Atom-Ecology

  • Can you confirm that your series of measurements exclude heat inertia in the alumina bricks as origin of the difference?


    The switch on/switch off times were identical. The fuelled reactor heats faster than the un-fuelled one, and tends to overshoot the PID-set temperature is all. Any difference in the stored thermal energy is marginal, and does not explain the difference in the curves. As is usual with high-grade lightweight insulating materials, its actual heat storage capacity is quite small.

  • The switch on/switch off times were identical. The fuelled reactor heats faster than the un-fuelled one, and tends to overshoot the PID-set temperature is all.

    Good to hear that, thanks for sharing. And interesting to read that the fuelled reactor heats faster - that was not evident in the graph - because a fast increase in temperature can facilitate desorbtion of bulk H/D in excited Rydberg species.

  • Well, there will be online videos and much sharing, but no livestreams, a term I consider to be oxymoronic. I think we will be able to invite a few small groups of visitors to be anomalously irradiated 'up close and personal' at the Funny Farm though.

    Earlier in the year, you had stated that a presentation would be made on a very significant phenomena. I believe this was originally intended to be at Lewan's "New Energy symposium", which has since been postponed / canceled. Then per the above, you indicated some videos would be available.


    Was this device the "Androcles" reactor or something different? I was under the impression that the proposed spring event would reveal a "lab rat" type of anonymous energy. (My use of word) I assumed lab rat, due to the fact that if one was certain they could present the effect at a conference, the repeatability of the device would have to be very high. One would not want to make a presentation and wind up stating "oh, it does not always work" type scenario.


    I am not clear if the Androcles is this device or if it was something else that has since been dropped (or at least not discussed recently).

    Thank you for clarification.

  • The fuelled reactor heats faster than the un-fuelled one, and tends to overshoot the PID-set temperature ...


    This is actually a prediction that comes directly from the assumption of a temperature-dependent activation of anomalous heating that I outlined before. There should be a threshold beyond which the system wants to rapidly rise to some maximum. Because you have only weak newtonian cooling in your setup the PID system should struggle to maintain temperature control as soon as you cross this threshold.


    Do you find it difficult to keep your system at an some intermediate temperatures but easier at higher or lower temperatures?


  • I have to admit that Figure 2 on page 16 is one of the most persuasive plots I have ever seen in the lenr field (I am a sceptic and I have been very much unpersuaded by almost everything I have seen in the field so far). If this is not just an artefact then It is what I would have expected to see from a mechanism where there is temperature-dependent activation of lenr heating. In particular (and this is not pointed out in the your paper), there is an upward inflection in the temperature time course in Figure 2 just when the temperature passes 300.5 degrees K. This appears to correspond to the threshold phenomenon that is a necessary consequence of nonlinear temperature-dependent lenr activation. I admit that I don`t understand why there is still anomalous heating (i.e., heat after death) when the temperature falls below that threshold in the latter part of the trace, but I then I know nothing about the geometry of the situation here or whether other factors come into play.


    Thanks for the link to your paper. i will now read the whole thing!

  • there is an upward inflection in the temperature time course in Figure 2 just when the temperature passes 300.5 degrees K. This appears to correspond to the threshold phenomenon that is a necessary consequence of nonlinear temperature-dependent lenr activation. I admit that I don`t understand why there is still anomalous heating (i.e., heat after death) when the temperature falls below that threshold in the latter part of the trace,

    I think HAD can be explained as follows.


    This is self-heating, rather than external heating. The cathode keeps itself above the critical temperature.


    The temperature sensor in all calorimeters is some distance from the cathode. In HAD, the sensor is bound to reflect a considerably lower temperature than the cathode. Furthermore, the most dramatic and long-lasting HAD that has been reproduced many times was by Fleischmann and Pons, and in these cases the cells boiled dry. The cathode was left surrounded by water vapor. This conducts less heat than liquid electrolyte, so the temperature difference between the temperature sensor array and the cathode was even larger than it would be with liquid.


    During electrolysis, much of the heat comes from resistance heating at both the cathode and anode, so I think mixing is better and the heat reaches the temperature sensor more evenly. HAD even with liquid in the cell has no resistance heating. Nothing comes from the anode. The heat all comes from the cathode which is a point-source. You can see this in a close-up video of a cell producing HAD in liquid phase: all the bubbles are from boiling (which look quite different from electrolysis), and they are all on the cathode. The anode is quiescent. I think this point-source effect also increases the temperature difference between the sensor and the cathode.


