ogfusionist Member
  • Member since Jun 11th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by ogfusionist

    FiberFrax, exactly what I need and don't have. Has to be the alumina based high temp variety as the catalyst support. Easy to check using a laboratory Meker burner; the correct material won't melt. Will let you know if I advance to the stage where it's needed. Exciting to get back to the planning stage on this; not easy though being mostly bound to a rocking chair.


    Keeping up with reports worldwide on nickel based e-cats, I have no doubt that this much simpler version using NiO will sustain hydrogen fusion. It worked 50 years ago. Are you interested in patenting the process?

    Thanks Longview, glad to see the effort to keep this forum at a high level of ethics. Visiting this forum is one of my daily highlights.


    Someday hope to see some work done on the nickelous oxide reactor. I'm trying to get equipped for a kitchen type reactor to repeat my earlier work. Will post results if successful. I've rigged a Geiger counter to assure that my earlier work that showed no alpha or beta escaping the reactor and little gamma to play it safe. My past employment as a safety engineer in a plant that produced enriched U-235 for fission reactors is paying off.

    "PS: that is not a personal attack"


    Back to "p's" remarks. I notice that something hit the fan when "p" mentioned CERN.


    Anyway, now that the secret related to sulfur poisoning and how to control the effect on NiO is revealed, hydrogen fusion at the helium level would be replicated by anyone taking the necessary precautions. Nickel metal catalyst requires special treatment to establish surface morphology, submicron NiO is easily available and can be used directly.

    There has always been an overtone of disrespect in "p's" remarks. What was the straw that broke the camel's back? Is there a hierarchy to what's tolerated? Maybe I've been retired too long and have forgotten about business hierarchy.


    Linked websites are "simply designed to draw readers to that linked website". I agree linked websites are like bait on a hook and work best mostly for suckers. I don't mean to be disrespectful just honest.

    To emphasize the problem with replication of this form of reaction let's consider replication of the Pons and Fleischmann observation that resulted in "May 3, 1989 Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion". Replication was unsuccessful because the origonal condition of the palladium couldn't be duplicated. The same applies to using nickel at this time. Very difficult to duplicate the surface morphology of the nickel available to the experimenters. Until luck is taken out of the equation it will play a very frustrating role in success or failure. A lot of reactors will end as fiascos.

    I enjoyed Pathoskeptics' remarks until he departed from skepticism to criticism. Criticism is healthy unless carried too far, I agree there should be a limit to aggressivity. He should stick with skepticism as his nom de plume suggests. This behavior is following the path of a pathological disorder though.

    As I mentioned before I'm getting old and this work was done 50 years ago. What I recall from work with barium thermionic emitters the sulfur displaces oxygen and changes the emission properties. This must have influenced my choice of getter material for purifying hydrogen. Sulfur is common in metal piping and continuously releases H2S in the hydrogen stream. I placed the silver getter just prior to the reactor after thorough hydrogen firing of all the piping used. I used a combustion analyzer to check for the sulfur content in the piping and made sure the sulfur was undetectable. Even then a silver getter was necessary to remove the sulfide that was introduced from the piping. We had ultrapure hydrogen in the lab but the piping would add sulfide at trace levels. Probably why the getter was needed for the success of the reactor. Not much sulfur needed to poison the NiO surface.

    Without control of catalyst poisoning attempting replication is useless. Because of the prevalance of sulfur in our atmosphere the hydrogen used for the fusion reaction must be pre purified. I used silver to drop the H2S concentration below the detection limit of the RGA (10^-10 torr).


    We're now getting to the heart of problems with replication. Sulfur displaces oxygen on the atomic surface layer of the catalyst and at operating temperature is permanently bound. It's important after applying the high purity NiO that H2S never reaches the surface.

    Sulfur is the most active poisoning element. Hydrogen firing is the most effective means of removing sulfur by formation of hydrogen sulfide and sweeping away with hydrogen flow.


    "since the 10^-9 bar is a tall order to uphold, and at those temperatures, especially if we talk off the shelf stuff for diy guys."


    We're not talking 10^-9 bar, we're talking partial pressures of less than 10^-10 torr to effectively remove sulfides from the catalyst surface.

    AlainCo in reply to your statement; "If it is confirmed, one interesting question is to explain the problem to replicate by some..."


    Hydrogen fusion in the reactor depends on the surface morphology of the nickel. Problems replicating texture and composition of the metal would make replication difficult. I avoided this variability by using ultra fine nickelous oxide in the reactor. Much easier to control.

    "for flying in a bomb, a normal fighter is an unstable plane with a ton of explosive fuel, ammunitions. early transatlantic boats or planes were even less safe, and don't talk of Saturn V bomb."


    Exactly, this is a very small segment of the population that pilot these devices. Few people use flight for transportation because of inherent fear of flying. Flying an atomic bomb will reduce the number even further. Commercial use of atomic bomb flight for profit is a pipe dream.

    Thank Rical for the references on modification of the Coulomb barrier.


    The nickelous oxide reactor fusion experiment that I performed did not require any modification to theory. The atomic array of the catalyst establishes spacing that overcome the repulsive force. No new physics required in this reaction, it's simply the stellar form of fusion. The stability of the nickelous valence at the critical 830 C allows the structure to interact with hydrogen resulting in fusion. The implication of this source of free energy should establish candidacy for a Nobel prize but no one seems to recognize me.

    Again, my reactor began hydrogen fusion as evidenced by extreme heat generation with thermal input of 830 C. This is the temperature that enabled the periodicity of the Ni0/NiO... array to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

    Huge magnetic forces do more than bend machines. Check out some of the published material from the German work on "Die Glocke" during the Second World War. Also results from the Philadelphia Experiment that also involved magnetic force. Real crackpot stuff.

    Free energy inventions at this time could not possibly turn out good. For our well being the economic structure would not allow implementation.


    "Busy and stupid people always create the biggest mess." As nature intended to control the population expansion.

    The earth we're standing on is pushing us. If we move into outer space we float around unless we use centrifugal force to exert a push. At this point in evolution I doubt that anyone has brain power capable to wrap around these basic effects. Instead we come up with terms to mask the ignorance.