me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Here is what I am working on for treatment. The lecture bottle gas is He right now and will be changed to be H2. Also, I am showing an alumina reactor tube going through the coil. The processing will be done in a fused quartz tube that is the same size. I have the fused quartz tubes but I need to epoxy on a connector. I am working on the 13.56 MHz crystal signal source right now so as to eliminate the need for the waveform generator in the oscilloscope. The SS tree on the right is my vacuum system which is on a heavy duty cart.

  • One of the hard things in this was protection of the RF power amplifier. When the plasma snaps on, the impedance looking into the coil changes as a step, going from high impedance to low impedance. As you search the tuner to re-match into the lower impedance, I have had it burn out a power transistor in the output of the amplifier. Because of this, I put power resistors in the output of the amplifier to limit the range of possible impedance swing seen by the amplifier output transistors. While adding these resistors reduced the maximum achievable output power and reduced the RF conversion efficiency, it has been successful in preventing damage to the amplifier during tuning of the load.

    Are these wirewound resistors? If so, each will add another lump of inductance into the equation. That may or may not be important depending on whether they are counted in the 'heat input' part of the experiment.

  • Are these wirewound resistors?

    Hi Dan, You are right that wirewound power resistors would introduce a lot of inductance. What I used were power thick film resistors,…ktg_Lit/MP9000_Series.pdf , which are rated for 10nH of inductance. I don't intend to do calorimetry in this system. I am going to use this system to treat the Ni powder, and then put it into the previous insulated thermometry system to look for XH.

  • Here is what I am working on for treatment. The lecture bottle gas is He right now and will be changed to be H2. Also, I am showing an alumina reactor tube going through the coil. The processing will be done in a fused quartz tube that is the same size. I have the fused quartz tubes but I need to epoxy on a connector. I am working on the 13.56 MHz crystal signal source right now so as to eliminate the need for the waveform generator in the oscilloscope. The SS tree on the right is my vacuum system which is on a heavy duty cart.

    Have you found the excess heat?

  • lenrcentury In this line of plasma treatment, I am still working on the equipment to treat the Ni powder. In the previous Parkhomov-like experiments, I found no excess heat.

    There seems to be a heater inside the AURA reactor of me356. If you add a heater near the RF inductance coupling reactor, the effect may be better.

    Will the me356's AURA reactor be tested again in 2018?

  • lenrcentury Regarding the AURA reactor... Bob Greenyer, has not indicated that there has been a new invitation to test an me356 reactor. That doesn't mean that it won't happen, it just means that the invitation from me356 has not been given yet.

    The intent is to test the plasma processed powder in a separate reactor with a heater. A new heater is being constructed that will allow both the DC heating input and have an additional input to provide RF (using a bias-T). Both DC heating and DC+RF will be tested. A new heater coil is needed because the present heater coil is bifilar wound and cannot be driven to stimulate an RF magnetic field in the coil. No big deal to wind a new one.

  • Bob, I would like to make a few suggestion that you are welcome to utilize or take with a grain of salt.

    1 - Clean and degrease your powder before anything else.

    2 - Utilize a few cycles of heating and degassing under vacuum to remove trapped oxygen. I'm hearing this is important. Oxygen is a LENR killer.

    3 - Before implanting hydrogen utilize an inert argon gaseous environment to sputter clean the nickel oxide layer off the nickel. Argon is heavier than hydrogen so the cleaning will be far more effective.

    4 - Continue to sputter and simutaneously load protons into the nickel with a mix of argon and hydrogen in the RF or corona discharge (even more powerful). A final period with a high level of hydrogen may work well.

    5 - Minimize exposure to atmosphere during fuel transfer.

    6 - Apply lithium doped nano or micro-diamonds to the fuel. Patents exist that explain the doping process.

    7 - Use a positively charged plate or tube or wire around the fuel tube to attract EVOs (spheromaks) to the embrittled nickel. If no excess heat develops, reverse the polarity. Or try multiple cycles.

