MFMP: Titanium/Vanadium Neutron production [safety warning]

  • Interesting: on many levels

    Ethics.. physics.. confidentiality... liability







    The presentation starts after 14 minutes



    Presentation

    https://drive.google.com/file/…kED9WNk9qTC0xZFJNNUk/view


    According to BobG...


    because of the Paris attacks in 2015, Piantelli avoided ( and perhaps concealed )

    using Nickel with Titanium/Vanadium because they release neutrons/ gamma radiation from transmutation)


    Interesting to see if household friendly excess heat can be got without using Titanium/ Vanadium.

    also .. how many of the other transition metals appear to give out neutrons


    Iron?


    Carpentiri found that rebar steel appears to have produced anomalous Scandium under high pressure fracture?


    http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319169545 2015


    Zirconium?

  • So Sorry, I have an opinion that contradicts the current thinking of MFMP.


    Here is why.


    If you remember, Celani said about the January 14, 2011 demo as follows:


    “After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems, some inner resistors had broken down; Mr. Rossi came out of the room delighted: "The reactor has started". Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything.”


    This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken place.


    But while the reactor was in operation, at the demonstration on January 14, no measurable nuclear radiation was detected. Villa wrote:


    “The energy power input and output and gamma radiations were measured before, during and after the active phase of the system, as well as the hydrogen consumption. While a net energy output was observed, no γ excess (with energy above 200 keV has been measured above the natural background level (<180 Hz rate in single mode, compared to an expected rate largely in excess of 1 MHz).”


    Rossi eventually fixed this radiation problem by getting his reactor up to operating temperature before startup by using a secondary heater that was used preheat the reactor to a high operating temperature. Currently, Rossi does not use lead for radiation protection.


    IMHO, Piantelli sometimes sees radiation because he runs his reactor cold. The radiation elimination mechanism (Bose condinsation) requires vigorous pumping( high heat) to get the BEC going.


    By the way, the "signal" marks the start and end of the BEC formation.


    I give reasons why a BEC eliminates radiation from the LENR reaction here


    Using String theory in condensed matter physics

  • "We've been sitting for two years and a half on this piece of information which could have potentially led to a fast track to LENR proof - we decided to not reveal it until now because we thought it's too dangerous" [paraphrasing]


    Clearer now?


    EDIT: in other words:


    1) What purpose would serve to tell (or hint) someone that an experiment he's doing could be dangerous if he is not also made aware of what exactly can make it dangerous? It would not be a credible claim unless it can be substantiated, nor would deter most who can from trying anyway.


    2) If the finding can lead to a quicker acceptance of LENR with the potential of shutting down the field, so be it and reveal it. It's not like waiting more will make it any less dangerous, and people would eventually find out anyway once massive experimentation of successful experiments takes place. Plus, to "shut down the field" (assuming this would be actually possible) it would first require one or more expert bodies to acknowledge it's about a real phenomenon. Seems like a win-win situation to me, if radical. At that point you have the serious governmental/academic attention that would have been required in the first place in dealing with it.

  • 1) What purpose would serve to tell (or hint) someone that an experiment he's doing could be dangerous if he is not also made aware of what exactly can make it dangerous? It would not be a credible claim unless it can be substantiated, nor would deter most who can from trying anyway.


    can : W,Ti,V and others are extremely dangerous for amateurs because they mostly consist of a mixture of isotopes which behave completely different.


    There is ample literature about W/Ti and dangerous radiation/ byproducts not only in LENR... We here only warn the amateurs. As you might know, there are no bad chemists/experimental physicists by the law of Darwin.

  • Can wrote:What purpose would serve to tell (or hint) someone that an experiment he's doing could be dangerous if he is not also made aware of what exactly can make it dangerous? It would not be a credible claim unless it can be substantiated, nor would deter most who can from trying anyway.


    That's an ethical question that three informed MFMP researchers decided to solve in a particular way.

    The feedback mostly has been positive on ECW.


