Posts by magicsound

HUGnetLab has a great advantage that I'm reluctant to abandon. It is built around a net broadcast framework and includes near-real-time graphing and downloadable, persistent .csv data archiving.

It also disadvantages as Ecco has reminded us, but these can be overcome in principle, because it is open-source. Here's a casual design spec (wish list) to open the discussion:

* Flexible, expandable and stable front-end with easy setup and provision for calibration in standard units.
Support for existing standard data interface formats (like GPIB) is essential for integration of 3rd party instruments.
* A/D sampling at 1k samples/sec minimum and configurable per-channel averaging for output data.
* Multiple binary/pulse/counter inputs with time stamp per event and sparse data storage.
* Near-real-time data upload to a public server, with graphic display of data and csv archive.
* Reasonable cost and easy learning curve for end users.

Not asking too much am I?

Quote from Eric Walker

Alan, that is interesting. Do you have a link to the Github page?

The HUGnet source repository is at: https://github.com/hugllc/HUGnetLab

@nuclearNut
MFMP is currently working towards a DAQ system to supplement or replace HUGnetLab as an open-source tool for LENR research.

One key problem we need help with is to integrate the data from our Tektronix PA1000 power analyzer. It has a GPIB-on-USB data interface and an existing NI-VISA driver that stores data in a SQL-like database. HUGnet also uses MySQL, running in (Linux) Apache client-server mode for data storage. Our immediate need is for someone to write some php or Python scripts to insert the PA1000 data into the HUGnet server upload. If anyone here has the skills needed to take this on, we would really appreciate the help. HUGnetLab is (mostly) open-source and some source code and documentation is available on GitHub.

We're considering Brian Albiston's LabJack-based system as an alternative platform, and Brian has generously offered to help with this but only has limited time to devote to it. We have a LabJack T7-pro to work with, if anyone has experience and some high-level library modules for it. There doesn't seem to be any suitable turnkey software for it, and it isn't interface-compatible with the earlier LJ boxes.

@axil To me, it looks kinda like this:

With a bit of time and some better pixelating software it would look more like the image you posted.
The original source of this image before I mangled it is here:
https://goo.gl/CKlYm1

There have been multiple reports of blue light emanating from LENR reactors. I purposely won't mention names or specific examples. This is purely an exploration of the science.
For the sake of discussion, let's consider a situation where some element in a LENR cell emits photons from an ionized metal plasma under electrical or other stimulus.

Each element has characteristic strong emission line(s). For example Na (Sodium) is at 589 nm (5890 Angstroms). This is the typical yellow color of Sodium Vapor street lamps.

The blue part of the visible spectrum is roughly 420-480 nm. Refer to the list of metal vapor element/wavelengths at
http://www.hamamatsu.com/jp/en/3014.html

We see only the following candidates, with peak wavelengths in nano meters:
Ca 422
Sr 461
Sm 430
Eu 459
Gd 423
Tb 433

Note that the emission wavelengths shown are for plasma-phase emission, not
merely thermal as would be seen in a chemical flame test.

Any of these could be present in the reactor. Calcium or Strontium may
be present as oxides (both are used for catalytic production of
biodiesel).

Cherenkov radiation seems unlikely in this scenario, because the particles
causing it would have to be relativistic, slower than C but still very fast (really big energy required!)

The other possibility of course is the characteristic color of ionized air.
The typical blue color of an electric arc in air is primarily due to the emissions of ionized Nitrogen:
(Wiki) "Neutral nitrogen radiates primarily at one line in red part of the
spectrum. Ionized nitrogen radiates primarily as a set of lines in blue
part of the spectrum.[15] The strongest signals are the 443.3, 444.7,
and 463.0 nm lines of singly ionized nitrogen"

I hope these comments will start a constructive discussion of the possible science behind various reports of visible blue light from LENR. Please leave politics and opinion out of the dialog.

AlanG

www.e-catworld.com/2013/04/12/celani-warns-of-lenr-explosions-at-low-temperatures/

Tom Clarke wrote: "That is not a conservative assumption: it leads to much higher COP than is real.
More to the point, it is scientifically just wrong since "the emissivity" does not exist in this case."

Nonsense. Show how calculating radiated power based on ɛ=1 is more than what would be calculated from a lower emissivity.

