hendersonmj Member
  • Member since May 12th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by hendersonmj

    Many of the questions people are asking have been answered, do we really want him to spoon feed us? Nothing is hidden, need to dig in.

    Did you see his post asking if anybody wants to buy bubble detectors because he wants to buy them in quantity to save money? BD-PND neutron detectors There's discussion of models and data sheets.

    Many of @me356's posts are in part 1 of this thread or his Celani wires thread or on quantumheat.org (the MFMP official site) or on MFMP's Facebook page (example: https://www.facebook.com/Marti…ct/posts/1132279306802767).

    I know it is difficult because it took me more than a day to , but reading all of @me356's posts from February 2015 to today is extremely enlightening. We need to read his notes and not pester him with busywork, innuendo, and baseless accusations.

    LENR validation is the opposite of Schrodinger's Cat:
    A COP>1 experiment exists in a state of being either valid or not ... a probability function of both.
    If an observer measures that state, then the OBSERVER now exists in a state of being either valid or not ... a probability function of both. (Levi, Lewans, Penon, Fabiani, Celani, Piantelli, Pons, Fleischmann, ...)
    The way out of this conundrum is for the experiment to save the planet. Until our doubting Thomas has driven 10,000 km in a new Model ME356, we won't really know.

    I am not going to push @me356 one way or the other on disclosure. I trust he will decide when it is the right time and how to unveil the details of his efforts.

    A parable about crowds:
    In 2009, I volunteered at one of the major professional golf tournaments. I was fortunate to be assigned to the crew who did crowd control work at the first tee, driving range, and clubhouse. For one fantastic week I was within inches of the greatest players in the world. Do you know why Tiger Woods rarely signs autographs? Safety! A huge mob followed him everywhere. If he stopped, the crowd would stampede and someone would be hurt or killed. I watched him carefully choose confined area where few spectators would fit and give a dozen signatures. Here's a picture I snapped from inside the rope: http://i.imgur.com/HZACbZp.jpg

    I understand that the lenr-forum.com audience wants a documented recipe. @me356 has an excellent history of keeping his project moving forward and outlining his learnings along the way. Let's not spoil it by pushing too hard. I have recently re-read nearly every posting he made in the last year and I feel we need to trust him. Be patient.

    So yesterday I jumped down the rabbit hole and followed the amazing trail of information posted by @me356 since Feb 2015. He is clearly a polymath, with a remarkable ability to pull from skills in many areas including electronics and programming. He has built his own PID, signal generator, data recording tools, and calorimeter. I have reason to believe he may not be working alone, but only because he occasionally used the pronoun "we". He began with a Parkhomov-style replication and used lenr-forum as an ersatz lab diary and sounding board. Some of the questions he poses show depth. For example, if you have an inefficient heater and make it better, how would you tell the difference between improved efficiency and high COP? He has an incredible work ethic, his apparatuses show refined workmanship, he is cautious about both safety and privacy, and is both patient and goal driven.

    In his initial work, he made discoveries about absorption of hydrogen and the role of pressure (and vacuum) and temperature, but no anomalous heat. Around this time (summer 2015) @me356 dove into the papers of Cellani, Piantelli and other older works. @me356 notes the similarity of LENR devices and commercial off-the-shelf neutron generators. He believes that LENR has been around for a century. I suspect he is referring to works by Irving Langmuir at General Electric from 1909 to 1927. Langmuir saw anomalous energy in his experiments on atomic hydrogen plasmas generated from tungsten electrodes. Neils Bohr convinced him this would be contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and Langmuir should not ruin his career by publishing.

    @me356 ran experiments that improved his control of hydrogen generation from Li / LiAlH4. He grew to see Parkhomov cells as limited, and switched approach from external to internal heating by inductive heating and also from nickel powder to nickel wire. He developed a relationship with MFMP that appears to have been mutually beneficial, but parallel, not fully intertwined. In mid-October 2015, @me356 ran an experiment with an iron-foil lined reactor and reported "Excess heat is visible even at 200°C, but there is just 1W difference. At 300°C it is around 3W and at 400°C it is more than 5W."