    MFMP cannot quantify what is the risk or say how it arises but a few elementary precautions to minimise the exposure to possible radiation can be taken

    such as monitoring for radiation, .. admittedly neutron detectors are not cheap...and minimising the undetereds DNA exposure to it

  • That's an ethical question that three informed MFMP researchers decided to solve in a particular way.

    The feedback mostly has been positive on ECW.


    MFMP cannot quantify what is the risk or say how it arises but a few elementary precautions to minimise the exposure to possible radiation can be taken

    such as monitoring for radiation, .. admittedly neutron detectors are not cheap...and minimising the undetereds DNA exposure to it


    What I am saying is simply that claims of unconventional dangers in LENR experimentation (that is, besides what is proven by commonly accepted science) have to be backed with repeatable and verifiable data and not to be used as an excuse to withhold information like others (and to some extent MFMP too, by their own admission above) have done in the past. Hopefully dedicated testing to shed some light on whether those concerns are founded will start soon enough.

  • Bob Greenyer reported on E-CatWorld moments ago that a researcher emailed him that he got successful results with Vanadium Oxide. If the oxide form of the element is fine too, Titanium (di)oxide might be fine as well. It's readily available and easy to handle.


    Bob Greenyer wrote:

    [...] During the 'ABC-Story' presentation, we were sent an email from a non LENR viewer that finally had a reason for their anomaly in their Vanadium Oxide including experiment - that is to say, by going public, we had apparent confirmation by a non-affiliated, non-lenr party during the presentation. Additionally, an MFMP researcher, but not a board member, who is in a position to test (safety wise) is working out how he can test it.



    Titanium Oxide is apparently the preferred catalyst for ultra-dense hydrogen production according to a couple patent applications by Bernhard Kotzias of Airbus DS. It's not clear if Kotzias meant TiO2 or a non-stoichiometric form which could be more catalytically active. But since it's referring to a material available in large quantities, it's probably TiO2 (although again, in this case there don't seem to be indications on which form exactly. Rutile? Anatase? etc.)

    1. US20170025191 - Material arrangement for fusion reactor and method for producing the same
    2. US20170022055 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING AND FOR FUSING ULTRA-DENSE HYDROGEN
    Quote

    [...][0034] In a further exemplary embodiment of the apparatus according to the invention, the catalyst coating comprises a titanium oxide. This material is already produced industrially in large quantities as powder and is therefore readily available.

  • LENR is a strange phenomenon that has defied the more conventional scientific discovery process for 28 years, so maybe it will take BG's/MFMP's unorthodox methods to uncover it's core secrets? If so, it will sure make for an interesting chapter in the annals of science history. Especially if it pans out as MFMP hopes, that a semi-meltdown on a trip to India, followed by a failed test in Eastern Europe (me356), padlocked door in India (Suhas), and the supposedly good ash samples collected from those forays, along with Piantelli's results and advice to them about Ti at a lunch in Italy, lead to the key piece of the puzzle!


    MFMP seems to be stirring up, and galvanizing the LENR field. Fostering cooperation, and IMO encouraging some "thinking outside of the box", and chasing leads no one else will. That may be what it takes...who knows. I wish them the best of luck. They have my support, and no matter where their instincts take them from now on, I will never be critical of them again.

  • Ahlfors

    I take it that those papers are, in several ways, related with the work of Berhnard Kotzias, who I cited a couple comments earlier, correct?

    The first one, I recall seeing it before; the second one is extremely interesting, but probably beyond the scope of this thread.

  • I don't catch all here, especially because I did not find a paper describing that story...


    some unrelated generalities.

    Thinking out of the box is good to find what is not found in the box, but

    1- key is "thinking" not dreaming.

    2- Maybe it would be wise to study what is ignored in the box, before looking outside. (some look out of the box just because they don't face what is in)


    PdD is very rich in information, not understood, and some line of experiment are very compatible with instruments.

    Electrolysis, and best dry permeation, or thin films à la Iwamura, are easier to instruments (surface state, isotopic changes, metallurgy) than LENR involving powders or plasma...