Posts by magicsound

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.

Quote from David Fojt

great metallurgical paper since a long time .
It tells about type of cristal deformation. typically there is 2 main types , slipping and twinning.

David, have a look at this related paper: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/85w650t6

In particular, note the effect of hydrogen permeation on the grain boundary structures in Ni.

Quote from David Fojt

It seems a real good paper since a long time thank you but need to be translated

Here's a useful (though not perfect) translation:
http://magicsound.us/MFMP/Zaitsev_29_12_16_translated.pdf

Quote from JAROVNAK

Hum, I rather see the violent square very rich in harmonics, but their focus on "dead time" rather looks like the phenomenon exploit the step and some delays; rather than harmonics and phase.

The waveform image in the report is illustrative, not descriptive.I think the "Q-Pulse" waveform is actually a series of very narrow pulses, 100-300 nsec, separated by relatively longer off periods. Definitely not "square waves". If you read Godes' earlier papers, the goal is very large current transients (high di/dt), resulting in enough localised electron density to generate lattice phonons.

Much of this is disclosed in the Patent granted on the process a year or two back.

Quote from JedRothwell

They should refrain from announcing anything until they have checked it very carefully. Preliminary experimental results are often wrong.

This may be a difficult concept to understand, but MFMP is a collective, not a company. We share common goals but not a common voice, and often differ on interpretation. In regard to my Glowstick experiments, I am cautious in making public statements, and have never claimed unequivocal proof of excess heat, for good reasons. While some of the results have been encouraging, the excess has never exceeded my conservative estimate of the relevant error bars. Having said that, it's also worth mentioning that within the error bars, the COP data has always trended positive compared to calibration.

The guiding principle of MFMP is Live Open Science, which we do collectively share. Thus all our data and experimental protocols are published openly in as near real-time as possible. Observers can and usually do draw their own conclusions from our experiments, and we cannot defend against every incorrect claim made by third parties about our work. Therefore we rely on you ("the crowd") to keep each other honest and accurate in evaluating our results. This is both a strength and a weakness of our LOS philosophy, and I urge all of you to not be lazy: review and discuss the data before making any claims about it

AlanG

Thanks for the correction Dave. The test has already yielded some very useful insight into LiH chemistry, since the release of gaseous H should not have started at such a low temperature. I had expected that eliminating Al from the fuel mix would result in phase behavior close to what is described in the literature, but that is apparently not what happened here.

The sharp pressure spikes at the onset of each power increase are also interesting, perhaps suggesting a sensitivity of the instrumentation to EMF transients. I encountered a possibly similar effect during an initial GS5.1 calibration pass, where the internal core TC and the pressure sensor were at opposite ends of the reactor. I suspected that conduction through the reactor tube formed an inductive loop on the ground circuit between the two ends of the reactor. Disconnecting the pressure sensor killed the noise observed on the internal TC channel.

My recent Glowstick protocol has included pre-treatment of the Ni powder: vacuum (~6Pa) at ~200°C for many hours, followed by pre-loading in H2 at 10 bar or higher at ~150°C for hours or days. I believe Phonon (Dave Dagget) are also using this technique.

Evaluation of the Ni morphology by SEM imaging is a high priority now. Anyone in the Bay Area that can help with this would really be appreciated.

Quote from Alan Smith

My own work suggests a slower initial ramp - 1C/minute all the way to 725, thus allowing more time for a number of complex phase-changes along the way.

For this run, Dave is using LiH, not LAH. So the phase changes in the hydride don't start until ~500°C, and the initial pressure data seems to confirm this. The protocol is a departure from my GS5 tests, and I expect the data will give valuable insight into the system.

Dave's meticulous preparation and attention to detail show his devotion to the project, and I think we should acknowledge his hard work by patience in awaiting the results.

AlanG / MFMP

I noticed a couple of paragraphs toward the end of the original license agreement (as posted by ABD on his Compilation) that haven't been discussed here, AFAIK.
The summary below is from my notes, so please correct me if I got it wrong.

15.3 All rights to further development work derived from Leonardo IP by IH transfer promptly to Leonardo.
This may be relevant to the patent application filed by IH.

16.6 If the license agreement is cancelled or found to be invalid, all license rights revert to AEG (AmpEnergo).

Does this add any insight into the strategy of the parties? Look at the various possible outcomes and what happens to the IP and license rights:
* The IH license agreement is ruled valid and was violated by IH when they filed a patent and failed to assign it promptly to Leonardo, grounds for cancellation. License rights revert to AEG.
* The license agreement is ruled invalid because of fraud or non-performance by Leonardo. License rights revert to AEG.

