The Lion, The Italian, and the Spheromak (EVO): LENR Stimulation From Outside and Within!

    Quote from axil

    Replication of identical evidence over multiple diverse systems with and without any copper chemistry avoid any conflation.

    THAT is how to resolve such issues! This is a legitimate concern, and the best way to address it is to use a different system.


    I often say there are systematic errors in every kind of instrument. So the best way to prove a result is not caused by a systematic error is to use a different instrument based on a different system that cannot have the same systematic error. It will some other error, but that's okay, as long as they are in reasonable agreement. Long ago, there was a vigorous debate that went for weeks and weeks about whether a power supply might affect a thermistor. I said "I don't think so, but try a mercury thermometer instead." They said, "maybe the power supply will affect mercury." I said: "okay, turn off the power and see if the thermometer changes, or move the thermometer away from the power supply, or try a red-alcohol thermometer." As I recall, no one paid attention. The debate went on. I ducked out of it.

    Quote from RussGeorge

    The more obvious and non-magical explanation on the damage outside (and inside) of the Lion tube is simple high temperature copper chemisty which is highly corrosive along with brute force themal effects of things over 1000 C in air. No amount of wishful interpretations or tasseography of the cremains can be fairly said to be real data that supports anomalous effects. Until there are repclications with solid data on power in and temperature logs with sound calibrations all this is very out there. Confusing things even more is the conflation of even more out there notions as being one and the same within the 'Lion', this is enough to make any cat cough up a fur ball, even an e-cat. The most important admonition/rule in science is 'data speak to me', not 'here's my interpretation of what I see, believe me' the latter is known as religion.


    The EVO explanation is non-magical. Although they have been referred to by a dozen different names, they have been documented by teams around the world going back decades. Of course, I'll say that there is a LOT we don't know about EVOs, especially the specifics that differentiate between strange radiation and the usually more interactive "white" EVOs of Kenneth Shoulders. However, we have a starting point by considering the well documented information about their usually much larger cousins, the spheromaks -- toroidal vortexes of electrons and very often positive ions that have been used in hot fusion experiments and military plasma weapon research. So if the statements of LION are accurate and representative of what actually happened, I expect that some aspect of this phenomenon is involved.


    But I whole heartedly and fully agree that we need more data, because right now we have very little -- and NOTHING providing proof of a self sustaining reactor, glowing alumina foam indicating possible migration of strange radiation, or the production of cold electricity. What we do have is a spent fuel tube and damaged Model T that sure seems, on the surface, to be the result of something more than ordinary, mundane chemistry. To prove anything there will need to be many more tests performed, but I'm personally leaning extremely heavily towards the likely possibility something beyond the normal took place. Of course, opinions don't matter. Single experiment's, not matter how well done, don't matter. The only way that the LION experiment (the diamond/nickel pad method) will become significant is if we can duplicate his results achieving self sustain, figure out the parameters required to trigger self sustain consistently, and can precisely convey those instructions to the broader community triggering a tidal wave of replications from one part of the globe to the other. Only then will this reaction be taken seriously.

    Quote from Director

    What we do have is a spent fuel tube and damaged Model T that sure seems, on the surface, to be the result of something more than ordinary, mundane chemistry.


    I don't agree at all. What part of this damage looks like it is due to anything beyond high temperatures? Nothing so far as I can see.


    Quote from Director

    The only way that the LION experiment (the diamond/nickel pad method) will become significant is if we can duplicate his results achieving self sustain, figure out the parameters required to trigger self sustain consistently, and can precisely convey those instructions to the broader community triggering a tidal wave of replications from one part of the globe to the other. Only then will this reaction be taken seriously.


    I don't really know what "self-sustain" means in this context and I think most of the people who use it here don't either.


    The first thing to say is that anomalous heat is not necessarily signaled by excess heat in the Model T testbed. Because the Model T includes a feedback system, under a wide range of conditions anomalous heat should not be signaled not by a temperature rise in the reactor chamber but by a reduction in the current needed to sustain the temperature at the commanded level. The whole brilliance of Alan Smith's Model T system is that it tries to sever the feedback between temperature and energy production that would normally lead the reactor temperature to run away to the melting point. Careful use of this system should be able to map out exactly the excess energy production as a function of temperature.


    The fact that LION has talked about the reactor (as far as I can recall) "getting really hot" and "throwing off waves of heat" indicates that he is not in the regime of carefully controlled heat as I think was envisioned by Alan Smith. The same goes for the remains of the LION 1 and 2 reactors which show the effects of high temperatures. This indicates that either LION was not using the Model T properly or that the excess heat generated by the reactor overcame the feedback capability of the PID system and was continuing to generate heat wwith zero current input to the heating coils. But now I don't understand why this would be stable. Why should the system go up to some temperature and then remain there for a long period? I would think that it might equally flare up like a match and tear through its fuel (whatever that is) all the while sending out ever increasing waves of dangerous radiation. Once either the fuel is exhausted, or the geometry of the reactor that allows excess heat production is destroyed, it should self-extinguish. In contrast, the way "self-sustain" is used here implies a precise balance between the temperature dependent rate of rate of fuel consumption and the ability of the system to radiate or conduct energy away and I would think that the proper conditions for this would occupy a small part of the parameter space. Maybe we are lucky and the system gently goes up to a stable temperature and stays there long term but I find this mostly wishful thinking on the part of the supporters.


