Posts by backyardfusion

Quote from ogfusionist

The insurance companies control if these experiments would be allowed in schools. Check their policies and you'll find that possibility is zero.
It's back to grandma's kitchen backed by her fire insurance protection. Poor grandma, from my melt down experience don't use her kitchen.
Set the experiment up in the middle of a desert somewhere so that the explosion won't start a fire.

Well damn, there goes my plan. Doesn't seem as if it will be possible at either university or school now. My parents are very strict with this stuff, I don't get much freedom or trust in any sort of experiment. I was lucky to be able to argue them down to letting me do it at either one of those locations.

Quote from Mary Yugo

You compare the quantitative analysis of isotopes of elements in your fuel with that in your ash. As usual, you run careful standardizations, calibrations and blanks to be sure any changes you might see are real. isotopic analysis is not easy. You may have to have it done for you and then it may be expensive so you may need someone who is interested and placed in a suitable lab to do it for you. I've not done such analyses in many years so I really don't know what's involved these days. I am sure the internet is your friend in finding out.

Oh god, I just realised how stupid me asking that question was. Yeah, isotopic analysis would be the best way. So if I'm correct, if the reactor is producing 50,000MJ+/KG and not producing an isotopic shift, we can confirm that the reaction is a new phenomena?

Quote from Eric Walker

If no one at the high school can help, perhaps you live near a university where there might be a sympathetic engineering professor?

Ah, that's a good idea. Sydney University isn't too far away from where I live, I suppose I could trying and talk to an engineering professor. It's just, at least from my experience, adults find it hard to take kids seriously. I really want to get this experiment done though, so if talking to the lab technician today doesn't help, I'll start looking into that.

Quote from StephenC

Hi backyardfusion: It is a sad development. I have been following your thread a while and I also agree it contains some interesting stuff, I hope you can keep the thread active. Also who knows what will come up in the future in I hope you can still be a part of LENR you seem to have some remarkable ideas and very good level thinking.

Yeah, not the best news that's for sure. I'll keep the thread open, for the information and in the hope that I might be able to return to the scene experimentally in the future....
Thanks for the compliments, I'll certainly be sticking around. LENR holds much promise in my eyes, and I think I'll drive into the theoretical frameworks done so far in absence of experimental work.
A rather silly idea (I think) that I had earlier is that, if we can verify that excess heat is being produced in these hot reactors (and in the gas-electric ones), what would be the best way to then verify that a nuclear reaction was taking place, specifically fusion? I heard somewhere that free electrons lower the Coulomb barrier, so if the reactor works off fusion, and is somehow slipping past the Coulomb barrier, then would ejecting electrons into the NAE even effect the excess heat production? I'm out of my depth with that, but I'm presuming that if a constant stream of free electrons was injected into the NAE and energy production went up, then we could verify that it is a fusion reaction? And if it doesn't increase production, we can't rule out fusion but we can say that either it is fusion and it's avoiding the Coulomb barrier, or it's some other nuclear reaction.
As I said, probably a silly idea since I'm out of my depth in this area, but just putting it out there to see. What would you guys say would be a good way to test whether or not the reaction is nuclear, in the absence of radiation?

Quote from StephenC

@backyardfusion

Very good question. I was also wondering if it could with stand the vibrations and acoustic environment of a launch (or any other transport for that matter)… if not i wonder if it can be built from safe raw materials and components in a zero g environment. I hope it can work in space it potentially could be very useful.

Yep, that's what I was thinking. So far the NAE has turned out to be pretty damn sensitive from what I've read. Then again, if you're considering putting one of these reactors on a spacecraft I guess we can assume that we've pretty much nailed the theoretical stuff behind it, and have achieved near-optimal reactor design. Hopefully out of that would arise a way to make the NAE more bulletproof.

Quote from barty

backyardfusion: This is a very sad development

But maybe you can setup it with your grandfather who already helped you?

We won't delete this thread, because it contains interesting discussions
If you want we can close it, so that no one can write anymore until you want that we open it again. Otherwise we just leave it as is

That was my first thought... Unfortunately, my options are limited by what my parents will allow, and they refuse to let me do it with the supervision of a science teacher in a school lab.