Rossi may or may not be found guilty in the counter-suit. He may or may not be paid. AEG wins either way, and not being party to the case, has no legal burden or expenses. Just sayin....

GS3 was my experiment, and I never made claims of excess heat. Most of the data was published in near-real-time and analysis was done live by the "crowd" (Ecco and others). The GS3 data chart in Parkhomov's doc is his own analysis of the raw GS3 data. The temperature differential it shows was found in post-calibration to be at least partially caused by poor thermocouple adhesion, and AP might not have been aware of this. Because of the language barrier, he was probably not following the experiment forum.

After discussion on the forum, I applied a correction factor to the data by subtracting half of the calibration delta from the experimental values. The resulting data showed a COP of ~1.08 ±0.1 and a chart showing the effect of that adjustment was published. Subsequent experiments (GS4, GS5) showed roughly the same range of COP several times, but never consistent or sustained for hours.

In retrospect, GS3 lacked some key steps, starting with pre-treatment of the Ni powder. In GS4 I added ceramic cover chips over the thermocouples. This reduced but did not eliminate the calibration drift. For GS5 I used Cotronics Resbond 919 under the cover chips, and that seemed to also help stabilize the TCs. Post-calibration showed pretty good agreement with the Optris camera spot temps at the end of the 5.3 run.

This was posted on ECW about 5 days ago. I commented there: the published docs are pdf's of the presentation slides. I used Google translate to have a brief look at Parkhomov's report. It seems to be a review of work on Ni-H systems, including my Glowstick GS3 and Sonseng Jiang's as well as AP's own experiments. I don't agree with his statement of COP > 1 for GS3, which unfortunately he hasn't retracted since he first claimed it last year. It may be a communication problem but it leads me to trust him somewhat less.

Quote from gameover

it does not appear that in that specific case very high water temperatures would have been eventually reached.

Looks like about 0.1 °C / minute. So it would reach boiling in about 10 hours.
More water or a radiator seems like a good idea. Let's keep discussing this - it may be workable.

Quote from gameover

1700W. It does not appear to show that boiling was taking place

Note that the test duration at that power was just 10 minutes. What would happen after an hour or a day at high power?

Quote from gameover

Mary Yugo has often recommended the inexpensive calorimeter built by the GSVIT group

I suspect that Mary likes that calorimeter because it's so easy to find fault with it. With such small flow tubes and coolant volume, it would surely reach boiling temperature with 1 kW heater power. How much steam could pass through the thin plastic tubes before something failed? And that's just a start at the potential problems.

Barker apparently didn't know what he was really asking, but I'll assume by "proper calorimetry" he meant something real, not just a provocative implied criticism. The answer to that is shown by the following links, which I hope he will follow, thus learning something about the subject:
http://goo.gl/iPMM5I MFMP HUG Concentric Calorimeter
http://goo.gl/tl9NHz MFMP Valat/Celani Mass Flow Calorimeter
http://goo.gl/FuObGn MFMP HUG Dual Differential Concentric Calorimeter

There were several other development projects, including a large air-flow calorimeter (HUG) and a complex dual vacuum-insulated mass flow system built by Nicolas Chauvin (LENR-cars). Bob Higgins large water-bath calorimeter is still under development and I will leave those details for him to post.

Here's the full calibration for the insulation test run. The Null fuel capsule came out easily, and was replaced with a type K thermocouple mounted in a Swagelok pass-through fitting. The reactor was sealed but air was not evacuated for this test.

https://goo.gl/GWCZGT

@ Roger Barker

Please define "proper calorimetry", keeping in mind that the cells we are testing typically run at 1000°C. The team at HUG built some very nice calorimeters for testing Celani-type cells, which run at lower temperature and power density. Both air- and liquid-flow isoperibolic systems were built, reaching accuracy better than 100 mW if I remember correctly.

Following those experiments, Mathieu Valat built an elegant concentric-tube calorimeter for a Celani cell, and only needs a lab space to set it up. That will hopefully be in place soon, so he can begin testing the system. Bob Higgins also started construction of a water-bath calorimeter for a Glowstick, but he was not happy with the design and has put it on hold for now, pending redesign.

Details of these projects were published on the MFMP web site QuantumHeat.org, and should still be available in the archives there.

If you can propose a calorimeter design for a Glowstick-type reactor cell at reasonable cost, we'd be happy to consider building it. We are self-funded, with some support from crowd donations, so cost is a critical factor. Re-usability, accuracy, and ease of assembly and calibration are also important of course.