    I the LION reactor really does generate anomalous heat then it sounds dangerous to me. A possible bomb casting off radiation of unknown properties. I think that Alan Smith should consider making his Model T not out of thermally insulative material but instead out of a material that is very good at conducting heat. And this should be connected to a bloody big heat sink. This would greatly extend the range within which the excess heat behaviour can be studied without leading to thermal runaway and perhaps explosion.

    Here is a wiring diagram from http://www.lookingforheat.com/research_notes/ :




    As I understand it the left heater is the reference position.

    The temperature of this is measured by the TC and kept constant by the PID regulator.

    The same current that heats the reference also heats the position with the core to be tested.

    Since the heating elements have the same resistance they will produce the same heating power.

    The right heater is a mirror image of the left and therefore it should, with no power from the core, have the same temperature as the left, the reference.


    When heat is produced in the core the temperature here should increase. This would be detected by another TC, not shown in the diagram above.


    Of course this scheme will not stop a runaway reaction in the core, but that is an entirely later problem.



    The Looking For Heat website mentions 2 experimental configurations. One where the active core is in the PID-controlled port and one where it is in the other port.


    If the active core is on the PID-controlled side (this is the configuration I prefer) then temperature control of the core is direct. Anomalous heating will cause the core temperature to rise but this will be countered by the PID controller in the form of a reduction in current. The reduction in current will result in the non-active side beginning to cool. There will eventually be a temperature gradient between the 2 sides due to the balance stuck by the lower current input to the reference unit and the heat leakage from the active side. The presence of anomalous heat is indicated by the gradient but the real story will be told by the relationship between the active core temperature and the current the PID system requires to establish temperature control .


    If the active core is in the non-controlled port and there is anomalous heat then its temperature will rise above the that of the reference system until the temperature differential begins to heat up the PID-controlled side. At that point the controller will reduce the current input until the reference system is back at the commanded temperature. So, in this configuration there is still temperature control of the the active core ... it is just that it is mediated by the conduction of heat over to the temperature sensor on the reference side. In this configuration too anomalous heat is signaled by a temperature differential between the 2 sides. However the relationship between the temperature and the input current will be less interpretable and the time constant for control might be slower (because it is mediated by heat conduction between the ports). I don't like this configuration as much as the other one.


    Both configurations are potentially capable of stopping any runaway reaction that depends on temperature feedback. This is because they sever the feedback. Of course the control could be overwhelmed by sufficiently intense anomalous heating or by system time constants that do not allow PID control to be established.

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    The right heater is a mirror image of the left and therefore it should, with no power from the core, have the same temperature as the left, the reference.


    I'm curious what the natural variance in delta T is between the two heaters when run outside of the context of an experiment.


    (Probably varies from one set of thermocouples to another, but perhaps there's a general bound.)

    Is there a reason to have the two ports connected via thermal conduction (even through insulating material)? It seems to me that this makes the analysis harder, and that isolating them from one another would simplify the system somewhat. But there might be a justification.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Eric Walker

    Is there a reason to have the two ports connected via thermal conduction (even through insulating material)? It seems to me that this makes the analysis harder, and that isolating them from one another would simplify the system somewhat. But there might be a justification.


    Hi Eric. The Model T AKA 'Friendly Robot' was developed, like the car it is named after, as an MVS. A minimum viable system, an inexpensive lab-rat/petri dish. It is a $400 system, not a $4,000 one. Here is another version I designed with thermal separation and also separate PSU's with lots of monitoring. Anybody wanting differential calorimetry accurate to around 2-3% (expressed as watts difference between isothermal channels) can order one of these - special requests only. I guess this one would work out at close to $900 plus data-logging and H-bridges.


    A well calibrated single block reactor like the Model T can be calibrated to within +/- 2.5 degrees between channels at 800C or better, but it takes a little time and patience. The reason both ports are wired in series is very simple, they both receive exactly the same current. There is inevitably some cross-talk between channels, but if you get excess heat in the test port -and the test port is the one that messages the PID - then power to the control port is also reduced, and so the control port temperature drops. So it mostly works out in the end. Clear signals of XSH, ease of use, electrical safety and accessible costs were key design factors, and from the odd comments from LFH's customers, those objectives have been achieved .






    Alan Smith


    Sort of the ultimate separation between ports would be separation in time. If the Model T has the capability to replay a recorded command signal then presumably one could use as a current command to a control reactor the recorded current form generated during the run of an active core from some earlier run. The differences in temperature would be the anomalous heat.


    Likewise, using the PID controller, presumably one could replay a temperature time series from an earlier run and compare the currents

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.