I might run down to the lab technician tomorrow and have a go at winning him over, but the chances of that working are slim.

Unfortunately this thread was all for nothing... My science department at school has declined my request to run the reactor at the school lab, due to the feeling of having inadequate safety equipment and, well, they didn't really have too much of a reason beyond 'this is a project for an undergrad at a university, not a high school student in a school lab'.

Sorry about this guys.... I'm still going to be lurking around on the forums and following cold fusion as it unfolds, in whichever matter it may. In the meantime, I'm going to continue working on my rockets (got the parts for a mach 2 20,000ft altitude one yesterday) and begin experimenting with smaller experiments involving high voltage and other things, with the eventual goal of making a fusor sometime in the future.

How do I precede with this thread? Do I delete it?

This theory seems promising, at least to me. Makes more sense then a lot of the other theories, not that there are many
Either way, I like the integration of the strong force into electromagnetism, although I know that doesn't originate from this paper.

Wow, I need to read all of this stuff, only just briefly skimmed over it....

Quote from FreethinkerLenr2

@backyardfusion

So you think Rossi is conning us, but you intend to replicate Parkhomov, whom essentially has replicated the Lugano device which is Rossi's reactor? While doing so you feel content to follow the advice George Hody aka Mary Yugo?

I wish you the best in your endeavors and safe passage, but where is the logic?

Okay so maybe I need to clear the air a bit....
I think the Rossi is conning us mostly. I believe he has indeed created a device capable of producing excess heat in quantities higher then able to be achieved from any known chemical reactant. I just don't believe his statistics are quite what he says they are. After all, the best con's have a basis in truth. It makes them sell better

In saying that, I am replicating Parkhomov because there I see a renowned scientist with a transparent test and result set who is producing anomalous heat. That sounds to me more credible then Rossi, correct me if I am wrong. His results also seem much more realistic.
I am indeed content on following George's advice actually. None of you seem to like him, which I find very hypocritical. Why should you ignore skeptics? Hell, it makes you as bad as the ignorant skeptics themselves. And George is certainly not an ignorant skeptic, just a skeptic. And he's also been very helpful to me in many ways, and has given replies that are much more level headed and filled with common sense then most of the replies around here. You're all a bunch of very bright guys, so excuse me if I want to take on everyones advice, not just the advice that I want to hear.

Quote from FreethinkerLenr2

@backyardfusion

So you think Rossi is conning us, but you intend to replicate Parkhomov, whom essentially has replicated the Lugano device which is Rossi's reactor? While doing so you feel content to follow the advice George Hody aka Mary Yugo?

I wish you the best in your endeavors and safe passage, but where is the logic?

Quote from Mary Yugo

Wow. That's a perfect collection of talent-- the only exception I take is to LIKELY helping you. Please make SURE they help you and always know what you are designing and doing.

If I can leave you with a last thought, it's this: calibrate, calibrate, calibrate... and run lots of blank/control/dummy runs. If I learned anything from many years of hands on electronic circuit work with not enough theoretical background, it's that calibration was my eyes. My view into things I could not see or confirm in any other way. It was how I knew what I was talking about and how I avoided nasty surprises down the line. Coincidentally, proper blanking and calibration is precisely what Rossi consistently and actively fails to do or to permit those who work with him, like the Swedish professors and Levi, to do.

Imagine how different the world would be today if Levi had done what everyone except Rossi asked him to do with this report: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece ... if it had worked when properly performed, of course. And that is a mighty big "if".

Oh yes, I will make sure they are helping me. I won't be doing it unless I get help from both of them. My granddad is a definite; the likely was mostly pointed to my science extension teacher. I'm very certain he will help, but if he doesn't I have other people in mind with suitable skills that can help me as well.

Ah yes, calibration and dummy runs. I will do lots of those. In any scientific endeavour you want to make sure your equipment is as bullet proof and consistent as you can manage, I presume. So naturally, one would want to do lots of test runs and such. Thanks for the advice.

Okay so back in Australia now, settled back into school and I'm getting ready to start! Sometime before the end of the week, or mid next week, I hope to get hold of my science teacher and talk to him about using the lab. Once I have all the permissions set, I can start gathering supplies and assembling the reactor and fuel.

