LION-AG Experiment

  • It could be that the process of increased hydrogen storage and the formation of ultra dense hydrogen are different processes.


    In the first case, the hydrogen could reside only on the surface of the carbon as a carbohydrate. In the second case, the hydrogen stays chemically pure but penetrates into the diamond where it is compressed by the diamond lattice thereby generating the ultra dense hydrogen form.

  • ...[Snip]...


    Secondly here's something to delight axil , diapads adhering to a nickel plated neo magnet which is also the cathode of a heavy-water electrolytic cell. The anode is a coil of palladium wire running around the outside the magnet.




    not long ago, axil was on the receiving end of an unworthy sarcastic taunt from the skeptopathic side of the (strange) tracks, implying his lack of experimental experience


    axil, bless him, took the taunt at face value and gave an honest reply


    and now - to the shame of the taunter - one of axil's suggestions is being tried out empirically, on the bench - we observe with interest


    distributed experimentation - a new paradigm


    thank you axil, thank you Alan Smith - there's room for all of us in *this* laboratory


    [sr]

  • can


    Hi Can. I seem to see a discrepancy in the two sets of data you plotted earlier

    LION-AG Experiment


    In particular, when you show cumulative He neutron counts for the longer dataset ,at 00:00 on 4/12 there is about a 50 count difference between the two halves of the temperature cycle. But when you show cumulative for the shorter dataset the 00:00 4/12 timepoint shows no difference at all.


    It is my understanding that the shorter dataset is just a subset of the larger one, so these plots should agree at identical timepoints shouldn't they?

  • and now - to the shame of the taunter - one of axil's suggestions is being tried out empirically

    Touche! I truly am sorry if I said it in a sarcastic way. The problem I am trying to point out is that some here, including Axil, act as if LENR to them is a completely understood phenomenon. He says things like, "LENR usually does <such and such>" and acts like he knows everything about the subject. He never says "I think...". How can we know what LENR usually does, when there is not yet one repeatable experiment that can be analyzed using statistics to say what is "usual" LENR vs. "unusual". Isn't this the kind of pomposity that many here (including me) disdain about some in the physics establishment, who think they know everything? Shouldn't we have the same skepticism of people here as we do for mainstream Quantum physicists who rule out LENR? This kind of goes along with the presentation of "O day" which was advertised as some remarkable knowledge only known by one human. This kind of behavior just bothers me and I overreacted. We are still waiting for "O day", by the way. Even I could make a suggestion that Alan could try, for example "Paint it white". If these suggestions leads to repeatable LENR, then I will have to eat my words.

  • Touche! I truly am sorry if I said it in a sarcastic way. The problem I am trying to point out is that some here, including Axil, act as if LENR to them is a completely understood phenomenon. He says things like, "LENR usually does <such and such>" and acts like he knows everything about the subject. He never says "I think...". How can we know what LENR usually does, when there is not yet one repeatable experiment that can be analyzed using statistics to say what is "usual" LENR vs. "unusual". Isn't this the kind of pomposity that many here (including me) disdain about some in the physics establishment, who think they know everything? Shouldn't we have the same skepticism of people here as we do for mainstream Quantum physicists who rule out LENR? This kind of goes along with the presentation of "O day" which was advertised as some remarkable knowledge only known by one human. This kind of behavior just bothers me and I overreacted. We are still waiting for "O day", by the way. Even I could make a suggestion that Alan could try, for example "Paint it white". If these suggestions leads to repeatable LENR, then I will have to eat my words.


    In the set of experimental observations that has MFMP previewed and that O-Day will cover, LENR has been expressed and deminstated at a very high fractional level...say 90%. The production of heat is only a small fraction of what LENR does. The problem with you is your expectations, what you want, and your knowledge of what has been done experimentally. LION has produced two reactor meltdowns. The control of the reaction has nothing to do with theory, it has to do with engineering. We can have a theory of LENR without a finished product. And we can have a finished product without a theory. LION has repeated his experiment. The Shishki experiment validates LION, Me356 has shown LENR activity. ECCO has shown the same LENR activity as these other experiments. All these examples of LENR experimentally verify theory to a high percentage level.


    The issue with the difficulties that the LION replicators are having is fuel preparation. Fuel preparation requires lots of experience. and lots of time. But during that time, I can use the LION meltdowns to validate theory. I am sorry that you don't except the current LION based MFMP video analysis, they show a lot.

  • The type of LENR that most people want to see is fuel based LENR. I beleive that the fuel needed to produce the LENR effect involves ultra dense matter. This type matter seems to be universally superconductive. The problem with this type LENR is that the fuel is very hard to produce.


    For example, Rossi has stated that he puts .3 grams of his hydride fuel into the QX reactor.


    It is analogous to a car builder who must produce his own fuel. He first needs to drill an oil well, pump the oil, extract the distillate, and fill his tank with gas before his car can move.


    Holmlid has been at this Ultra dense hydogen production process for 40 years and more. Very few people have been able to duplicate what Holmlid can do. Many professional scientists think that Ultra dense hydogen is not possible to manufacture. But some have done it. But the membership of the club that can do it feat is few. Yet Holmlid has patented a Ultra dense hydogen production machine.