Scientific analysis of data is based on known and tested behavior of physical phenomena. It is always an estimate, with accuracy characterized by the sum of possible errors of measurement. By setting the emissivity parameter to 1 (as an ideal black-body) the error contribution of the actual value in the experiment is removed from the calculation.

Unless of course you are proposing that the effective emissivity in that experiment is greater than one, or "does not exist" as you claimed. That would seem to be equivalent to saying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not valid.

I'm aware of your contention that the bolometer sensing bandwidth is an issue with regard to the Optris data, but that is a separate issue entirely. Here we are just discussing a conservative way to use that instrument in order to get useful data about the experiment. The Optris camera emissivity can be set as high as 1.10, which would be even more conservative. Would you also object to that?

This patent application, if it refers to the Lugano test(s), has some startling differences from the report by Levi et.al. Specifically, in para. 00063 of the Description section, the calculation of power makes several conservative assumptions, starting with setting the emissivity to 1. It further explains that the Optris thermal image data was taken from the bottom of the reactor, its coolest side. Other adjustments are also made, such as the exclusion of any conducted heat through the end caps where obscured by the support frame.

With these worst-case adjustments, the calculated COP is 5.6 ! Is this calculation in line with the original patent app. (pre-revision)? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be new data, answering the objections MFMP and others raised regarding the Lugano report.

Quote from Been there Seen it

Thanks for sharing your slides. The Glow Stick 5.2 radiation is remarkable, but not apparently reproduced in the Glow Stick 5.3 experiment. Is there any explanation for this as yet?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Glow Stick 5.3 calibration runs seem to show Pressure is dropping some of the time dramatically as the Temperature is increased inside (what I presume to be) a closed system. That seems odd, very odd...

No explanation yet for the lack of replication of the gamma spectrum event. Look closely at the chart comparing 5.2 and 5.3. You will see some differences in the pressure during long dwell time before the power cycling started. We're discussing whether that could be a critical difference, but there are other possibilities too.

The pressure inversions you mentioned have been seen before and are indeed very interesting. We think that is due to the complex behavior of the LiH reversible reaction. It is repeatable and is possibly a good clue to the conditions needed for LENR.

My foils from the meeting are available here: https://goo.gl/tkohNK

You'll need to download the file to view the full contents, because Google doesn't have an app to support Powerpoint slide shows.

An open comment to all:

Peter Ekstrom has a distinguished career as a research Physicist and educator, and his experience in the field may exceed that of the rest of us combined. While his viewpoint may thus be skewed toward the mainstream, he is open-minded enough to participate in our discussions, and I hope continues to do so.

Personally, I'm grateful for any professional willing to share skill and knowledge toward our common goal of understanding LENR. This doesn't mean a "free pass", as anyone can make mistakes or overlook important details. However, I think we should keep in mind the value of such professional experience in our forum and offer the respect it deserves.

AlanG / MFMP

@ Peter Ekstrom

Forgive me if I sounded defensive to you. I am an experimentalist and thus have become used to supporting my data against critical analysis (especially in fora such as this one).

Thank you for your calculation of expected alpha energy yields and counts for the p+7Li reactions. I can only say that our recent experiment with three separate gamma spectrometers in place showed no evidence to support these reaction paths. We have not yet finished analysis of the saved spectra, and subtraction of background may still show a signal from the alpha excitation of Ni.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

Your calculation must be wrong. 10 kW (reasonable for a LENR reactor) and the p+Li reaction yields an equivalent alpha particle current of 2 milliA. Stelson does not specify the current but it is from the type of accelerator certainly less than 10 microA. In order not to evaporate the target the current was probably less. For the Se target the current was 0.01 microA, but the authors still get a very nice spectrum (Fig 12).

My analysis was based on the plots on page 3 of Stelson, showing the counts per micro Coulomb of beam current. The count data for Ni isotopes are almost four orders of magnitude lower than for Se (which is not present in the reactor).

In the Glowstick experiments to date, we are seeing net power (if any) of less than 100 watts. My conclusion was meant to show that in the Glowstick experiments, this reaction signal would not have been measurable. If we're able to generate even 1 kW in a Glowstick, such a signal would be possible to detect, and we'll watch for it. In such an event, there would be lots of other signals as well, and possibly a melt-down of reactor components.