One thing I feel obliged to note is that while this experiment should, and I'll try hard to do this, be a 1:1 replica experimentally to the original Parkhomov experiment, I'm going to be viewing the data in a different way. If the excess energy results in higher overall energy densities then oil by 3 times or more, I will consider the experiment a success. That is because I'm not exactly sure this is a nuclear process. In fact, I don't know what sort of process it is, if there is indeed one there. For me, an alternative energy source able to use hydrogen and nickel with 5 times the energy density of oil is all that is needed.
So I guess you could say I'm more open minded in that area.
If there is something wrong with this methodology of looking at the data, such as more room for error and stuff like that, please tell me.

I'll post after I hear back from my teachers.

Quote from AlainCo

I don't see any impossibility for LENR in microgravity, even if it will cause engineering problems.
For EmDrive, I feel it is something to investigate, with some serious possibility it works at least a little.
Like on LENR , all the critics I've seen are from "armchairs". All concrete critics have been addressed, but critics often are not seriously made. We need good experimental skeptics, not theory fanclub.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. With EmDrive however the critiques made are very important. The EM Drive currently has many theoretical and experimental errors. One thing I find interesting is that just by running some liquid nitrogen over the cavity you gain 1000x the thrust, or some other very large number. So why has no one tried this? Working with higher thrust levels would aid in disproving it or proving it.
Even if the EMDrive reaches a specific power of 0.2N/kW, it will become the choice of in space propulsion. Using a nuclear reactor you could pump 10kWh into the system and get 2N of thrust continuously from no propellant. Might not seem like much but you can thrust practically indefinitely: even after only twelve days of thrusting (not a lot when you can thrust for 4-5 years) you would have accumulated 2,073kNs. After a solid month of thrusting you could achieve 5,184kNs of total impulse. We're talking the sort of power levels that'll get you to mars in 90 days.

If it works half as well as planned, and achieve a specific power of 10kN/kW then you could essentially go to space in a Cessna sized spaceplane.

Quote from me356

As I can see from behavior of Rossi on the patents, he really do not want to help society at all.
He just want to earn money, nothing more.
I guess that he is feeling as god now as the impact of his research is really big. He want to make sure, that absolutely nobody else can make similar devices as he.
From this point our views are totally different.

So we have something fantastic, but commercial usage/development of this will be virtually not allowed.

Fortunately we can do this thing still open so everybody can replicate it.

Display More

I have to say that while I'm fairly certain Rossi is conning us, maybe even conning himself to some extent, that if he wasn't I would consider him the most insufferably selfish person I've ever heard of. He's had a fair go; hell he's had 8 years or something to bring something to market in any form. But he hasn't. He is trying to file patents so broad that they would put the entire LENR market in a death lock before it even exists.
Now assuming that he's actually legit, as in 100% legitimate, then he has to give it up. Obviously he can't bring it to market. He needs more people, but no one is investing.

This E-Cat Reactor, if it really does have a COP of 8 is literally the most groundbreaking development in energy production ever.
When you've got a technology that has the potential to change the lives of everyone around the globe and advance every possible industry 35 years into the future and even turn spaceflight (electric propulsion and EM Drive) into an everyday event, Why the hell would you be worried about money? This guy needs an upper cut if what he has is real.
But I highly doubt it is.

Quote from AlainCo

so you deny LENr reality.
it is clear now that you don't accept scientific evidence, that you are a crackpot defender..
the rest you say lose much credibility , as it is clear you are in total delusion.

any clown that state LENR is sure wrong, or even not proven, is simply deluded and his opinion have no more value than the one of a creationist.

about why a heater is need for an exothermic reaction, it is a shame that you hide your competence. it is agan a fallascious argument for any engineer reading.

there is a clear problem of stability of the reaction.
if the reaction is exploiting fully the produced heat to increase temperature, to can goes in runaway at the least change in efficiency of cooling.
anyway Rossi get around that problem with SSM which exploit different efficiency (open loop gain) at different timescale.

I'm tired of ever repeated bad argumenst. please be honest.

