Posts by ogfusionist

As usual, thanks Longview for your precise contribution to this discussion. Your comment on tenses is right on. This goes back ~50 years. Would really like for someone to repeat this experiment and settle the question of whether fusion actually does occur.

Big question for me is why/how did I stumble on using silver in the hydrogen purification before interaction with the nickelous oxide? What's obvious to me now is that it's critical. Sulfur/sulfides must be completely removed from the catalytic reaction. Because of free machining consideration sulfur will be present in stainless piping and introduce trace levels of H2S. Combustion analyzers (Leco) are very useful for trace sulfur analysis. The catalyst must be sulfur free and should be checked before use.

The reactor I used was loaded with nickelous oxide on Al2O3 FiberFrax. The hydrogen fusion relies on the NiO atomic configuration. The nickel valence must be maintained at 830 C where H2 dissociates to interact with the atomic array and fuse.

Wow, 14 years old. Thanks for your well thought out responses. Renews my hope that we may survive a bit longer, although Yellowstone may cause a fresh start. Forgive my jaded outlook, I'm very near 90 years old.

I'll pass on the secret of a working fusion reactor. Sulfur is the principal catalyst poison and can be effectively controlled with a silver getter. The catalyst is sub micron particle size nickelous oxide deposited onto an alumina FiberFrax substrate. The catalyst array is positioned into an alumina tube that is heated to 830 C with a wire wound resistance heater. Hydrogen gas passing through this reactor will fuse to produce helium with the production of heat. Water at high pressure is used as the heat exchange medium to drive a turbine while controlling the heat to stop runaway meltdown. It works, I've had a working prototype in my lab. Now you have the secret, good luck with it. I'll leave you to consider the method for utilization. I've publicized this to minimize any threat to your safety.

"The topic is making it work reliably, with high COP and change the world's perspective on it. After that, it's getting it to market and into the hands of every person on the globe."

Let's see how well you have thought this out. You've received the formula for constructing a fusion reactor that produces unlimited power from recirculating hydrogen with practically no consumption of the hydrogen. Very cheap to construct and would power every household. Now tell me what your next move would be. Careful, you might want to research the fate of previous inventors that jumped the gun. Real threats are terminated one way or another.

What would you get into the hands of every person on the globe? The chance for no more electric and gas bills? Then what?

"A CENTURY LONG? Screw that. If I get a reactor that has a COP of over 6, I'm releasing it commercially and the construction open source ASAP."

Fortunately there's the overseers of the World Economy that you would have to contend with. Your release and open source construction would have to wait until the effect would be considered beneficial.

"Stating that "Volcanic activity in one large scale eruption overwhelms many years of our contribution of CO2, SO2 and H2S" reveals a reliance on very poor sources, which suggests you are happy to follow someone else's agenda."

No, I watched and read the reports from the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption. I'm relying on good sources. Do you have someone else's agenda that you're following?

Back to the subject that's of interest on this forum. Now that we understand what catalyst really works and how to control catalyst poisoning, hydrogen fusion is run of the mill. Problem is that there is a lot of profit in burning our vast oil reserve. As my ancestors would say, "it'll be many moons" before we have hydrogen fusion as our energy source. Please note that fission is a completely different subject and now very profitable. Especially when using a breeder to increase the energy yield a thousand fold. Fusion has to await its turn. My enthusiasm related to nanoscale fusion stems from first viewing my NiO/FiberFrax reactor producing excess energy.

"Everyone else who has measured CO2 levels over the past 50 years has noticed approximately a 25% increase."

25% increase seems like a huge amount, when stated in concentration in parts per million then and now it seems like a piddling amount. Reporting "% increase" reveals a hidden agenda.

Specifications for the high temperature version you provided are close to what I used for the first reactor. I found a slab of the material in the maintenance stockroom and cut to size with shears before clean firing. Worked fine as the support for the NiO catalyst. The propane torch test is very useful to insure that the correct material is used before adding the catalyst. I can't overstate the need for the system to be sulfide free. Metal piping will add traces of H2S and poison the reactor.

I used high temperature furnace lining material known as Al2O3 FiberFrax. Does not contain SiO2. The NiO resides on the surface and maintains nickelous valence as seen by its characteristic green color before and after the fusion experiment at 830 C.

