MFMP: Titanium/Vanadium Neutron production [safety warning]

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

As long as these observations remain scientifically unproven, these concerns are for all intents and purposes akin to being concerned by imaginary ghosts.

"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.

Quote from Can

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.

Quote from bocijn

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.

Quote from Bob Greenyer

[...] 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.

can

Easy

doi: 10.1039/c6nr01295g

Ahlfors

Interesting, although the preparation in this specific case seems a bit out of reach for ordinary folks.

can

DOI: 10.1002/anie.201207019

[DOI: 10.3103/S1541308X11010079]

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.

can

Kotzias Keyword: "Raman scattering enhancement via nanotech".

Paper cited in US20160225467: DOI 10.1002/anie.201207019, the less dangerous for IP protection.

Try instead DOI:10.1070/QE2010v040n04ABEH014259