  • Director A couple of thoughts...

    The carbonyl Ni comes from the manufacturer very clean - direct from nickel tetracarbonyl decomposition. Experiments, particularly those of Jiang, suggest that as it comes from the manufacturer, the powder is pretty LENR active, but it quickly loses that activity, probably due to oxidation. Chemical cleaning is likely to leave the powder more contaminated than it was to start. Ni oxide is a weak oxide and pretty easy to remove in H2, particularly in an H2 plasma.

    Argon in a plasma has much heavier ions and because of this, when it strikes the Ni it is much more likely to knock off a pico-cluster of Ni atoms. This will have an advantage in Ni crystal growth and surface morphology change. It is surely worth trying - particularly a mix of Ar+H2. Ar+H2 is a common welding gas mix and should be readily available.

    I am not sure for what the Li-doped nanodiamonds are useful. The Li doping makes diamond into a semiconductor. If you use DLC, it is naturally conducting/semiconducting and will have its surface coated on some faces with small CNTs that become field emission sources. Diamond films have been used as field emission sources for vacuum tube operation, but it was DLC that was most effective in being an electron emitter. Doped diamond has been used mostly with single crystal diamond in making diamond transistors. Do you have a reference for use of Li-doped nano- or micro-diamonds to some particular LENR benefit aside from electron emission?

    Your 7) statement is a lot like the work of Peery and Suhas and others that ascribe electrical discharge stimulation of dusty plasma LENR. It could also be what Rossi is claiming in his QX. Electrical discharge is definitely worth trying.

  • Thank you for the feedback! A few quick thoughts.

    We know Rossi used nano-diamonds as well as graphene in some capacity due to statements in the court papers and depositions. They were vague, though. But I think they could be useful in generating EVOs. My guess is that in a powder based system they might even be stimulated by RF energy in addition to heat or SPPs that might roll through the fuel mix.

    I also think in the final RF reactor a percentage of argon or xenon mixed in might be useful. I've read a statement in a paper about spheromaks that even the addition of less than 1% argon or xenon to the hydrogen environment of the "gun" increases their internal magnetic field and stability 10 fold. I think that in many of Rossi's systems he wanted to bombard this fuel with these structures. And, even if we don't get direct strikes, they can continuously emit showers of energetic electrons that could induce SPPs on the nickel.

    About the QX: I think it is a more classical spheromak fusion setup using Li and H, which we know have some interesting reactions even at low energies due to the results from Unified Gravity Corporation and other researchers who have been able to induce fusion reactions at very low proton energies of 200 eV in some cases. My guess is that there are permanent magnets used that produce a magnetic mirror trap that tend to confine the spheromaks or at least bunch them up so they collide, compress, and inducefusion reactions.

  • BobHiggins

    In direct&practical reference to your upcoming tests, do you have two identical Geiger counters so that the suggestion that in the potential presence of any 'strange radiation' emission a count enhancement by placing foils or layers of conductive metals (silver, copper, etc) in front of one of the detectors' window could be verified without altering their arrangement while the experiment is running? You might have already read about this before, for example here, but also probably in other instances.

    Of course, their sensitivity would be tested/calibrated before the actual test, as well as any attenuation of the background signal caused by the metal foil/shielding.

    I think I recall a silver coin was used briefly on a past MFMP test by Goldwater et al, which caused a pancake GM detector to report a slightly decreased background signal.

  • can No, I don't have two identical GM counters available. However, one will work with either a silver foil and/or an indium foil as witness materials. Indium is useful as a neutron witness material as it will be readily activated by a neutron flux. This is what Parkhomov did for neutron detection. The activated indium is radioactive for a reasonable length of time, providing the opportunity for measurement after the exposure. In the case of strange radiation, my understanding it that it also causes activation - per some of the posts, it appears that Ag may be a good witness material for strange radiation. Ed Storms says that the strange radiation he has measured caused hours of activation.