Nanoscale reactors seem to tap into a mysterious energy source that has been referred to as "free". That's what I was referring to. Transmutation is responsible either at low amu or relativily high amu. Now it appears that it's not a free energy source. I'll have to revise my definition.

What devastating effects fossil fuel usage on the world? Carbon dioxide is the product and is quickly dissolved in the ocean or lakes and accounts for mineral growth. I measured the CO2 level in the atmosphere 50 years ago and see the same level now. Of course, the vast quantity of water will establish the level and maintain it constant. We like to overemphasize our piddling effect on the global situation. Volcanic activity in one large scale eruption overwhelms many years of our contribution of CO2, SO2 and H2S. It will probably be more than a 2-decade long transition to ease the economic effect, probably at least a century or more.

Longview you're leaving me in the dust here. Too old to keep up. It all seemed much simpler years ago when I set up the FiberFrax/NiO train and recorded high thermal output at 830C with no apparent change in the green NiO catalyst. The RGA results seemed to indicate hydrogen fusion to produce helium. Seemed so simple, exactly what the sun was doing with the (-Ni-O-Ni-O-) periodicity along with the hydrogen interaction that overcame the Coulomb barrier. This array replaced the "gravitational" force.

"Imagine what could of happened if he let the world know about what was happening inside of the ECAT that makes it tick so well. We would of had hundreds of people working around the globe on getting cold fusion to market, and the whole thing could of happened a lot faster."

Yeah I can imagine the impact on the World Economy that "Free Energy" would have. Without a great deal of planning the switch from burning oil for heat to hydrogen fusion would be devastating. Fortunately we have very intelligent planners in control that will ease introduction of this transition. Many people depend on their survival related to jobs in oil production. I like your reference to the ECAT ticking so well, sort of like a time bomb.

The mysterious nickel catalyst that sometimes works and sometimes does not. Something like the F&P Pd catalyst. No one really understands the basics of this fusion reaction, Andrea Rossi included. Seems typical of a good research scientist who does not like to publish details about what he doesn't understand . Very easy to keep secret something you don't know.

"I agree, I wont forget the pursuit."

I'm trying to keep this experiment from going off on tangents and it's not easy.

Alumina has nothing to do with the reaction. Al2O3 FiberFrax is the support medium for the submicron NiO and undergoes no change if the fusion is controlled. The NiO catalyst must be reagent grade purity and never be exposed to sulfides. This requires a silver purifier immediately prior to the hydrogen in the reactor tube. The FiberFrax must be hydrogen (sulfide free) fired before impregnation with the NiO slurry. Can't over stress the need for control of sulfides as they permanently poison the NiO catalyst. The necessary -O- atomic surface layer is easily permanently replaced with -S- and deactivates the catalyst.

Thomas, yes I was measuring heat with a simple thermocouple set up. Answers to your questions in order:

(1). No melting of resistance heater wire. Pyrex envelope melted.
(2). Yes fast exothermic reaction with unchanged appearance of catalyst after reaction. Green NiO same before and after reaction.
(3). Catalyst appeared visually unchanged before as after.

I don't think it was a big jump to blame simple hydrogen fusion to produce heat in what I observed. What would you have thought if your experiment was a NiO reactor with a hydrogen supply that included an RGA for gas analysis and you measured a change in helium concentration. RGA easily resolved deuterium and helium and indicated an increase in helium in the exit gas? Thermal output was a sudden increase in temperature with a departure from linearity as monitored with power input to the heater.

Longview, you can't be old enough to recall the "hungry i" restaurant. Anyway, this stellar fusion comedy would not have been appreciated.

Seriously, while I'm still around it would be nice to see someone else attempt to initiate the hydrogen/helium fusion reaction using NiO.

Yes, let's keep the problem with reproducability ala Parkhomov, Rossi and Celani going. Add silica to the alumina reactor so that melting occurs at the reactors' operating temperature. Also don't purify the hydrogen so that the hydrogen sulfide from the piping will irreversably poison the nickel catalyst surface.

Why add another variable by introducing mullite? Stick with alumina that makes the thermal conductivity effect much simpler at the operating temperature of the reactor.

Hydrogen in is correct, maybe a new form of hydrogen out ("Hyrogen out"). "Q pluse" is puzzling? I didn't question "pleasure sensor" maybe they meant just that. Did wonder where it was attached.

Nitpicky, nitpicky,nitpicky.