Posts by magicsound

Quote from StephenC

0.0005g of atomic hydrogen is close to 0.0005 moles which corresponds to about 24 J of energy released during adsorption or consumed during desorption.

The catalytic dissociation of H2 also affects the enthalpy, ~+460 kJ/mol. So if the 0.0005 mole of gas is completely converted to H* in the process of ad/absorption, about 230 Joules would be needed from the thermal environment. If the conversion is H2->H+ H-, the enthalpy is a bit lower. This ionic species has been proposed in the context of molten LiAl.

Quote from JedRothwell

Do you mean exothermic?

StephenC had asked about possible endothermic behavior from subsequent desorption of hydrogen. Exothermic behavior (excess heat) was seen in a later phase of the experiment, but was judged to be inconclusive after evaluating the data. The GS5.2 experiment (including the loading graph) was documented in JCMNS vol.20.

Quote from StephenC

BobHiggins. In the MFMP glow stick experiments we observed changes Hydrogen pressure that we considered were due to sorption on the hydrogen on the Nickel especially during the hydrogen loading process. Do we know from the changes in pressure and the amount of LAH and Nickel present in the fuel if amount of Hydrogen absorbed is consistent with normal adsorption or was more apparently adsorbed by this process?

Also I'm curious if during the cycling phase if we saw endothermic cooling during the desorption of the hydrogen? Or not?

The loading test early in GS5.2 produced interesting data. A graphical summary is at goo.gl/JVgQDo

Analysis of the test data (https://goo.gl/ZcQeY2) showed a loading ratio of .05% by mass. This is about 370 time more than the percentage shown in the literature.

It must be noted that a substantial part of the H2 might have gone into deoxidation, with the resulting water vapor migrating away and condensing in the cooler ends of the cell.

Cell heat was by fixed power steps during the test. No evidence of endothermic behavior was seen.

.Fourty-Two wrote: So, don't be surprised when people mistake this "(RedPill)" stuff as a MFMP activity

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all

Quote from Alan Smith

Take it easy guys. This will be a VERY strictly moderated thread.

And please keep in mind that Bob's "Red Pill" thesis is not being presented by or on behalf of MFMP, nor is it endorsed by those of us who make up the working group.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am pretty sure that in order to get his devices not to work, Rossi is using square (ish) wave AC at up to 440v input voltage and running at (possibly) 7-800 Hz. Since he uses split phase heaters, there is a powerful 'dynamo' effect on the fuel containment. Attached is a document I wrote some time ago- there is more about the Lugano dynamo effect on page 6.

I did a thorough analysis of the Lugano power system in 2014. From a photo I identified the red power box as a Control Concepts (CCI) Compact Fusion three phase controller, rated at 50 amperes. In the manual for that unit, I found it has an operating mode where power is set by an algorithm that skips complete half-cycles of the AC supply. See the excerpt at http://magicsound.us/MFMP/CC_cycle_skip.jpg

Note that the waveforms shown match those in the image of the Lugano PCE-830 waveform display.

Why was a controller used with such high current capacity? The image linked below shows the harmonic content of the CCI unit vs output percentage. The peak harmonic content (240%) occurs around 8% of the unit's capacity, or 4 amperes. This corresponds to 960 watts, the operating level of the Lugano reactor.

http://magicsound.us/MFMP/CC_THD_vs_output.pdf

I have a spice circuit simulation of the waveform that could be used to model the B-field if someone wants to pursue it.

Longview

Excellent question but one I have not needed to deal with yet, since I have not claimed excess heat beyond the larger bounds of measurement error.

The gas volume in my Glowstick cells is is only a few ccs, so the possible heat of recombination would not be significant compared to the other sources of measurement error. The pre-teatment phase happens at relatively low temperature, with a fuel mass of only one or two grams, so dissociation is not expected to have significant thermal effect.

Quote from Titanium007

Thank you. I'm looking at MFMP's presentation. But I found a problem, the use of MFMP nano nickel powder and micron Ni powder, I know nano nickel powder melting point of nickel powder is much lower than normal melting point probably only a few hundred degrees, so it will advance the melt, won't destroy the metal lattice?

We successfully recovered the fuel from the test cell on 14 Feb. under Argon cover. There was no sintering and the powder was still very finely divided and flowed freely into the storage vials. The color is still quite black like the QSI nano Ni, suggesting that the oxide layer was not fully reduced at the temperature used, up to ~400 C.

The fuel mix will be soaked 100+ hours at ~20 bar H2, 175 C to further reduce oxides and pre-load, then re-used in the next experiment (GS5.5). Some Nanoshel Li will be added. The null side will hold some LAH, enriched ~10% with LAD. The fuel capsules will be .998 Al2O3, so no metal will be in the cell other than what is in the fuel. The full temperature range will be explored.

I expect this experiment to begin around the second week of march.

Eric W.

The gamma spectrometer data files are available at https://drive.google.com/open?…7lTfqkED9WdWdlcW1md1N1TGs

The software to display and analyze the data, and export as csv is available free at http://www.spectrumtechniques.…re/USX_USB_x32_1_2_00.exe

Quote from zeus46

Would you mind explaining what this means please? Whats a 511k ROI detector?