Display More

While I consider myself 'pro cold fusion', I wouldn't go so far as it say he is delusion. Far from it. Mary Yugo has been very level headed actually, unlike you. He has suggested many very useful things. You know the expression 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'? Well something like 'listen to your friends but your enemies more' might be suitable in this situation. By listening to the arguments of the skeptics you can often gain valuable insight into how you might prove things to them.
Mary is a skeptic, but a very useful one. No one person is right here, it's science remember. You're being far too biased Alain. LENR, at the moment, is just as wrong as it is right. That's because we don't have a theory that has been backed up by experiments, and experiments do not have a success rate even approaching 90%. The few 'big players' seem to also be very secretive.

Stop making yourself seem insufferably rude and ignorant and open your eyes. As scientists, you need to keep an open mind to all possibilities whether you like them or not.
I might not be reading correctly, but you seem to be saying that a constant input of power, produced from the output of the reactor, will cause an increase of temperature? No sense made there.

Saying 'LENR Reality', BTW, is just as bad as saying it's fake. Surely as a scientist you must understand that. Remember even a law of physics is just an hypothesis with a serious amount of experimental evidence....

Quote from Mary Yugo

@backyardfusion

You seem mature and level headed for your age. Having been 14 once, what I'd like to stress with you is SAFETY. And the need for good adult supervision, preferably from someone versed in chemistry and electricity. Explosions are a real possibility when you heat anything. Always wear safety glasses, put your experiment behind solid and thick polycarbonate sheets, and if it's expected to run very hot, stay away from it when it's running. Look with a camera and your measuring instruments. And don't do it in a home or anywhere starting a fire could endanger people or property. After all, you're looking for a power source, weight for weight, a million times more powerful than dynamite. That needs a lot of respect. And please do real calorimetry, not point temperature measurements and use forced cooling. Here is an excellent example of a suitable calorimeter which works over a wide temperature range.

http://tinyurl.com/kx4opjq
This is a Google translation from Italian to English of an article by Giancarlo and his associates and should be mandatory reading for anyone venturing into cold fusion/LENR experiments.

If you want to discuss why a heater is or is not needed for a highly exothermic reaction, let me know. It would only be needed if the "COP" is small -- very small and then only enough to compensate for heat losses to the environment.

Sorry I got carried away but like I say, I remember when I was 14. Good luck and report your results, even if negative.

Display More

True with the exothermic reaction part. I don't particularly care at this stage how the reaction works (I know I probably should, but I don't), as long as it is there. Once it's been identified and been reputable at COP of over 6 then once again whether there's a bunch of fairies shitting out energy inside the reactor or if it is true LENR, it won't really matter. It'll be a miracle energy source, whether it needs power or not.

I will be sure to report my results the moment they come through. Negative results are in every bit as important as positive results.

Yeah safety is a big one, I'll be very careful. My science teacher and my granddad will both likely be helping me with this (science teacher chemistry, granddad electrician since 15). Although so far no explosions haven't been reported, I come from a background of making rocket fuel so I'm well aware that explosions can happen whether you want them to or not. I'll keep all of those precautions in mind, thanks for the tips.

Yes I have re-re considered my calorimetry methods from what I was going to do originally. I think that the first step in my tests should be to do an exact 1:1 replication of Parkhomovs experiment. I do not want to change any variables in that, not even the calorimetry. Then, whether the results are negative or positive, I can move on to using a much better and more accurate calorimetry set up.
Ideally, seeing as the fuel is so low cost (it's hazardous, so I will be extremely cautious) and so is the reactor I will run both versions of the experiment 3, possibly 5, times each. I won't stop at negative results until I have enough qualitative data to reach a conclusion. That's something I feel these guys need to work on; they do an experiment, if it fails, they then go and change a whole bunch of stuff. 5-pages of results, whether everything was negative or not, will be helpful. It is a reasonable assumption to make that after 10 runs of an experimental reactor it doesn't produce the required stats, then the reactor does not work. Maybe it would work in a different form, but not that particular reactor setup.

Nice comparison you dragged there, saying it's a million times more powerful than dynamite... Potent stuff hey

Quote from Mary Yugo

I think I can read and from what I read, Rossi is a crook. You're the one who doesn't understand what I write. I don't care about small levels. You are entitled to have orgasms about them if you like. I don't care. It's claims like Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin and Miley which are EASY to evaluate and so far none has proven valid.