  • BobHiggins

    I asked because if I recall correctly Alan Goldwater over the course of that experiment did have two identical regular GM detectors (I think GMC-320), but one of them was busy measuring counts in a different room, so this specific test couldn't be performed.

    In a number of posts and comments made in the past it was thought that GQ GMC-320 detectors were not sensitive enough for detecting gamma radiation during LENR experiments, while the older GMC-300 model, which has a different GM tube window material, would be.…ct/posts/1129990227031675…/1130948560269175/?type=3…ct/posts/1132279306802767…ct/posts/1132400013457363

    However, if this is actually due to strange radiation and if there indeed is some sort of interaction with detector materials (i.e. activation), then it's not really a matter of sensitivity and the seemingly insensitive GMC-320 could potentially be made useful too as suggested. It would have been interesting to show the difference with the detectors in both configurations operating at the same time.

  • can I am not sure which test you are talking about. In some of Alan's earlier work, detection was based on the stock GMC-320 or GMC-320+. As time progressed, Alan changed out the detector tube for an LND pancake tube. It is the tube that determines the sensitivity and the modified GMC-320 with the LND pancake tube will be very sensitive. As far as I know, Alan only has one of these because the LND tube is expensive. The surplus SI-8B Russian pancake tubes are also quite sensitive, but are much less expensive ($60).

  • The test I'm referring to is GlowStick 5.4. The detector used to detect gamma counts in a different room was the unmodified one.…tests/#comment-3138029753

    Bob Greenyer wrote:

    I discussed this with Alan and he wants to have the second GM 320+ in the office as a dosimeter.[...]

    I didn't remember right away that one of them was semi-permanently modified, however. After reading that thread now I see that I suggested that the insensitive (standard GMC-320) detector be used with metallic foil near the reactor alongside the pancake tube equipped one.

    I also wrote this at the time on LENR-Forum:

    In reference to my previous comment, in the end MFMP agreed upon my request (I used a different nickname on E-CatWorld) to add a silver metal plate (a 2.3mm thick, 38.6mm diameter commemorative 15 euro coin) on the front of the Geiger tube window of one of their detectors. This should increase the chances to see beta decay reactions from muon capture significantly; Russ George also apparently used silver foil with success some time back.

    In reference to Russ George as linked in the quote above here is a relevant excerpt:

    Russ George wrote:

    Once while running an experiment I happened upon a distinct highly reproducible radiation measurement. My Geiger Counter signaled the first hint of it and upon fiddling about with my “hey that’s strange” reaction to the enhance rate of Geiger clicks I managed to make the Geiger record vastly more counts, even saturating the detector. I did that by placing various different elementary foils between the source and the detector. Normally when one puts something in between a radiation source and a Geiger Counter the count rate inevitably goes down, not up. In my work a thin Silver foil sent the Geiger over the moon.

  • can The pancake detectors are large. It would be possible to place a silver foil in front of a portion of the detector. Then if the radiation starts reading high, you can run, or pull out the silver foil and see the difference in the counts when the silver foil is removed. Ed Storms ran a similar set of tests to determine the characteristics of the strange radiation he encountered. He ultimately concluded that the strange radiation activated the mica in the window of his GM pancake tube.

  • BobHiggins

    That would also work, although the initial suggestion was in part motivated also by the context of automated testing that you've been setting up so far (in that whenever possible no manual intervention is made after the experiment starts).

    On a related note, I think this paper describes some of those tests by Storms:

    Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2
    Submitted to J. Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Nov. 2012

    page 12 wrote:

    [...] The radiation being emitted by the sample is proposed to result from a fusion reaction that produces coherent photons. These photons are proposed to react with K40 nuclei in the mica window of the GM to stimulate its decay by beta and gamma emission that is easily detected by the GM. Some of the energetic gamma from this decay can reach GM #2 and cause a slight increase in count, as shown in Fig. 13.