    Once we have Ultra dense hydogen, we are most of the way to the creation of a working LENR reactor. We can't expect that a LENR reactor builder who has no idea what Ultra dense hydogen is and how it can be produced to accidentally come upon a way to produce it. It seems to me that LION has found of way to get micro diamonds to produce Ultra dense deuterium. But from the recent experiences of our LION replicator community, this fuel production process is hard to recreate. That is why I have suggested to our replicators to get a sample of ultra dense hydrogen from the people who know how to produce the fuel.


    MFMP has received a bottle of fuel from the ECCO reactor. MFMP should have put some of that stuff into their tube reactor and see what it can do. In closing, if we don't have LENR fuel, we can't produce a detectable LENR reaction that people usually recognize as LENR.

  • I would request members to keep on topic please.


    On which point:- Tomorrow we are kicking off 2 experiments with Diapads. One classic LION, but with extra diamonds,(75) and another 'ANDROCLES' with electrolytically deuterated diamonds.


    ETA. Actually, raw data from the first 'Androcles' experiment (electrolytically deuterium loaded diamond pads) has been checked and re-checked by two knowledgeable colleagues, and it shows the Netto Geiger rad count definitely higher than an equal temperature control Netto Geiger throughout the experiment.

  • I would request members to keep on topic please.


    On which point:- Tomorrow we are kicking off 2 experiments with Diapads. One classic LION, but with extra diamonds,(75) and another 'ANDROCLES' with electrolytically deuterated diamonds.


    ETA. Actually, raw data from the first 'Androcles' experiment (electrolytically deuterium loaded diamond pads) has been checked and re-checked by two knowledgeable colleagues, and it shows the Netto Geiger rad count definitely higher than an equal temperature control Netto Geiger throughout the experiment.


    After, your experiment, have you looked at the 'Androcles' diamonds under a microscope to compare them to an untreated diamond? MFMP saw strange particle damage inside the crystal structure of the used LION diamond. I wonder if such damage is also occurring in the 'Androcles' diamond.

  • I will show you some items that reflect what Holmlid thinks about LENR



    Question - Is your project linked with the Professor Tony Trewavas paper?

    Leif Holmlid

    Jul 2017

    Answer

    No. I do not work with LENR even if our results explain a large part of LENR results.

    Best regards, Leif Holmlid

    View

    ------------------------------------------

    UPDATE: Hot Fusion Professor Says LENR Scientists Should Check For Muons

    https://newenergytreasure.c...


    I disagree with Holmlid. LENR can produce high energy particles as witnessed by the Papp engine.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    https://hackaday.com/2015/1...

    DEUTERIUM POWERED HOMES AND THE RETURN OF COLD FUSION HYPE

    -----------------------------------------------------

    I have been asking LENR experimenters to start to check for muon production in their experiments, but they are stubborn and have heads of stone.

  • ETA. Actually, raw data from the first 'Androcles' experiment (electrolytically deuterium loaded diamond pads) has been checked and re-checked by two knowledgeable colleagues, and it shows the Netto Geiger rad count definitely higher than an equal temperature control Netto Geiger throughout the experiment.


    By "throughout the experiment" do you mean that the higher radiation counts are not locked to a particular part of the temperature cycle? Or do you mean that throughout the experiment the counts go up and down in step with the temperature forcing?

  • If the experiment is the source of the higher count, and the count is due to radioactivity, (1) the result should be repeatable, and (2) interposing a barrier should decrease the count.


    If the radiation count is caused by muons, interposing a barrier will increase the count.

  • More generally speaking a more or less large portion of this signal could be due to secondary emission, so a barrier might not necessarily decrease the count.


    Alan Smith—as well as Russ George here, who is currently performing tests with Alan Smith—reported previously that placing a barrier (in the form of a foil) increased the count. See 1 and 2.


    Neutrons could be doing something similar, although apparently they're not neutrons in this case.

  • Bruce__H


    Actually Bruce we use 3 Geigers. Rolling lab background, test, and isothermal control (same distance from the control reactor, same ambient temp as near as we can determine it). And yes, they have all been swapped around several times for cross-calibration purposes. Only shielding is 5-10 micron silver leaf.

  • Bruce__H


    Actually Bruce we use 3 Geigers. Rolling lab background, test, and isothermal control (same distance from the control reactor, same ambient temp as near as we can determine it). And yes, they have all been swapped around several times for cross-calibration purposes. Only shielding is 5-10 micron silver leaf.


    Mions produce neutron radiation through the generation of secondary catalyzed fusion and fission reactions.


    Why does the radiation appear at a lower temperature?


    A Bose condensate behaves just like a black hole. Every black hole (and condensate) is a black body radiator. It has a optimum temperature at which it produces heat through Hawking Radiation.



    BLACK HOLE THERMODYNAMICS

    https://briankoberlein.com/201…lack-hole-thermodynamics/


    IF we keep a Bose condensate at its ideal black body temperature, it cannot release heat, it is isolated. So it releases more excess energy through particle emissions...mesons. At the Hawking temperature, muons production is maximal...even if that Hawking temperature is low.

  • More generally speaking a more or less large portion of this signal could be due to secondary emission, so a barrier might not necessarily decrease the count.


    Since muons are most unlikely (despite Holmlid's claims), one can easily and safely assume that the count will decrease and carry out a series of tests with a barrier to see if there is a change in the count of some kind. And if later evidence emerges counter to expectations, one can dig further into that in the very slight chance that there actually are muons.