    The tone and style of @me356's communications changed significantly soon after this. Was there something about witnessing over-unity COP that changed him, or perhaps once he entered unexplored territory he had less need for the discussion? Over the four months from November 2015 through February 2016, I found relatively fewer posts. His posts were less of a lab notebook and he expressed frustration with the skeptics. And yet this was an important period for his work.

    In the winter of 2016, excitement around LENR began to grow exponentially after Andrea Rossi's announcement that his 1 year 1MW test in a customer's plant was finished and the report by the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV) was imminent. The world of LENR has taken on a carnival atmosphere. And yet @me356's quiet progress may overshadow all of the Rossi circus in the long run.

    In March, @me356 reported "For last few months I have made many of these (wire, not powder) reactors, all with the similar design, different size, ... And each one generated excess heat. Calibrations and post-calibrations and all kinds of measurement were done with expensive equipments so there is not a big room for an errors." He reactivated the "ME356: Reactor Parameters" thread as he dusted off his early nickel / LiAlH4 powder reactor, but applied what he'd learned in his later work. He declared "Now I am able to turn the excess heat on and off on will. This is something that allows me perfect verification and comparison. Achieved COP was only around 1.5, yet I didn't expected to be high as with my other reactors."

    LENR researcher Francesco Celani joined the lenr-forum.com discussions in March 2015. Celani soon took note of @me356's efforts, offered suggestions for catalysing hydrogen dissociation, and invited @me356 to correspond by email "to increase the overall efficiency in the comunication, and to avoid that other people will spend (a lot) of time in too-much technical details." The discussion community objected and both Celani and @me356 appear to have opened up on the lenr-forum board about their work.

    Most recently, @me356 built and tested two new reactors. The first reactor, a 5kW prototype, "melted, excess heat was present, fuel chamber boiled, hydrogen catched fire." The second reactor was a complete change of direction "utilizing plasma discharge in a non-arcing mode with very high H1 production" inside a transparent quartz tube and "not loaded with any Lithium, only trace of Nickel and mainly Tungsten." He reported "I have found that there was high energetic neutron burst ... excess heat was triggered at 350°C ... reactor glowed enormously (purple to white color)."

    @me356 seems open, discussing the effect of pressure and temperature profiles. He refers to a stimulus that can be enabled/disabled. "Because temperature increased so high (just in 1 second) I have immediately turned off the stimulation as I was afraid." But it is not clear to me what form that takes. In early work, he mentioned he had designed a circuit for producting waveforms and other signals. The stimulus is the card he holds closest to the vest

    @me356 is working to increase COP to 3. His vision is a simple, safe reactor that is accessible to everyone. He says full details of his work will be revealed, he will conduct unambiguous calorimetry to prove COP, and he will invite skeptics to perform any tests they wish.

    I may have something: dissociation of H2 >> 2 H increases the thermal conductivity.

    "Nernst in 1904 had developed the theory of heat conduction in a dissociating gas and had shown that dissociation results in a great increase in the heat conductivity. The dissociation products diffuse from the hot portions of the gas into the cold portions and there, by recombining, give up the large energy of the reaction. This suggested, as mentioned earlier that the abnormal heat conductivity of hydrogen at high temperatures was due to dissociation of the hydrogen into atoms according to the reaction H2 → 2H."


    Wouldn't that lead to a different correction factor for Hydrogen depending on the degree of dissociation?

    From the Wikipedia article on Irving Langmuir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Langmuir

    "His initial contributions to science came from his study of light bulbs (a continuation of his Ph.D. work). His first major development was the improvement of the diffusion pump, which ultimately led to the invention of the high-vacuum rectifier and amplifier tubes. A year later, he and colleague Lewi Tonks discovered that the lifetime of atungsten filament could be greatly lengthened by filling the bulb with an inert gas, such as argon, the critical factor (overlooked by other researchers) being the need for extreme cleanliness in all stages of the process. He also discovered that twisting the filament into a tight coil improved its efficiency. These were important developments in the history of the incandescent light bulb. His work in surface chemistry began at this point, when he discovered that molecular hydrogen introduced into a tungsten-filament bulb dissociated into atomic hydrogen and formed a layer one atom thick on the surface of the bulb."