So once more:

100W or more
Sustained to rule out chemical energy or stored energy by a factor ten
If power is required to run (it shouldn't be) power ratio out/in of at least 3 (6 is better)
Repeated by at least one reliable and credible investigator at a major institution using the SAME method as the original

Lots of luck finding that in LENR/cold fusion. And for sure, it's not Rossi!

Display More

Your list at the bottom I think is a very very good checklist. I wouldn't say power shouldn't be required to run, as we don't properly understand the reaction therefore we can not make the assumption it shouldn't be required.

All other items in that list should be taken as the criteria for all experimenters. Especially that last one, which is what I am planning to do once I get back to sydney (only 2 weeks to go until i can get started).

Quote from Mary Yugo

If I were you, I'd worry more about how to prove that LENR is real and less about what it might be used for. If it's real, the uses will be developed rapidly and there is no way to know exactly what they will be.

The problem right now, is that proponents of LENR can't even prove *properly* that it exists. There all sorts of ways to make errors. Some of the participants in searching for LENR, for example Rossi and Defkalion, are clearly frauds. Sorry to disillusion you but be sure to browse through these web sites and a forum:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

http://ecatnews.com/

And ask yourself why none of the claims to LENR has been tested by one or more national laboratories (in the US, Sandia or Oak Ridge for example) or a major university, officially by a department, rather than isolated professors. Ask yourself why LENR devices claimed to make output/input power ratios of 6 have not been looped back so they supply their own input heat. Ask yourself why not a single one has been properly tested by accurate and *calibrated* calorimetry.

If you get into this field, watch out for scammers, crooks, and overly optimistic enthusiasts.

I suggest you study fluid flow and heat transfer physics and engineering so that you really understand what you are looking at with your experiments. And it will also be good to have some professional area to fall back to when, as is likely, you find out that low temperature nuclear fusion does not occur to any significant extent and is not a practical source of power.

Display More

Oh yeah I'm pretty sure Rossi is 95% BS and 5% real, and lots and lots of holes in the field at the moment. I've never claimed that cold fusion is real, just that the ramifications of it are so immense that it deserves to be further investigated. Besides, I'm only 14 and if worse comes to worse and my experiment fails it'll have been fun away. Not like I have a professional career on the line.
I'm planning on being an aerospace engineer, so don't worry I'm not devoting my life to the cause. Merely interested in performing an experiment and seeing results for myself.

I too wonder why no-one has looped the power back around... that would be the very first thing I would try if I got positive results high enough to do that.

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, between making an app, school assignments and some other stuff I'm not really allowed to talk about, I've been very busy lately and haven't had any spare time to come on here.

Quote from masshtab

backyardfusion, could you elaborate on your "bolt method"? The description in your operational guide is unclear. Also possibly important to consider is that thermocouples measure temperature by means of the voltage generated by multiple joints between dissimilar metals at different temperatures -- so if your type K is touching your stainless inner chamber, you may get anomalous results.

Edited to add:
Regarding the "drilled hole in alumina tube" issue -- if you are not fanatical about having a cylindrical hole, I would recommend using a diamond wheel to cut a slot crosswise in the tube until a penetration of sufficient size is present. Diamond wheels suited for use on a Dremel-type rotary tool are inexpensively available, as are the tools themselves. I recommend doing this in water if possible...

That reminds me, I still need to update the operational guide.
I've learnt since writing the first draft of the guide that cutting alumina tube was so hard. Rookie mistake, my granddad kind of just suggested that as an afterthought and I didn't do any research. That won't happen again.

I'll update the OP to reflect the fact that I've decided to do a 1:1 replica of the Parkhomov experiment before tweaking/making it different. In regards to the type K thermocouple, I think I understand what you mean, but maybe not correctly. If I am, I've since rethought the rig to use both an inner and outer aluminium tube. Although as some suggested, an inner ceramic tube might be required. I'll have to think about that, my brains a little fried at the moment

The bolt method is hard to explain, but I've got a pretty clear picture of it in my head. My granddad has suggested that if I use two aluminium tubes, I could thread the end plates in, but that leaves me with some air pressure and sealment concerns. It doesn't really matter how it is achieved, I essentially just want to be able to use the reactor, take off the end plants, load more fuel in and remove the old stuff, and use it again. That way I can test the rig multiple times in a day, equalling to a higher quantity of data. At least that's the idea.