@Tom Paulson Your FFT graph of a simulated SCR spectrum is nice to look at, but rather deceptive. The log scale obscures the reality that the harmonic at 1 MHz is ~110 dB (3 X 10^-6) below the fundamental. I'm not saying that a chopped waveform doesn't have higher harmonics. However, only those below around 100 kHz have significant ) amplitude.

In addition, the self-inductance of a typical heater coil acts as a low-pass filter. I measured a corner frequency of 50 kHz for my Glowstick coils. Higher-frequency stimulus thus requires a different mechanism, perhaps rods passing through the reactor end seals. This feature is part of the GS6 design now under development.

@ Peter Ekstrom

Thank you for the links above. I started at the Stelson & McGowan paper, because Ni is the predominant element in the fuel. From first reading, I think a Coulomb excitation signal would be very difficult to detect. The characteristic gamma peaks for the even-numbered Ni isotopes are shown as only ~10 gammas per micro Coulomb of beam current (3.12 × 10^12 particles) for alphas with energy ~4 MeV. That is measured with a 7.5 cm NaI crystal a at 5 cm from the target.

We don't know the rate of a reaction that might be producing energetic alphas, but the energy yields of the candidates you proposed could be calculated. I suspect that a yield of 10^12 reactions per second would be easily measurable as heat. But at lower reaction rates, say 10^12 per minute, the gamma signal would likely be below background, even with 10 cm of lead around a NaI detector, at 18 cm from the hot reactor.

To make the measurement even more problematic, the peak for 58Ni (68% natural abundance) is shown as 1460 KeV. It is thus indistinguishable from the Potassium-40 line that's pervasive in the environment.

axil wrote: "A homemade unit using dry ice cooling without magnetism could show subatomic particle quantity rather than quality."

The closest source to me for dry ice is about 15 miles each way. It may last for 12 hours in a freezer (filling the house with CO2 meanwhile). The cloud chamber might operate for 15 minutes per charge. My experiments last a week or more, and I haven't time to go fetch dry ice every day or two. All told, it's not a practical idea given the circumstances. Perhaps at a later time it could be done as a casual test. Or maybe someone will donate for the Lascells unit.

Meanwhile we have three serious spectrometers set up and working, covering the range of <10 KeV to 4 MeV, plus the two bubble detectors. We're also recording data from two GMC's with different tubes and sensitivities. And continuous video from two cameras. The data collected from GS5-3 will be around a terabyte before we're done, and someone has to analyze that to make it useful. We'd be lost in this sea of data without the stellar work done by Ecco and Webbie - Thanks!

@axil Despite your impression, those of us running experiments do pay attention to your suggestions. However, "the devil is in the details". One word in your statement is the key here: Scientific. A simple (affordable) cloud chamber might be able to tolerate the cell heat for a short time. But such a device isn't likely to produce useful data. A truly scientific instrument requires both active cooling (for continuous operation) and a calibrated and preferably controllable magnetic field.

Such devices are not easily available. One suitable unit can be seen here: http://www.cloudylabs.fr/wp/labs/
It's pretty bulky and would be hard to position near the reactor. The price is estimated to be as much as 4000 €.

Here's a smaller one made in UK that could be under US$1000 including shipping:
http://www.lascells.com/products/product.php?s=cloud-chamber
Donations gratefully accepted of course...

We bought two BTI bubble detectors through their US rep Pulcir Inc. The Personal Neutron Detector (100 keV threshold, 82 bubbles/mrem) was US$164. The Thermal Neutron Dosimeter (<100keV, 30 bubbles/mrem) was $347. They are reusable for at least several months if correctly reset on a daily basis.

We considered this to be the bare minimum for safe detection of Neutrons. Additional detectors will be added for future experiments, as and when available.

AlanG / MFMP

We're running the first of two post-calibration ramps, 100C to 850 C over 5 hours, under PID control.

This series will also test the susceptibility of the CdTe x-ray spectrometer
to noise from the SCR power supply. The first test now running is with
the detector unshielded. For the second ramp test, we'll place a 2 mm
thick mu-metal magnetic shield over the detector.

The data and chat are available live at magicsound.us/MFMP/video/

Just to clarify, this test had nothing to do with spark stimulus of the reactor. The Ford buzzer coil and spark plug were merely a convenient source of broad-band RF noise to test the susceptibility of the UCS-30 spectrometer. When time permits, the test will be repeated for the other x-ray sensors. For those interested, the 1-minute screen captures are compiled in two videos (long and short) at https://goo.gl/L7FJ9B