrying about the wrong things.
I don't understand, what this mess is all about. One of claimed reason why Me356 withdrew from lenr-forum was, his reactor generates radioactivity (neutrons?). If so, it shouldn't be difficult to detect it and it would prove his point.
In monday aura test GCA-geiger give ~double counts in last 30min. Artifact or some significant?
Which Geiger they did use? GCA-01C? Such a Geiger doesn't detect neutrons at all (which is a bit risky when doing experiments with device, which reportedly released neutrons).
Anyway, the signal 200% of radiation background is low and zero result in essence.
They have two neutron detectors that show low values. Plot.ly graph was not easy to follow.
GCA-geiger signal need some smoothing but it had more counts last 30min in test. Maybe some 5min average graph show something?
data & header (Counters_test6_run2.txt):
https://drive.google.com/drive…7lTfqkED9WUHA5MC1GMFNtZkU
I don't understand, what this mess is all about. One of claimed reason why Me356 withdrew from lenr-forum was, his reactor generates radioactivity (neutrons?).
He said when he used glow discharge (a plasma) to activate LENR he detected neutrons. He said because of this he stopped using a plasma. But he never said what he moved on to next.
I am concerned about the use of GSM phones in the vicinity of the GM and neutron detectors. The phone could easily upset their measurements. GSM phones have high power RF pulses that are very bad about entering sensitive electronics. The pancake tube would provide a perfect antenna for the GSM signal. GSM phones interact with the mobile provider autonomously - so you don't even have to be on a call to get interference. Those phones should be OFF when making measurements, or well away from the electronics.
Have people considered this as possible cause for the famous Bob Greenyer Signal?
After the start of renal scintigraphy in a 32-year-old woman, there was an abnormal view in frame 6 that was simultaneous with the start of ringing of a mobile cell phone that was in the patient's trousers pocket. In frame 6 of the flow phase, some bright dots were observed, suggesting photomultiplier tubes. Immediately after that frame, in spite of continued ringing of the mobile cell phone (up to 1–2 minutes), the imaging frames came back to a normal situation. In the case, electromagnetic interference from the mobile cell phone may disrupt the photoelectric functioning of photomultiplier tubes during scintigraphy.
Will there be any experiments later? I still have hope for the me356 reactor. I hope he will succeed.
Regarding GSM interference... Alan tested for HV impulse noise interference and found that the scintillator was relatively immune. Was it tested with GSM? Probably not - we would have to ask Alan. It is a concern. It is hard to picture how GSM interference would manifest in a gamma spectrometer - it should be tested. The GM counter with the pancake tube would be much worse. The neutron detectors need testing for electromagnetic compatibility.
I don't want to be smart ass, but testing of interference from Smart phone is bit tricky topic. It depends on what mobile is doing.
- When display is locked, it communicates with base station only periodically for signalling (registering) into base station which offers best reception.
- If there are background apps that needs periodical internet access (like email) they all are typically synchronised to closest matching internet connection window (to save battery)
- Depending on distance and 'radio visibility' between mobile and base station transmit power can vary between 500mW and 5microW, (if I recall lowest power of pico-cell correctly)
- While transmitting, reception quality is constantly communicated from base-station to mobile in packet header of physical layer protocol (5000 times /second with UMTS AFICR)
So if you really want to reproduce conditions in me356 test, you need to go far enough from closest base station, or to your basement at home 
to make sure phone transmit close to maximum power (there are lots of apps you can use to check reception conditions. I use 'Network Cell Info Lite for Android') .
To make sure mobile is transmitting something you should use app like Video streaming (upliknk) or skype video call, mobile chat etc. Watching youtube video using mobile, does not send data back to uplink as much as live video streaming. I think Geiger went bizzak when Bob was streaming live video close to it.
The detonation range for a hydrogen/air mixtures (%vol) is 18% to 59% - pretty large (compared with gasoline which is in the narrow range of ~1.0 - 3.5%)
This was a big problem with hydrogen airships (blimps and Zeppelins). The crew had to monitor the gas to be sure it was not contaminated with air. Air greatly increased the chance of an explosion. The inner bags leaked a lot, because they were made of goldbeater's skin (cow intestines).
