MFMP:LFH - LION2 100% Replication well beyond LION1

  • This article is about natural Quartz, which may contain various impurities that yield different colours when irradiated and baked. Manufactured Quartz will -depending on the source of the quartz sand normally used - also contain impurities which will yield certain colours. This is not surprising at all, and in many ways not particularly useful. We have controls for this phenomenon already. Unused tubes.

  • magicsound


    There's no water- even the tube cement plug was dry. The quartz tube is a previously used one and merely a little milky. It's direct from the same manufacturer as the others though. There's no heavy water anywhere, and the exposed end is plugged with alumina wool - which has collected some carbon-smoke from the ingredients and discoloured a little.


    You reactor is packed an waiting for collection btw - spare thermocouples, fuel tubes and also a spare quartz liner and heating coil are in the box. Its calibrated pretty closely - just a few degrees difference between ports at 800C. However, I calibrated it with thermocouple inserted in the front, you will need to re-check using the 2 internal tc's. If there is significant variation shorten the coil in the coolest tube- but not by more than 1cm at a time. Allow at least 2 hours for warm-up before calibration and avoid drafts. ;) I'll send tracking details when the system goes live.

  • magicsound


    There's no water- even the tube cement plug was dry. The quartz tube is a previously used one and merely a little milky. It's direct from the same manufacturer as the others though. There's no heavy water anywhere, and the exposed end is plugged with alumina wool - which has collected some carbon-smoke from the ingredients and discoloured a little.


    Thanks for the shipping schedule, much appreciated.

    This is the apparent water I was asking about. I suppose it could be chips in the quartz tube itself.


  • Can someone provide a link to a description of this "LION" experiment? What did they do?


    The MFMP group on their twitter page promotes the bogus and ridiculous "Hutchison Effect" by the ignorant crank John Hutchison. That MFMP believes Hutchison's nonsense indicates scientific illiteracy and incompetence. Anyone that believes the Hutchison garbage sucks at science.

  • http://e-catworld.com/2018/02/…on-reactor-by-alan-smith/


    OK so it looks like in this experiment a bunch of (seemingly random) chemicals and metals were packed in a tube and heated to 800C. There was no calorimetry. What is the point of this experiment? Looks worthless to me.

    So the metals oxidized and there were some chemical reactions. Thats predictable and expected.

    This experiment would appear to have zero scientific value.

  • Just for the context, the many critics agains LENR experiments since F&P, and also for Rossi, was about "Control experiments". Especially in unknown domain, control are essential, as are calibration.


    Many critics are thorwn that could be simply rejected with a good control, and to be honest some critics are sent even despite the control... the charm of denial.


    As I've learned from experimenters, science is a slow boring process, where the "hourah" are suspended for verification, replications, recalibration, peer review, for months if not years...

    With a good director, I'm sure experimental science could be on Netflix in the Swedish Thriller category.


    Don't hold you breath, but prepare the coffee and the sandwich, if not the camping bed.

  • I'm still waiting for that materials expert to come over so we can salami-slice it open with a diamond saw rather than butcher it with a hammer. Sadly he is (unexpectedly) on the sick-list, but tells me he will be able to do it soon.

  • Thank you. Later I will hopefully post some interesting data (moderately interesting at least) from a 'dummy run' using the LION protocols but with under-prepared diamonds. I will do another this week.


    Sounds interesting. Without knowing what you have seen in the runs you are currently analyzing, I suggest that at some point it may also be of interest to try and replicate the results (rather than the procedures) of the LION 1 and 2 runs. By this I mean to try and do whatever it takes to melt the copper off of the core and see what then happens to the quartz liner and the alumina foam block underneath it. I suppose that would mean taking an unfueled core and turning the heat up as high as you can get it.

  • .....and do whatever it takes to melt the copper off of the core and see what then happens to the quartz liner and the alumina foam block underneath it.


    Hi Bruce. A worthy suggestion but I'm not sure that a Model T could get the copper hot fast enough to melt it before it oxidises. Wrong kind of furnace, wrong kind of copper. Thin wire (0.6mm) has a high surface area to volume ratio which makes rapid oxidation in the 800C+ zone fairly fast., and the furnace environment is also oxidative rather than reductive as a smelter would be. By putting a ceramic wool blanket on top of the reactor I know I can get to 1150C which is 100C more than the melting point of copper, but 300C or so under the melting point of copper oxide. If I up the voltage to increase the heat still more, I run every chance of frying the heater coils.


    Your proposal demands some careful though to make it feasible. It might be better to just melt some thicker copper bar in my forge and pour it onto the quartz/alumina. But I'm not sure that it will show us anything worthwhile= because there is little evidence that the copper wire in LION ever melted in the conventional sense.

