After posting my formula for success in initiating hydrogen fusion using a nickelous oxide reactor I had expected some replies. At worst "no success" with the reactor and requesting more detail for preparation. After months there have been no replies.
Final conclusion: All talkers and no doers out there.
""Yes, you are right, at least initially as OEL and OEL-GAR he was just a guest. I thought he did sign in as a member under the moniker "fusionist" or "Fusionist".""
I'm guilty of using all the above monikers in my posts. Anything that would simplify axcess would be useful.
My hope is for the forum specifying subject direction for easy access. Also keeping on record my work with a nickelous oxide reactor for initiating hydrogen fusion.
The e-bay reference to an Ocean Optics S2000 for temperature measurement is the instrument I used for some of my work. Worked great.
All the bickering and ranting on this subject now runs well over 1000 words.
Rather than talk let's do. Soak some nanoscale NiO slurry into alumina FiberFrax and stuff into an a alumina reactor tube. Run hydrogen gas through the reactor and heat to 830 C. Fusion begins at this temperature. If not the argument is settled.
"I have been trying to get him to regurgitate the whole once again..."
Good choice of words if "regurgitate" implies being nauseated. I'm sick of this whole mess and hope it soon gets laid to rest.
Sorry for the delay in communication. Problem was interfacing with the net.
There appears to be replication worldwide on the e-cat reactor. From this I'd expect the much simpler nickelous oxide/FiberFrax reactor to also work.
My repeat of this experiment would be to obtain green NiO from a ceramic paint store and check for a colloidal suspension by diluting in amyl acetate. If colloidal then soak into previously air fired (1000 C) FiberFrax (Al2O3). Load this into the reactor and monitor by:
"The path there might be a sapphire (ultrapure Al2O3) fiberoptic straight out of the interior directly abutting or imaged (sapphire or quartz lens) directly to a suitable pyrometric device, and / or through an IR blocker to a UV-Vis spectrometer such as this listing for under $500"
At 830 C fusion should initiate.
E-cat results indicate that nickel when correctly prepared will display hydrogen fusion. Then nickelous oxide when correctly prepared will also initiate hydrogen fusion. The NiO approach is much easier to control relative to reactor charge.
The NiO treated FiberFrax was heated in the reactor tube with flowing hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The final temperature is 830 C where fusion initiates.
No rerun, it was the last experiment I'd done while at work.
I doubt the validity of your hypothesis. The heat is a result of a chemical reaction not nuclear.
Careful it's easy to lose your sense of humor when paying much attention to the pseudo scientific exchanges on nanoscale reactions. I'll place high score as a fool after reporting my nickelous oxide on FiberFrax results as possibly being fusion. Thankfully I don't have anything to do with ECW.
Glad you're on board with these questions. One of the reasons I'd like to get the melted apparatus is to make certain that the tube was Pyrex.
The tubing in the lab was for work at higher temperature and the softening point was one concern I had. How rapidly the melt down occurred was unexpected. It's the reason I suspected something was unusual. I was down to either fusion or redox being responsible, now low melting point is introduced.
If only I could move and get back to my old job, It would be so simple to get an alumina tube, soak some FiberFrax with the NiO paint, stuff into the tube, wrap nichrome onto the tube, place thermocouples and set up the reactor for hydrogen gas. Plot temperature with linear increase of power to reactor and see if run away occurs at 830 C. If so we've created something starlike on earth.
Why do you think this may be important? Even with my poor imagination I foresee a very bad economical effect. Would be interesting if it replicates, but left well enough alone beyond that.
Yes, I had the results of my first reactor as a showpiece on my desk, have been trying to locate it but haven't been able to. Big change in attitude where I worked, people don't know what I'm talking about or care. This relates to my problem deciding whether the meltdown was from a redox reaction or fusion.
The "helium and deuterium at just 0.025amu separation" were no problem for my quadrupole. The analyzer was a Perkin-Elmer instrument that was something spectacular in its day. I don't think helium from other sources as a complicating issue was a question.
So the reactor loaded with NiO must be fusing hydrogen, maybe?
Somewhat off thread here but I'm compelled to add ......
KISS approach to explaining NiO initiated nanoscale fusion:
That beautiful sphere in the sky during daylight that's responsible for our being and seeing is another replication of an infinite number of similar activity in our universe. I've measured a helium background from this activity as well as from hydrogen gas used in nanoscale fusion experiments. No need for deep physics here, the microscale NiO particle interaction with dissociated hydrogen produces the same stellar activity.
"Quantuum entanglement" associated with nanoscale fusion must be some desperation move at diverting attention from our ignorance of the subject. Shades of "spooky action at a distance". Very comical, ha ha ha!
Should have mentioned in the previous post. Your hint for producing thin NiO coatings that avoid nickel carbonyl is right on. Inhalation of this gas coats exposed lung tissue with nickel. The body responds with a protective activity that produces cancerous tissue where the nickel has deposited. Interesting subject, nickel is known to be a carcinogen.
"Another hint: it might be possible to oxidize the FiberFrax by a pretreatment with sulfuric acid or nitric acid, two very well known oxidizers, that together are even stronger. A thorough post rinse with ultrapure water or an aprotic solvent might leave the ceramic fibers hungry for some reduction by nickel...."
This is very interesting, so if the ceramic is left active after the H2SO4/HNO3 treatment then exposure to a solution of nickel ions would result in NiO bound to the ceramic surface. This would be confirmed by the green coloration. Am I correct in interpreting your hint?
More frustration being rocking chair bound for me. The next step to fusion replication only requires a simply equipped lab. What fun it would be!
On the site of his book, Edmund Storms have posted an article about the rational approach to evaluate LENR theory.
Jim, you wrote---"Please sign the petition if you can?" You are very perceptive stating "if you can".
The economy is working as it should with the enormous quantity of oil reserves available. Everything is working as it should. Introduction of this form of energy production would perturb the economy with devastating effect. It's there when the timing is right.
This said, I obviously feel my signature on this petition would be useless. If this exercise makes the signer feel he has accomplished something more power to it. Doesn't work for me.
"quantum entanglement" great subject for conjecture on communicating over inter stellar distances. But why confuse the subject of nanoscale fusion here? Not good going off on a tangent, bad enough when we confine attention to the immediate subject.
The reaction is simply that the NiO array allows the repulsion barrier between hydrogen nuclei to be overcome. The arrangement of the -Ni-O-Ni-O- spacing is critical. Guess my problem stems from having observed first hand the enormous thermal output from such a simple design and attributing it simply to what's going on everywhere in the universe. Also having detectors present that revealed no excess gammas helped. Of course, the reaction was simply producing a little helium without my having the sensitivity for alpha, beta and gamma detection. Every fool believes in seeing? Having experts present at the time that calculated how much helium was produced to generate the reaction observed did help.
