Bob is looking for evidence of EVOs, which according to Ken Shoulders and other will easily pass through metals. X-rays below 30 keV would not penetrate the 2mm steel cell wall, and above that would be detected by the GMC.
It's an easy test and I had the films on hand.
Bob is looking for evidence of EVOs, which according to Ken Shoulders and other will easily pass through metals. X-rays below 30 keV would not penetrate the 2mm steel cell wall, and above that would be detected by the GMC.
It's an easy test and I had the films on hand.
Would you consider high energy denser H2 clusters the same category as EVOs?
Probably. As I understand it, one proposed EVO structure is a self-sustaining magnetic torroid that can trap charged matter in its core. So ordinary H2 no, but H+ or H- clusters, maybe.
My philosophy in this is "just the facts" and I am theory-agnostic.
YouTube ended the stream after four hours. Here's a new link for continuation:
YouTube ended the stream after four hours. Here's a new link for continuation:
Alan, I would prefer to have a larger graph only e.g. spanning an A3 format page with all details. I'm sure you have a good script to do that!
Alan, I would prefer to have a larger graph only e.g. spanning an A3 format page with all details. I'm sure you have a good script to do that!
Wyttenbach As you know, I follow the process of Open Science, and the raw .csv data files are made available after each experimental run. I will be uploading the files from the current run at the end of today's work, which will be tomorrow for you. The links will be added to the Live Doc and also posted here. Any graphs of the data you can contribute would be welcome.
The video streamed on YouTube is captured from my DAQ display and broadcast using ManyCam. Real-time graphing of the data is a difficult chore that we were once able to do using Plotly. Unfortunately that company revoked their free version in 2018 and we have not been able to replace it.
YouTube ended the stream after four hours. Here's a new link for continuation:
"Some calibration points to watch are 70w=229C, 80w=250C, 90w=275C, 100w=292C, 110w=310C, 120w=330C, 130w=347C"
The final power step just finished (160 watts) matched the calibration within 1°C. No unusual radiation was detected, and no excess heat.
Think of this as a beta-test, in which sense it went very well. Next session will try the protocol suggested by Wyttenbach, cycling around the Curie temperature. A couple of of different mesh treatments will be tried after that. I'm too tired to post the data files tonight, but will tomorrow for sure.
A quick note to express my appreciation and admiration. Your example in conducting science is quite extraordinary, both in technical aptitude and mannerism! There are several here that should learn by your fine example!
While somewhat disappointing that no "excess heat" was measured, I am sure you have gleaned information none the less. I am keeping fingers crossed that subsequent testing will reveal the elusive prize! However, over a year after the big announcement, it appears hope is dwindling. As often the case, only rumors are heard from others. No data, no reports, no accountable announcements even though early on it was stated that formal reports would be given "whether positive or negative". Perhaps some will still come, but with each passing month, less likely. Only one report that I know of was reported, no excess heat from Deneaum(sp?) and then it was severely defensively criticized. Go figure! This makes your openness even more admirable!
It seems the common thread to the CF arena. Big announcements and then silence. Then defensive remarks and posts about only decades experienced researchers can hope to be successful! However, for 30 years, dozens of these very experienced researchers have not been able to create a reproducible, positive experiment. (The Google team fiasco is a prime example. Not one example was agreed upon to present to them a highly likely reproducible reactor test) And then after the big announcement, the original researcher themselves seem unable to replicate their own work! (I can list examples but it would rile feathers)
Unfortunate.
I think this forum should start up a GoFund Me project for you. I would contribute and feel very satisfied that contributions would be well invested!
Good work and best wishes!
A quick note to express my appreciation and admiration.
Thanks for the complement Bob#2
This chart tells the tale of MR1. The complete data sets are available at https://tinyurl.com/s66zevn
Temperature and radiation data vs time.
I think this forum should start up a GoFund Me project for you. I would contribute and feel very satisfied that contributions would be well invested!
magicsound is an MFMP member. They already have a funding page.