    ADD Plus, obviously, in liquid electrolysis with an open cell the temperature of the electrolyte cannot exceed 100°C. I should have mentioned that! The cathode can self-heat as much as it likes. The water might boil vigorously. But the temperature sensor will not see it go above 100. After all the water leaves the cell the sensor sees water vapor which I believe is also at 100°C. It is at 1 atm. If it is heated, it rarefies; it doesn't get hotter.


    (Ikegami from the National Plasma Fusion Center in Nagoya told me there is water vapor in the headspace after a boil-off, not deuterium gas or air.)


    It may be that a high temperature is needed to trigger the reaction, but it can then fall somewhat lower before the reaction is quenched. Abruptly forcing the temperature lower will quench it.

  • I have to admit that Figure 2 on page 16 is one of the most persuasive plots I have ever seen in the lenr field

    Martin thought so. I think others did not see his point.


    He wrote a lot about this in his letters, and also in papers. This document is his letters, which can be difficult to follow. Okay, his papers are also difficult to follow. He was not easy to understand.

  • I have a rough idea why that might be but do you know explicitly why that was?

    Good question. In the cell that I saw long ago, I recall it was several centimeters above the anode & cathode. Sort of like this:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceeding.pdf#page=52


    Note that this configuration uses a single thermistor in a glass tube. I saw multiple devices in a similar tube. (Thermistors or thermocouples -- I don't recall.)


    The boil-off paper shows the sensors stuffed inside the anode loop, above the cathode, which would reduce the difference between the cathode temperature and the sensor temperature during electrolysis. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    I am not sure what the actual dimensions of these cells are. It is listed somewhere. The shape and proportions are as shown.

  • I think HAD can be explained as follows.


    This is self-heating, rather than external heating. The cathode keeps itself above the critical temperature.


    The halve live of the D-D fusion reaction, that is the time an average D-D--> 4He needs to release its about 23MeV excess energy is very, very long. This is certainly something that people that stick with the standard model won't grasp. But the neutron follows the same law.


    The new model predicts that the halve live of D-D fusion is threshold (input energy needed to start D-D--> 4He ) dependent. The deeper the threshold the longer the HAD phase. But of course this is not linear...

  • Something completely different.

    While I was not sure, it seemed that it might be a different device and thus my question.

    It sounded as if this "original device" was as promising as the Androcles.


    Also interesting is the "completely different". As some stated here (THH?) it would be most unusual for there to be two major but truly unique mechanisms discovered at the same time,

    resulting in a similar energy discharge. Unusual but perhaps not impossible.


    Has worked stopped on this "original" device or is there a dual investigation? If continued, can any information be shared?

    Thanks again.

  • Also interesting is the "completely different". As some stated here (THH?) it would be most unusual for there to be two major but truly unique mechanisms discovered at the same time,

    resulting in a similar energy discharge. Unusual but perhaps not impossible.


    An unwise thing to say I'm afraid. I do believe in the conservation of miracles, and neither of the mechanisms we were experimenting with are new discoveries in the LENR field. 'Hot and dry' and 'cool and wet' are both different versions of the same mechanism. As even Jed would agree.


    Has worked stopped on this "original" device or is there a dual investigation? If continued, can any information be shared?


    There are only 3 of us, and I and my colleagues are working 60 hours a week as it is, since 2 of us are also very busy building a small-scale pilot plant for a non-LENR process. So just the one 'hot and dry' LENR system at the moment. Full time volunteers with scientific and technical expertise are welcome to apply for non-paying jobs btw. On the topic of sharing information, we are, but at a pace of our own choosing,

  • An unwise thing to say I'm afraid. I do believe in the conservation of miracles, and neither of the mechanisms we were experimenting with are new discoveries in the LENR field. 'Hot and dry' and 'cool and wet' are both different versions of the same mechanism. As even Jed would agree.



    There are only 3 of us, and I and my colleagues are working 60 hours a week as it is, since 2 of us are also very busy building a small-scale pilot plant for a non-LENR process. So just the one 'hot and dry' LENR system at the moment. Full time volunteers with scienetific and technical expertise are welcome to apply for non-paying jobs btw. On the topic of sharing information, we are, but at a pace of our own choosing,

    Thank you for the response.


    Certainly understandable, only so many hours one can work. Better to be precise with one project than spread too thin with two.


    Does anyone know the status of Bob H or Magicsound's research? Last I heard, they were not seeing much in terms of excess heat or gammas. Perhaps they would be interested in testing one the "original" devices? I have faith that they are both well suited and highly capable.


    Having an independant replication in this field is truly needed.