I'm getting back to Sydney in 5 weeks now, but my extension professor has decided that apparently the thing has a high chance of exploding. I tried to walk him through the technical aspects and the safety risks and precautions, but I have a feeling he doesn't want to hear it. My regular science teacher however seems more enthusiastic, so when I get I'll have some in-person discussions and get that shit sorted out.

Edited to add:
I was just wondering, would anyone be able to tell me if based of any of the current theories 'Hot' LENR reactors would work in micro-gravity? Bit of an odd question I know. Also, just demographically, how many of you believe the EM drive holds some promise?

Quote from ogfusionist

You stated: "Also, I'm not discouraged easily as you can probably tell but if you think it is imperative that I do not try and contribute to LENR research I will not."

My intent was certainly not to discourage you. Nanoscale fusion research needs scientists like you. Unleashing stellar fusion on earth is somewhat related to the first cave men fooling with fire but many orders of magnitude greater. Contribute but be careful.

Thanks fusionist, I will make sure to be very careful with the research.

Quote from ogfusionist

These experiments lead to use of very fine particle size that require some form of milling. This becomes highly dangerous. Compressed hydrogen is not dangerous when used with the respect it deserves. Much safer than lithium aluminum hydride. I carry part of an Erlenmeyer flask embedded in my left arm from my early work with hydrogen. The flask left standing overnight permeated air that taught me a lesson when I continued my ignition experiment the next morning. Actually I'm right handed but was holding the flask in my left hand.

Pardon the babble but I'm trying to emphasize that some of this work can carry unpleasant surprises. You can be extremely careful and still get unanticipated results.

Ouch, that doesn't sound like fun! It is always the case with experimental work that accidents can and will occur. Caution can reduce the chance of them happening, but they still will and I am fully aware of that. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't carry on in fear of accident though. But thanks for the reminder

I've just started looking into BSM-SG theory (Just ordered the book as well) and I must say it looks very interesting. But thought that we had confirmed that some/most atoms had spherical shapes? For example, in the picture seen here.

What evidence is there that confirms they have the BSM-implied shapes?

Also you spoke of a numerical simulator of BSM-SG -- What are the basic things this simulator would simulate? I've got a pretty good background in computer programming and computer science so I might be able to attempt at a non-visual simulator.

It seems to be the consensus amongst all of you that this is vary too dangerous for me to undergo. In that aspect, I would like to ask why. I am not a dull-minded individual, it's not as if I'm going to go snort extremely fine nickel powder or pick up LiAlH4 with my bare hands. All handling of chemicals will be carried out with extreme care and I will be doing so in a school laboratory with access to all of the required safety equipment and a supervising adult or two. I can assure you that I will be using the exact same methods of handling the chemicals that the rest of you have been using. I know the chemicals are dangerous. I know I will have to be extremely careful. I know all of this and will not compromise my safety in anyway while undertaking the experiments.
Also, I'm not discouraged easily as you can probably tell but if you think it is imperative that I do not try and contribute to LENR research I will not.

Quote from FreethinkerLenr2

1. LAH, LiALH4, is a non trivial compound, both to acquire, but more so in handling. It is not to be trifled with. Make sure you have someone in your surroundings that understand the implications.

2. Same goes for high Mesh Ni powder. It is not to be trifled with. It has to be handled with care and insight, as to avoid undue exposure, which can, in extremes, lead to death. Again, make sure you have people around you that understand the implications, and that you have proper equipment to handle it (glove box or other similar chem lab equipment that keeps you from inhaling the stuff, and spreading it into your environment.).

Note that both compounds are NOT good for the general environment, as it will have serious negative effects to anything biological. Hence you need to avoid releasing it also outside your own close environment. Consider this if there are any spill of these compound while handling them.