That data input is a pulse counter for the Region Of Interest ("ROI") signal from the UCS30 Gamma Spectrometer. It is set to give a ~10 usec pulse for each detected gamma in the range of 500-520 keV. The Multi-Channel Analyzer ("MCA") is set for 4096 channels over the region of 25 keV to 1730 keV and the instrument was calibrated with a 137Cs source at the start of the run. The temperature of the NaI scintillator probe was included in the data set, in case correction for thermal drift was found to be needed. That temperature varied only a few degrees during the run, so the ROI discrimination should be accurate enough.

The 511 keV signal originates from positron-electron annihilation which has been proposed by Piantelli as part of the reaction chain in Ni-H systems. For further details, refer to the Glowstick 5-4 live doc at

https://goo.gl/2jqpjm 

Quote from can

magicsound

The idea is something in the order of several minutes (for example 10-15 minutes, but the actual duration isn't that important as long as it's not fast) to reach 1-1.5 bar from a vacuum condition, then reverse the process by applying a vacuum at the same rate and possibly repeat a few times if time allows.

That is pretty much what we did yesterday. We went higher in pressure, 3 bar absolute. That was added over maybe 5 minutes. The bleed to vacuum also was done over several minutes. At no time during the entire run did we see a deviation (above measurement jitter) between active and null temperatures, nor did we expect to.

Quote from can

magicsound

Is there any possibility of making the pulses more controlled in duration or are there limitations in the current experimental setup preventing this?

What do you have in mind? The pressure is controlled manually, so any reasonable duration is possible.

We did a series of three pressure pulses yesterday morning. The first two showed similar peaks concurrent with the H2 pressure pulse in the 511k (ROI) detector, but the third did not. This is inconclusive, so we'll repeat it a few more times before shutting down the cell.There will not be a live video stream but the data will be available on the plot.ly site. I'll post here when those tests begin.

This run is serving two purposes: it is a beta test for a completely new data software system, and a science experiment to test a particular aspect of LENR theory. Our preparation work took only two weeks, record time for such a complex system. This would not have been possible without the solid groundwork contributed by Brian Albiston over nearly two years, and the investment of several thousand dollars in rare isotopes, funded by donors. We solved many small problems along the way, and the next test will build on this progress, resulting in faster turn-around time.

Regarding the data system, it has performed well, and a couple of bugs have been identified that will be dealt with before the next run. The power monitor interface needs better network fault tolerance, and the streaming and archiving software needs better integration and documentation.

As far as the experimental results, no definite signal was detected, although we did see several instances of simultaneous detection of 511 keV gamma and increased GM counts, both apparently over background. The neutron detectors also showed slightly increased counts concurrent within a few minutes of the photon peaks. These small signals give me confidence that our array of detectors is working properly, but are unlikely to have emanated from the cell. Given the relatively short time we had to run the active test, there was a low probability of seeing a strong signal from it, and this will be discussed further as we analyze the data.

I am about to add a pulse of H2 to the cell, up to 3 bar, so keep an eye on the radiation counts. The Youtube stream has just been restarted, and you can find the link to that at the top of the GS5-4 live doc at

https://goo.gl/W1i0pY

Quote from can

Jones Beene of Vortex-l attended the event.He posted:

"Greenyer mentioned in passing that Holmlid had been asked to provide
ICF targets for Livermore. Wow. That is a major development if he got it
right."

That is not correct. What Bob said was that Holmlid was proposing to provide an ICF target. I think CERN is far more likely than LLNL to be interested.Bob will be posting a complete video of the event in the near future.

AlanG

Quote from Wyttenbach

magicsound: All the formulas were destroyed by the automatic translation. May be you should try to traslate it with a different font-setup!

I have made another pass at the translation, with better results: https://goo.gl/Z3e5nZ

Most of the formulas, including the matrices, integrals and the Feynmann diagrams are now readable, though the pagination isn't perfect.

Conversion of pdf files with math embedded as images can be gnarly. Here's the process I found - seems to work pretty well:

* convert the source pdf to a .docx file using Acrobat Pro,

* send the word docx through onlinedoctranslator.com, which uses the google translate engine for formatted documents

* download and open the translated .docx in MS Word (with PDFPro10 installed)

* save the translated docx as a pdf using the PDFPro10 plug-in.

Zephir_AWT Thank you for the links you posted. I knew about Piantelli's comment, which was reported by Krivit but was not explicitly discussed in Piantelli's own documents AFAIK. Storms has the opposite opinion, that deuterium is key to the reaction, and has discussed it in some detail in his publications.

I am agnostic in this debate, but I do plan to test it in a future Glowstick experiment. I propose to add some LAD in the fuel mix, for 10:1 H/D ratio. If the deuterium is active in the reaction, I expect to see an increase in detected neutrons as a signal.

"For example Rossi claims, his Quark-X reactor runs with protium only."

Yes, but that is a claim, not experimental evidence.

Zephir_AWT wrote "BTW cold fusion runs even with normal hydrogen"

Has that been demonstrated conclusively? I don't recall specific experimental evidence, and pure H without any D is not easy to find. Even "Light water" still has ~125 ppm of D2O. It's a very important issue.

Thanks to a link posted by new member "ele" in another thread, I found a potentially important paper, just published by Russian nuclear theorist Yuri Ratis.

I have taken the liberty of posting a rough English translation of the pdf, at https://goo.gl/Z3e5nZ

Among the startling conclusions:

5. Neutrons is a boson, ie, has a spin

13. The weak interaction can lead to a temporary neutralization of the charge of the proton,
and thus catalyze nuclear reactions at low energies.

It's a lengthy paper, needing close study to understand in detail. Hopefully some of the more math-enabled readers here will find it interesting enough to comment further.