    I wish I could assist, but alas, I am in a different country than LFH and am not skilled in the art to attempt any reasearch by myself, so I must watch from afar.:(


    Too bad as it would be most interesting.

  • I have to admit that Figure 2 on page 16 is one of the most persuasive plots I have ever seen in the lenr field ...

    Martin thought so. I think others did not see his point.


    I think that I find this figure of Fleischmann`s compelling because of my experience with excitable systems (e.g. neuronal and cardiac tissues). From the standpoint of myself and my colleagues Fleischmann's plot is immediately informative, but I now realize that this may not be so for those in the lenr community. So here is a description of the possible basis of lenr "heat after death". It uses standard tools of nonlinear dynamical systems theory.


    First, suppose that whatever the lenr mechanism is, it is temperature-dependent. Assume that the dependence is something generic like this ....


    Figure 1/


    The precise relationship doesn't matter because this will be a qualitative argument. The point is that as the temperature increases, lenr heating turns on.


    Now think about cooling. On the same temperature axis, the essence of effect of Newtonian cooling is that its effect grows linearly as temperature increases beyond ambient levels. Something like this ...


    Figure 2/



    Putting these two things together by taking lenr heating minus Newtonian cooling gives, at any temperature, whether it is heating or cooling that predominates -- or whether the two are balanced.


    Figure 3/




    In plot 3, when the curve is above the horizontal axis heating predominates, and so the temperature of the system will increase. When the curve is below the axis, cooling predominates and the system temperature will decrease. Points A, B,and C are so called `steady states` where heating and cooling are perfectly balanced such that the system temperature will not move either up or down.


    Now here is the point of the analysis. The arrows on the horizontal axis in Figure 3 show the direction that the temperature of the system will move at any given temperature. You can see that points A and C are stable steady states in the sense that if you displace the system temperature a little bit from them it will come right back back (these are so-called `attractors`). Point A is a low-temperature attractor where there is no lenr activity and point C is a high-temperature attractor where the lenr mechanism is essentially fully activated. In contrast to these two points, B shows an unstable steady state. This means that if the system temperature is right at B it will remain steady but that the smallest displacement of temperature will cause the system to move away from point B and end up at either A or C. In technical language point B is called a `separatrix'. It separates two basins of attraction or two areas of very different behaviour. Such a situation, having multiple areas of behaviour, is impossible in a linear system.


    So the import of Figure 3/ , above, is that point B is a threshold beyond which lenr activity will switch on in a sgtble fashion and will be resistant to turning off. At temperatures below the threshold at point B, cooling predominates and eventually lenr will shut off.


    Here is how this all relates to the figure that Fleischmann was so keen on. All the plots so far show relationships between temperature and overall heating/cooling. It is also possible to use these relationships to numerically simulate the time course of temperatures in a system like this. So here is what you get if you have a system with these nonlinear properties and start out near point A, and then push the temperature upwards using eternal heating.


    Figure 4/



    The square curve at the bottom shows how external heating is pulsed on and then off. The curve above it shows how the system temperature changes in response. Beginning at point A (which is meant to be the same point as point A in Figure 3/ above), the system temperature rises more or less exponentially in response to the external heating. If there was no active lenr heating at work here the system would continue along the dotted line. But if there is lenr heating, then a threshold is present (at point B) and once you cross this threshold the system temperature quickly shoots up seeking a new attractor as a consequence. Now, even if external heating is removed as shown here, you are still stuck at the attractor at point C where lenr heating is still engaged. This is what I take to be called heat after death. The combination of an inflection point when the threshold is crossed and then, later on, a continuing elevated temperature is a dead giveaway that I instantly recognized as characteristic of the nonlinear mechanism I have outlined here. I'm not sure whether of not Fleischmann himself recognized the importance of the inflection point in the plot.


    Although my argument here is qualitative, I stress that all components are measurable and so, in theory, all parts of Figures 1-3 could be quantified. I think in practice, however, that Alan Smith cannot measure the lenr temperature-activation curve in Figure 1/ because of the way his measurement system is presently constituted. The empirical quantification of the Figure 1/ activation curve would require that the system temperature be held at a series of temperatures that span the activation region f the lenr heating and I think that Alan's PID controller would not be able to stabilize the system temperature over this range because it does not have active cooling.

  • Newtonion cooling means the the power is basically k1T, k1 constant

    Assume the power of the LENR reaction is proprotional to T e.g. k2T, k2 constant


    this means that the power added is (k2-k1)T


    If we assume that k2 < k1 and take k = k1 - k2, we see that the system behaves as a newtonian cooling with k in stead of k1

  • Assume the power of the LENR reaction is proprotional to T e.g. k2T, k2 constant


    I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go. Forever. Shouldn`t there be some limit on how fast the lenr mechnism can churn out heat? Once again, though, the activation relationship should be measurable.


