Posts by ogfusionist

I started experimenting with nanoscale fusion 30 years ago. I've been ignored for ~30 years since discussing my laboratory results concerning the initiation of hydrogen fusion in a NiO reactor and witnessing meltdown of the reactor. Application of the term nanoscale is so appropriate because the reaction depends on nanoscale spacing. If the NiO reactor charge contains the correct microscale fineness relative to the NiO powder then fusion initiates with 100% certainty.

If "chopped liver" were sentient I realize what the feeling must be after having been ignored all this time. Wonder "why" what's behind the sudden interest in free energy?

Studying lenr for ~30 years is about right for me. Was I lucky when my first attempt with submicron NiO powder initiated hydrogen fusion at the first attempt? My frustration has been that this source of so called free energy has been ignored. Probably because the world isn't ready for this gift. Let "sleeping dogs lie" is certainly apropos. They bite when awakened.

Great that you've become interested in this reaction, if replication is possible you're the one to accomplish it.

Creating a star in the laboratory should also require some lead shielding to mimic the atmospheric and magnetic field protection offered by our planet. ""being the first example of a "dead CF scientist" is heroic, but not necessary."" as you stated should also mention an impotent CF scientist.

Noticed your use of unconscious rather than subconscious, you must have done some study of abnormal psychology.

Longview, your knowledge of chemistry is impressive, I'm glad you've taken interest in this project. Hope you can accomplish the goal. Please keep me informed.

Seems there is little I can emphasize with this process to insure that it replicates. As I may have mentioned many times the particle size is a major issue. The submicron size is not easy to obtain. I remember one of the lab purchases that was new on the market years ago that I never had a chance to use for the reactor was a powder collider. It impinged powder from a venturi inlet driven by 80 psi nitrogen onto a tungsten plate. Supposedly after a few passes submicron size was achieved. Something I'd like to use for preparation of the NiO in addition to ball milling for slurry preparation.

Imagine my frustration when I recall these great days while sitting I my rocking chair. I'd really like to be playing an active part in this replication.

My cave-man interpretation when recording the excess heat generated in my NiO reactor was that the nickel oxygen array caused the dissociated hydrogen molecules to fuse by interaction with the array and this overcame the repulsion barrier and fused into helium. Just what's going on with the stars except the gravitational effect of the stars is replaced by the hydrogen nickel sorbtion/desorbtion interaction. And then some kill-joys had to look at the nickel isotope concentration and bring the complexity of other transmutations into the picture. I now believe that the reactor simply opened a multidimensional path for free energy through hydrogen as a gateway. I'd heard that many of these researchers spend time in an insane asylum.

Nickec wrote: "I believe a description of the system should reside in this thread."

OK this is what I did.......

heating done in alumina tube with nichrome winding
NiO ball milled for months in all alumina system
colloidal suspension in acetone test to insure colloidal dimensions
binder probably methyl methracylate although nitrocellulose was also used in the factory, recall banana smell of amyl acetate
FiberFrax firing time in hydrogen and then vacuum at least several hours for introduction in and out of furnaces
FiberFrax was dipped into a bath of NiO slurry and allowed to soak using capillary action to infuse the slurry
excess allowed to drain off
infused FiberFrax stuffed into alumina tube
hydrogen allowed to flow through at atmospheric pressure
slowly increased temperature where the 830 C incident occurred

The particle size of the NiO is the most critical parameter in this process. A colloidal suspension is critical.

Now I'm even more confused. I thought the classic stellar reaction (our sun for example) was simply a fusion reaction with helium as the product. I don't mean to imply that nature is simple only that it does things the simplest way. I recall that transmutation has been reported by some researchers though.

My recollection of the process is simply that the gas train I'd set up to check on the reduction of nickelous oxide in hydrogen showed an unusual sudden increase in temperature at 830C. with a thermocouple imbedded in the reactor referenced to a thermocouple on the exterior. It's so simple to simply repeat the experiment, we must be approaching at least 1000 words on the subject by now. Just when I'd decided that this was just a bad dream someone mentioned that others had replicated the process.

Now I suspect that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann University of Utah chemists had by chance used palladium with impurities that fused and later selected much purer Pd as followup and weren't able to replicate.

Your mention of palladium reminded ne of the Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann University of Utah debacle. Hope we're not on the same thin ice.

I had used a reflected light wavelength monitor in my lab to check various deposits and seems it would be useful for looking at these nickelous, nickelic, nickel transitions. The nickel oxygen spacing seems of great importance for overcoming the proton fusion barrier.

Thanks Longview for your response. I'm not at your level of expertise to offer any criticism. You certainly jogged my memory out of its stupor and now recall all the concern with isotopes.

This happened many years ago and accurate recall is a problem. At the time I had flow proportional, x-ray fluorescence and a Geiger counters operating for other analytical work. Something to do with SiLi on one (silicon drifted lithium?) I remember thinking it was interesting that the incident did not cause an increase over the average background count. Also recall doing some analyses with a quadrupole mass spectrometer on reactor residue and finding the isotopic distribution for nickel you mention, nothing unusual. The detectors were only sensitive to gamma all others couldn't enter the detectors although I was considering a windowless approach. This left me with the conclusion that what I witnessed was fusion although I did an analysis on the hydrogen exiting the reactor and found no helium. Someone mentioned that this was luck because if enough helium would have been produced to detect with my crude sprectrometer the lab would have been missing. So maybe it was more than simply a redox reaction. At this point it would certainly be worth a try at replication.

