Recent updates from Francesco Celani

Message to Ahlfors, post#356.

Sorry for late replay: we were deeply involved in assembling the NEW core of the reactor, with increased number of Constantan wires (2 usual +8 new).

We got several problems because assembling constrains, now almost all solved.

* I am deeply interested on your documents.

Please add them in public attachment at LENR-forum, or, if you like, send to my private e_mail: [email protected]

Thanks for kind collaboration and understanding,

Francesco CELANI

Dear Colleagues,

comments and replay to post #356, #396,

about using extra 8 wires in our set-up, in order to avoid mis-understandings.

* Now we added extra 8 Constantan wires (in short CST) in our experiment, BUT the aim of the test and preparation procedure are DIFFERENT from "standard one", according to our previous set up, as shortly resumed (further details allowable from our presentation at IWAHLM-12, 34 pages; document added in the LENR-FORUM last week):

1) The standard CST, length initial about 125 cm, diameter 200 micron, has about 70-80 knots with internal diameter of 150-200 micron. Each wire, treated hundred times by high power eletric pulses (each about 5000 V*A, typical duration 50ms), is treated several times (10-15) by a liquid solution of Fe10-K1-Mn1 nitrate (diluted in D2O).

Such procedure is quite time-consuming and the wires, during preparation, several times self-destroied because hot-spot generations and local overheating.

1a) Moreover the glassy sheaths, were the wires are inserted, are embedded in a Sr(NO3)2 solution.

2) Such wires after Xe-D2 gas mixture absorbtion at high temperatures (200--700°C), are operated in the so-called direct heating condition by DC current (up to 2.2 A in some test).

3) We had indications that the, well known, cathalytic proprieties of CST toward the D2-->2D reaction are ENHANCHED by the current flowing (electromigration and/or NEMCA effect).

4) The 8 NEW wires added, because experimental constrains and progress toward a practical application, had a more simple preparation procedure, i.e. no knots, no pulsing, just DC current and Fe-K-Mn deposits. Moreover, they don't have possibility to be connected to the power supply for current flowing.

In other words they can be heated only INDIRECTLY (but at lower temperatures) by the "standard" CST active wire.

They have the treatment of point 1A.

In the test the 8 wires are assempled in groups of 2.

5) Main aim is to measure the effect of addition of simplified (low cost) CST materials and glassy sheaths and try to evaluate the importance of increased amounts of "possible active (from the point of view of AHE generation)" materials inside the reactor.

The date will be comparated with latest 2 experiments, as reported at IWAHLM-12 presentation.

* Previous results, as reported at MIT CANR/LENR meeting (held on 21-23 March 2014 at Boston-USA), give indications that increasing the overall amount of material, i.e. glassy sheaths and some "primitive" powders of CST with Fe, was usefull to increase the AHE.

Thanks for Your kind attention,

Francesco CELANI

Francesco CELANI

Maybe this is becoming a bit too much off-topic for this thread, but I have a question: when directly heated, do your wires show a greater AHE within a certain input voltage range?

Francesco CELANI

Thanks for the clarification. In that case the 8 wire experiment cannot use single wire results as a control. It is a shame that you cannot do this, for example by adjusting temperature of the 8 wires to equal that of the single.

(This thread was created by moving posts from the E-Cat QX thread to a new, dedicated thread.)

Quote from Francesco CELANI

* First question is: who endorsed such paper for repository, according to the written rules of arXiv organization?

It is a Scientific repository, not a Patent office.

Dear Dr. Celani,

I think the problem here is how arXiv works since, as you also states, it's just a repository/registry and there are no other services offered by the site to publicly aid the peer review process. arXiv appears to be popular and respected since a lot of respected people published their article drafts there (and historically many of these drafts were remarkably useful) but there's no rule that this should true for all articles published on arXiv. Because the only form of moderation appears to be the rejection of the article, using principles like the article being undoubtedly wrong or manifestly anti-scientific, I think it's not immediate for moderators to drop the article that, at least, got a second iteration that provided more details and corrections and new iterations with more details could follow. The fact that you had to write to a forum that has no connection to arXiv to express your concerns about Gullstrom-Rossi's article should make you wonder that, in the current state, arXiv is mostly a free to use directory service and many people with enough math and physics education will be able to publish and archive their drafts there. Also, because the article is mostly theoretical and physics is still a field where theories can still be discussed on mathemical terms without providing verifiable experimental evidence, the only ground for serious rework of the article should be 1) asking Gullstrom-Rossi for the information you think is missing and could be disclosed instead OR 2) asking Gullstrom-Rossi to just drop the experimental part of the article and keep the theoretical one.