Post-analysis of the cell gas show it is not pure deuterium, but at least 50%. The strong signal at A=3 is almost certainly HD. The residual water vapor and OH- is probably from the RGA system and its sampling capillary rather than from the cell, as there is no trace of D2O at A=20.
lenr-forum.com/attachment/11660/lenr-forum.com/attachment/11661/
magicsound is an MFMP member. They already have a funding page.
MFMP's formal structure is Quantum Heat, a CIC corporation in UK and a 501c3 non-profit charity in the US. Donations made to Quantum Heat Inc are welcome and are tax-deductible in the US and California. Please contact me off-list if you'd like to support our research.
Test proposal: bring pressure and temperature to conditions where PdD would form, then evacuate so that the deuteride decomposes and apply heat again.
Rationale: according to Edmund Storms, the process may create LENR-active cracks in the material. This was also advised to Matt Lilley here: https://gitlab.com/mklilley/lenr/issues/1
Where Matt reported:
QuoteOn the advice of Ed Storms, I took some of the pressure out of the reactor to encourage hydrogen to come out of the palladium and encourage the palladium to go from beta phase to alpha phase. In Ed's view, this will create cracks that will enable the lenr reaction.
can The Mizuno protocol is different in that it instructs to apply the Pd as a surface catalyst on the Ni mesh, rather than being a bulk reaction host. In the MR1 just done only 10 mg of Pd were present, and that was found to be as a scattering of micron-size particles on the sanded areas of the mesh. An SEM/EDS image is attached, and the full report is available at https://tinyurl.com/vfuetdq
The depth of these spots is not known, but they would have to be thick enough to return x-rays from the electron beam scan.
To sum up, I think more Pd is needed, and both sides of the mesh need to be prepared. That was not done for MR1, for practical reasons. For MR2, the foil-covered plywood core of the sanding jig will be replaced with a piece of 1/2 inch thick plate glass. Both sides of the mesh will be treated, with 30 mg of Pd deposited.
In his pre-print paper Mizuno also suggested to first confirm that the mesh could be highly loaded with hydrogen at a higher pressure. This would incidentally perform what Storms believes to be an essential process to render the mesh (or other similarly burnished substrates) active for excess heat production. Regardless of what either researcher believes, it should be worth a try with the currently prepared mesh unless you're low on deuterium.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf
Quote from Tadahiko MizunoThe amount of gas absorbed by the nickel must be monitored to measure loading, to confirm the material is more permeable than ordinary nickel. It will not produce excess heat otherwise. However, once it is determined that it can be highly loaded, it should be de-loaded and run at low gas pressure, as described in the Method section below.
This would incidentally perform what Storms believes to be an essential process to render the mesh (or other similarly burnished substrates) active for excess heat production.
For what it's worth, this was described more in detail in this paper by Storms:
Relationship between the burnishing process used by Mizuno and the Storms theory of NAE formation.
Quote from Edmund Storms[...] According to the Storms’ theory[2], this special condition, called the NAE (Nuclear Active Environment), consists of physical gaps having dimensions of a few nanometers between the atomic planes. Such gaps can be formed in many different ways, but up to the present time they have resulted when stress is relieved at random sites within the physical structure. The stress is created when the material, usually palladium, reacts with isotopes of hydrogen, thereby causing expansion. Removal of the hydrogen causes contraction, during which time most of the gaps (cracks) form. This counter intuitive conclusion results because the expansion resulting during reaction with hydrogen produces mainly compressive stress, which on average would not produce gaps. Removal of hydrogen produces contraction that results in the kind of stress required to produce gaps. Consequently, according to the Storms model, the Pd must experience deloading at one time during the study for LENR to be triggered.[3] Once formed, the NAE seems to be stable for long periods of time.
In his pre-print paper Mizuno also suggested to first confirm that the mesh could be highly loaded with hydrogen at a higher pressure.
The same has been presented in Assisi, last year, by an Italian researcher. Hydrogen causes cavities in Nickel, but follow up Deuterium will block them. This indicates that you do have to enhance this step e.g. by removing Deuterium again and going back to Hydrogen once more to make the cavities even larger. But this is the Nickel centered approach.
Based on this I would do the H/D steps a few times before the Pd deposition on the Ni mesh! It is important that the cavities stay below the Pd deposit!