  • Alan Smith


    I have a question about the operation of the Model T. Am I right in thinking that the only way that the test chamber can go above its set temperature at steady state is by the reactor going into runaway mode? It seems to me that if the reactor is simply giving off excess heat, the PID controller should reduce the input current until the set temperature is regained.


    If I am right in this then judging by the high-temperature effects seen in Bob Greenyer's post-mortems of Lion 1 and LION 2, the control side should have been quite cool -- almost ambient temperature -- during the runs. It should definitely have not been glowing and LION should almost have been able to touch it without protective gloves.

  • Am I right in thinking that the only way that the test chamber can go above its set temperature at steady state is by the reactor going into runaway mode? It seems to me that if the reactor is simply giving off excess heat, the PID controller should reduce the input current until the set temperature is regained.


    You are right. But of course, the temperature will only go down if there is no anomalous heat. What we don't yet know is which port the PID thermocouple was in. Control or test? I don't know. The control side would be far from cool even with no input- with the test port alongside (about 3 cms away) at what appears to be 1200C plus thermal leakage between ports would probably push the control port temperature to 500- 600C or so. LION told me that 'huge waves of heat' were being given off, and that kind of heat laughs at a little insulating brick.

  • Hi Bruce. A worthy suggestion but I'm not sure that a Model T could get the copper hot fast enough to melt it before it oxidises. Wrong kind of furnace, wrong kind of copper. Thin wire (0.6mm) has a high surface area to volume ratio which makes rapid oxidation in the 800C+ zone fairly fast., and the furnace environment is also oxidative rather than reductive as a smelter would be. By putting a ceramic wool blanket on top of the reactor I know I can get to 1150C which is 100C more than the melting point of copper, but 300C or so under the melting point of copper oxide. If I up the voltage to increase the heat still more, I run every chance of frying the heater coils.


    Interesting experience-based observations. Thanks!

  • You are right. But of course, the temperature will only go down if there is no anomalous heat.


    I've gotten myself a bit confused here. Do you mean that the temperature on the control side will only go down if there is no anomalous heat? I don't understand that.


    Here is my picture of all this. Suppose that the PID thermocouple is on the active reactor side and the reactor is generating anomalous heat. In that case the active side temperature will begin to rise but the PID controller will see this and reduce the input current so as to keep the temperature on the active side stable. Under these conditions the temperature of the control side will be whatever is generated by the input current plus whatever heat is flowing into it from the active side. If the anomalous heat generated by the active reactor increases the PID will accordingly lower the input current even more and this will cause the control side temperature to cool off even more. The only way that the steady-state active side temperature can rise above the set point is when the input current is zero because at that point PID control has hit a floor and is useless. At this point the control side will be heated exclusively by the heat leaking over from the active side. So the mark of anomalous heat generation whould be a decline in control side temperate until the active side goes into runaway mode and then the sky is the limit.

  • I mean that the system temperature would only go down with the PID switched out if there was no anomalous heat coming from elsewhere. Since we do not know for sure how LION arranged his thermocouples and which port was switching the system on and off there is little point in speculation. I am hunting data right now.

  • I mean that the system temperature would only go down with the PID switched out if there was no anomalous heat coming from elsewhere. Since we do not know for sure how LION arranged his thermocouples and which port was switching the system on and off there is little point in speculation. I am hunting data right now.


    Good explanations. Thanks.


    I didn't realize that so little is known of LION's procedures. I thought it was only the temperature that we don't know.

  • I didn't realize that so little is known of LION's procedures


    I spent 6 hours face to face discussing protocols with LION recently. I am happy we know enough to be confident about performing a replication using the same or very similar procedures. Data gathering techniques however are my own, and if successful will be rigorous, and there will be many more replications before the summer is done. There is no way this one is getting away.

  • I spent 6 hours face to face discussing protocols with LION recently. I am happy we know enough to be confident about performing a replication using the same or very similar procedures. Data gathering techniques however are my own, and if successful will be rigorous, and there will be many more replications before the summer is done. There is no way this one is getting away.


    That is good news! Thanks for all your efforts!

  • ....some interesting data (moderately interesting at least) from a 'dummy run' using the LION protocols but with under-prepared diamonds.


    As mentioned above- most interesting thing here is the rising trend in radiation count (Netto Geiger with SBM-20 detector tube) which was positioned 60 mm away from the 'hot tube'. Thermo 1 is the control port, Thermo 0 is the diamond dummy port.

         

  • As mentioned above- most interesting thing here is the rising trend in radiation count (Netto Geiger with SBM-20 detector tube) which was positioned 60 mm away from the 'hot tube'. Thermo 1 is the control port, Thermo 0 is the diamond dummy port.

         


    It's even better to use HPGE, a BGO scintillation detector or a cloud chamber to analyze these unknown low-energy or even high-energy radiation.