You're not making it easy for me in my retirement, I was going dormant and this is causing me to awaken. The excitement associated with this work just joyful reverie until now..

Let's do a rerun, it's easy and cuts down on thousands of words. I know this is redundant but if this work is repeated the key to success is particle size. The activity is at nanoscale levels.

Longview,

The most important parameter for this proton interaction is distance, the reactor must contain an array of NiO with spacing in nanometer dimensions. A method to control this application would be to thermally decompose Fiberfrax that contains a measured quantity of nickel carbonyl. This would be measured to leave the alumina with a monolayer deposit of nickel. The coated FiberFrax would then be oxygen fired to develop the NiO array. Color can be used to assure the correct oxidation state.

The reactor I worked with appeared to stabilize the nickel redox at the nickelous level at 830 C where the exothermic reaction happened. Just wondering what the electron dance is gives me a headache.

There was an x-ray fluorescence detector operating in the lab and there was no increase in gamma activity over background. Not a windowless detector but 511 Kev gammas should be no detection problem.

Young engineers doing heavy lifting? Problem is the tendency to watch and talk. Too few do any lifting. Would have expected this nanoscale fusion to have caused a deluge of activity with replication. Have you seen any?

Great, except I had become pessimistic about nanoscale fusion after my FiberFrax experiment and was satisfied with its dormancy. Now optimism has returned with no laboratory to repeat the reaction. Imagine the frustration. Do you expect anyone will attempt a replication?

This brings back memories. My folks had a Wedgewood stove in the kitchen. Also Darwin was one of my father's favorites.

My name being appended would be for verifying that I believe the finding were factual, not for notoriety. This NiO/FiberFrax catalyst reaction at nanoscale dimensions would be useful for adding to the need for worldwide energy.

Longview, I should have added in my previous post that your statement "No intelligence is necessary other than good old evolution.." indicates that we have a difference in philosophy. I consider good old evolution as part of Intelligent Design.

heating done in alumina tube with nichrome winding
NiO ball milled for months in all alumina system
colloidal suspension in acetone
faulty memory here, binder probably methyl methracylate although nitrocellulose was also used in the factory, recall banana smell of amyl acetate
FiberFrax firing time in hydrogen and then vacuum at least several hours for introduction in and out of furnaces
FiberFrax was dipped into a bath of NiO slurry and allowed to soak using capillary action to infuse the slurry
excess allowed to drain off
infused FiberFrax stuffed into alumina tube
hydrogen allowed to flow through at atmospheric pressure
slowly increased temperature where the 830 C incident occurred

OK, Longview are you a professional interrogator? Your questions sure covered everything I can recall. Would be great if fusion was the reason for meltdown but I've come to doubt it. If I had a lab, what I'd do is stuff an alumina tube part way with the FiberFrax/NiO strips, run hydrogen through the tube while bringing the temperature up and observing if the zone containing the strips became incandescent at 830 C. The brightness difference in radiation from the alumina shell should be very revealing.

I believe that the particle size of the NiO is the most critical parameter in this process. A colloidal suspension test is critical.

O'kay, I'll step up to the pulpit. Intelligent Design is the complete program and has been written. Evolution does not randomly happen it's the process of this program evolving in time. The program is responsible for the illusion presented to us by perceiving an energy wavelength between ~4000 through ~8000 Angstroms bouncing off of electron shells. I recall my first impression when starting to work with X-ray diffraction, WOW there's nothing out there. Intelligent Design helps us maintain sanity by allowing us to believe we understand. An interesting delusion is our concept of gravity. Intelligent Design had to cause critters to be stuck to spheres so they wouldn't go drifting off into space. Inertial effect is used. 32 feet per second per second is an interesting choice. We delude ourselves into thinking that when we release an object we've supported that it falls to earth. Newton and his peers saddled us with this interpretation and we don't really question its validity. Why does the object appear to have an acceleration when falling? O'kay I'm stepping off and won't fall.

Some form of delusional grandeur when first witnessing the NiO/FiberFrax meltdown and thinking that this must have been like the caveman striking flint to produce fire, with the added implication that this effect dwarfs the usefulness of fire. Now the cold light of reality shows that the heat was probably an exothermic effect of NiO reduction. It's hard to let go of this delusion because of its hypnotic appeal. I'll relax and have a slice of pizza and wait to see if others can repeat the fusion experiment.

Thanks Longview for your Handbook of Chemistry and Physics reference that restores some confidence in my FiberFrax/NiO experimental results relative to fusion. Yes, you understand the system I used that was an attempt to keep it simple for me. Serendipity played a part because the setup was to test the reduction of NiO on fiberFrax for another process. The 830 C reaction was a surprise. I had convinced myself that the mysterious 830 C activity was the result of H2 dissociation and interaction with the NiO array for fusion to occur. Then I was convinced that it was simply a redox reaction. Now I'm sorry this ever came to attention.

I'm now less depressed and looking forward to more tests.