    "While working at General Electric the Nobel Chemist Irving Langmuir noted an excess of heat production in work he was doing on atomic hydrogen plasmas created between tungsten electrodes. This work was done between 1909 and 1927. Langmuir was a meticulous scientist and found it hard to believe his own experimental results. Due to the influence of the Neil Bohr Langmuir was persuaded to disbelieve his own results. Although Langmuir never published his work his private letters to Bohr, discovered by Nicholas Moller are held by the Copenhagen library. Not understanding, or wanting to understand, the process involved Bohr insisted that Langmuir’s results could not be correct since they violated conservation of energy and persuaded Langmuir that publishing them would ruin his career."

    http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html (includes a photo of the hydrogen torch)
    From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 -
    "Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms:
    H2 <=> 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen directed across the arc, and formed an intensely hot flame, which is capable of melting tungsten (m.p. 3400oC). This flame obtains its heat not from combustion but from the recombination of hydrogen atoms into H2. It is suitable for melting and welding many metals. Iron can be melted without contamination with carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. Because of the powerful reducing action of the atomic hydrogen, alloys can be melted without fluxes and without surface oxidation. A feature of the flame is the great rapidity with which heat can be delivered to a surface, which is very important in welding operations."

    Sorry folks. I have watched the merciless flock of pigeons descend on open science practitioners. Science by committee rarely works; science by rabble mob never works. Let's leave the person who is @me356 to work in peace.

    @me356, we take you at your word and that is good enough. Let us know how we can assist.

    I don't understand the Oct 2011 pump flow rate issue. Let's suppose it is a sloppy decimal error and the rate is 1.76 kg/h instead of 17.6 kg/h. This value is at the lower end of the capacity of that model pump. It also equates to a COP > 3. Where did the other 800+ W of heat come from? The flow rate seems necessary but not sufficient to fully disprove LENR occurred.

    Pressure transducers are often based on strain gauges. If you change the stiffness of that component, you could change its response to changes in pressure. Could the pressure transducer be reacting with hydrogen in such a way as to change its modulus of elasticity?

    Shooting a bullet under water is a flawed analogy to accelerating an electron through a gas with an electrical potential.
    a) Bullets have all their kinetic energy at the start and no potential energy. The only forces are reducing their inertia.
    b) Bullets aren't spherical, so they can tumble increasing resistance.
    c) Electrons have very little inertia to lose.
    d) Electrons have nearly elastic interactions with other electrons and only minor energy losses when their path is curved by protons and deuterons.

    @frank Grimer

    I assume you mean to exclude stellar fusion, supernovas and stuff like this.

    But is it conceivable that some of the heat in the Earth's mantle and core comes from fusion processes? If (when?) LENR is fully vetted, there will be a fair amount of re-thinking of planetary heat balances.

    3) The Ni 64 has half life which is low, and is naturally radioactive, but with low intensity.

    If it works, I'm all for it.

    64Ni does not have a short half-life, it is stable over billions of years so it not radioactive. 63Ni has a half-life of 100 days, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel. 64Ni's nucleus consists of a high and even number of neutrons (36) and a magic number of protons (28). In the Lugano report, 64Ni comprised 1.1% of the fuel. Natural abundance is 0.9%, so maybe it was 20% enhanced but perhaps that difference is within the margin of error? Meanwhile the ash consisted almost completely of 62Ni ... very little or no 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni or 64Ni remained.

    Monazite, on the other hand, is radioactive due to the presence of thorium. The radioactive decay series of 232Th is complex and produces alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. I can see why it might make a good trigger.

    BTW, if this bad boy goes BANG! in your garage, you may have a decontamination problem to deal with.

    gio06: Can you write in english please? Or write in russian and english?

    I am laughing so hard. Were you trying to be funny?

    @gio06 post, according to translate.google.com, says

    "I have an article in Russian, in which I described the process in the reactions of metal - hydride to release excess heat
    Unfortunately, I do not know English, so there is no translation of the article into English.

    Article Thermodynamic calculations and excessive heat generation mechanism example A.Rossi reactor.

    Where can we have this article, as well as in electronic form?

    Can you give us a link?"