    Going beyond that objection, however, the existence of a threshold doesn`t really depend on having a maximal activation level for lenr heat generation. It just depends on the foot of the temperature-dependent lenr activation relationhip having a curvilinear form such that below a certain temperature the probability of an lenr reaction is essentially zero. I suspect that this would come about from the probability of two nuclear reactants coming close enough to interact.

  • IMO it seems more reasonable to assume a linear relationship, based on a) the linearity of diffusion/temperature equations, and b) experimental data: http://lenrexplained.com/wp-co…SS-REPORT-5-corrected.pdf

    First of all, I would point out that part of the sigmoidal activation curve I have posited is linear, i.e. the part with the positive slope. Secondly, if the experimental data you are referring to is Figure 6 in the most interesting paper you have linked to then this shows a nonlinear relationship between cell temperature and excess power since below about 40 degrees C the relationship is flat. .

  • I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go. Forever. Shouldn`t there be some limit on how fast the lenr mechnism can churn out heat? Once again, though, the activation relationship should be measurable.


    Going beyond that objection, however, the existence of a threshold doesn`t really depend on having a maximal activation level for lenr heat generation. It just depends on the foot of the temperature-dependent lenr activation relationhip having a curvilinear form such that below a certain temperature the probability of an lenr reaction is essentially zero. I suspect that this would come about from the probability of two nuclear reactants coming close enough to interact.

    This assumes a linear relationship between power and temperature, small intervalls are always linear, but the question is if the actual interval is small or not, we don't know.

  • I don`t see this as a physically reasonable assumption. It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go.


    This is simply wrong. Only the ignition of LENR is sometimes temperature dependent, but as Holmlid shows - the faint lab light is enough to produce H*/D* and finally mesons.


    Some LENR processes depend on very narrow conditions. Thus raising T just means "scanning over the trigger point" nothing more. High LENR energy output will ultimately stop the process because the NAE decays.


    In case of simple LiNiH LENR it sometimes looks like the output is dependent on the input. But the LiNiH branch is very demanding and I would follow other paths.

  • Regarding: "It says that the higher the temperature goes the higher the lenr power will go."


    Optical pumping


    https://www.rp-photonics.com/optical_pumping.html



    Optically pumping some medium essentially means to inject light in order to electronically excite the medium or some of its constituents into other (usually higher-lying) energy levels.


    In the case of a LENR reactor, the result of optical pumping is to increase the population of polaritons. When the density of the polariton population reaches a critical level a polariton petal condensate will form at which time the gamma radiation will be replaced with heat.

  • My point is that if the experiment is okey and there is an excess energy, then the data indicate that the reaction rate is indeed linear in the temperature band in question.


    Depends on what linear means. If the excess energy is constant - e.g. 25 Watts - then certainly the LENR reaction rate is independent of the current cooling T.


    To get a deeper insight, I would wait until Russ publishes a more detailed paper.

  • part of the sigmoidal activation curve I have posited is linear


    :/?(:huh:



    Secondly, if the experimental data you are referring to is Figure 6 in the most interesting paper you have linked to then this shows a nonlinear relationship between cell temperature and excess power since below about 40 degrees C the relationship is flat. .


    Yeah, fair enough. I reckon your 'attractors' sketch would would look fairly similar either way.

    I can't work out how to line up the two graphs' axes in SPICE when modelling a 25W 'input' into an R-C model of the alumina block, versus it's Newtonion cooling, so it's a bit pointless comparing the two, but something fairly similar to your idea of a plateau pops out: At least, there's a higher peak after power-down and a non-exponential roll-off.

  • This assumes a linear relationship between power and temperature, small intervalls are always linear, but the question is if the actual interval is small or not, we don't know.


    I'm not clear on your meaning here. What is "this"?


    If you are saying that the sigmoidal activation relationship I posited is linear over part of its range, then I agree. The crucial point is that it is not globally linear like newtonian cooling. Just the property of lenr activation being near zero at low temperatures and then nonzero at more positive temperatures is enough to establish a threshold.

  • I'm not clear on your meaning here. What is "this"?


    If you are saying that the sigmoidal activation relationship I posited is linear over part of its range, then I agree. The crucial point is that it is not globally linear like newtonian cooling. Just the property of lenr activation being near zero at low temperatures and then nonzero at more positive temperatures is enough to establish a threshold.

    generated heat W = a + k T, k possitive