Several Zeppelins exploded, most famously the British R101 and the Hindenburg. This gave hydrogen a bad name. Peter Hoffmann, in the book "Tomorrow's Energy" says this is unjustified. A hydrogen pipeline in Germany has operated safely for decades.
This is getting off topic but . . .
Zeppelin attacks against England in WWI are interesting military history. They caused little damage, killing only 835 people, but for Germany they were very successful in one sense, and disastrous in another. They were successful because the British had to hold airplanes and anti-aircraft guns in Britain, instead of sending them to France. They had to hold back far more aircraft, equipment and men than the Germans used in the attacks, so it was a successful way to tie up British resources disproportionately. It was ultimately a disaster for the Germans because the British devised an air-defense system against the Zeppelins and later heavy bombers, with a sophisticated set of observers, telephones and control centers to dispatch aircraft and direct anti-aircraft fire. This defense system and the people who operated it in WWI were still around in the late 1930s when radar was invented. They did not have to devise it from scratch. It was one of the keys to winning the Battle of Britain. Or, at least, not losing it.
The GM counter with the pancake tube would be much worse. The neutron detectors need testing for electromagnetic compatibility.
There was not geiger with pancake tube. GCA have normal linear tube. Neutron detectors was disturbed with mobile phones (test run neutron data)
Maybe someone can make CGA-geiger data to graph? Count rise is in end:
I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example, Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in the yearlong IH test. Me356 has replicated this low temperature reaction and he is now attempting to commercialize this tech.
Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and has in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as noncompetitive.
If Me356 thinks he will be competitive with the QuarkX, he will lose his shirt in the marketplace.
The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise in material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this material under extreme stress over time.
The development of the plasma phase LENR reaction is more suited to be done using the combined resources of a large R&D corporation. I have my doubts that Rossi can bring the development of the QuarkX off with the limited amount of resources that he can bring to bear on the development of this technology. If Rossi can do this job, it could take him a long time. At a minimum, anticipate continual delays in Rossi’s progress in development and commercialization of the QuarkX.
By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and is attempting to bring it to market.
To top things off, someone will test the plasma type LENR reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that muons are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take over the LENR tech and produce a thorium based large scale centralized gigawatt level fission power station connected to the power grid. All the LENR developers including ME356, Rossi, IH, R. Mills and all their associated investors will lose everything that they have invested in this LENR tech. Before all these developers and investors proceed, it would be prudent to test their systems for muon production.
Axil,
Is there any excess heat claim that you consider to be erroneous?
I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example, Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in the yearlong IH test.
No, he hasn't. The yearlong test was fraud, as you see in the Penon report.
Me356 has replicated this low temperature reaction and he is now attempting to commercialize this tech.
No, he hasn't, as you see in the MFMP report.
To top things off, someone will test the plasma type LENR reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that muons are being produced in massive amounts,
No, they aren't. If they were, we would have seen this long ago. More to the point, in the experiments you cite above, nothing is happening. These are electric heaters with no cold fusion reaction of any sort.
Axil,
Is there any excess heat claim that you consider to be erroneous?
No, there isn't. Apparently not. I don't recall he has rejected any claim. This is an example of being so open minded your brain falls out of your head.
Axil,
Is there any excess heat claim that you consider to be erroneous?
The detection of excess heat is an unreliable indicator of the presence of the LENR reaction. Many LENR reactor tubes fail, when the LENR reaction begins. IMHO, the generation of transmutation including isotope shifting, hot spot reactor tube failure, xuv, x-rays, gamma rays and subatomic particle generation are a better indicators of the onset of the LENR reaction.
For example, LENR spark based experiments by Ken Shoulders and Proton 21 produced transmutation without the production of excess heat.
Rothwell: "No, he hasn't. The yearlong test was fraud, as you see in the Penon report."
We will know when the jury speaks.
Rothwell: "No, he hasn't, as you see in the MFMP report."
Link? and the wording in the link.