3. Pressure. I do believe that a major condition to actually have a positive outcome (as the H2 needs to be loaded into the Ni lattice of the particles in the Ni powder), is that the tube where your reactor tube does hold the pressure. Not only the pressure of the air trapped in the reactor, that will increase about linearly as you heat up, but the pressure from H2 being released from LAH as it goes into the 150-200C zone ,and later at 400C. If it the seal breaks, and the tube vent while under that operation, you may inadvertently release some amounts of the fuel into your environment. In your case, it would mean the oven, so maybe not really so big a problem, but still. Keep it under consideration, and do test the tube for pressure specs before running. Note that Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to hold down, so the seal must be pretty good.

4. Ceramic and machining. When you talk about a "pre-drilled hole" in the ceramic, note that machining for example Alumina requires some special tools, diamond machining and CO2 lasers to mention a couple I found on the net. If you on the other hand have the tube prefabricated from some firm specializing in ceramic products, the they can do the hole.

Display More

Thank you for your advice and warnings. I will take all your suggested safety warning into account. I must admit I was not aware that high mesh Ni powder could be such an issue: Thanks especially for that! I've now got plenty of research to do safety wise.

As for the seal, I have been musing over that for hours now. I'll have to be incredibly precise with the seal which could be problematic with my current method I believe. All the feedback on here has been so very helpful, it's given me a bases to give my result much more rigours scrutiny. I'll be replicating Parkhomov's experiment 1:1 first now, so that should provide a basis to gain some more experimental experience in LENR.

Wow, I was not aware that ceramic was so hard to machine. That could make my bolt method null and void as I do not have the required tools at my school nor enough money to get a prefabricated tube from a firm.

Quote from ogfusionist

Avoid lithium aluminum hydride, compressed hydrogen is a little safer for the fusion experiment.

It's interesting that the explosive properties of this hydride, when misused will solve the problem related to genetics for individuals that have problems with scavenging cancerous cells. It has been established that nickel is a carcinogen and in fusion experiments some individuals use nickel and aluminum hydride. It's a brutal way of avoiding cancer when experimenting with nickel. Especially the extremely fine sub micron material that works best in the fusion reaction. Avoid metal containers when working with hydrogen, shrapnel is more hazardous to health than ceramic shards in most cases.

I will not be using sub micron materials as that would be very hard to procure. Wouldn't compressed hydrogen be more dangerous due to it being explosive/highly inflammable? I was not aware that nickel was a carcinogen either. As I stated however my safety is obviously my first priority in experiments so extreme caution will be taken.

Thanks for all the feedback, I've got lots of tweaking and rethinking to do now!

Quote from Ecco the Dolphin

After reading previous comments again, I just realized that you indeed already said that you would change your replication plans. Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to demotivate you, I only wanted to bring out a few more examples on why there seems be more than meets the eye with these replications (in my opinion).

No it's completely fine. I do indeed understand there are a lot more then meets the eye: to assume it was a simple matter of two chemicals being heated inside of a sealed container would be absurd. It does seems to me that these 'hot' reactors contain more promise then the traditional wet reactors, although I could be wrong as I am new to the field. However I feel that doing a baseline confirmation of the Parkhomov experiment should be first priority, followed by subsequent changes in individual variables at a time to further define what is necessary for the LENR, what promotes the LENR, and what demotes the LENR. Through that 'method of deduction' you would assume one could figure out a rough, or detailed depending on allocated time and resources, procedure/list of things that are required for the LENR to take place. After defining that 'Nuclear Active Environment' you could then create a theory as to what the LENR was and why it can occur.
At least, that's the idea

Quote from Ecco the Dolphin

It's probably mostly because people think they can improve their replications. However I believe that trying to optimize the original design (the one shown in December 2014 and January 2015) without having replicated the claimed effect first (if possible, down to the building and preparation process) and without a hypothesis on why it works, if it does, is a bad idea.

It doesn't also help that Parkhomov doesn't seem to have disclosed everything in detail. A probably overlooked one is that his reactor tubes aren't actually made of pure alumina like other replicators assumed, but of Magnesium-doped Mullite ceramic (Al2O3-SiO2-MgO), as Bob Greenyer found out when he visited him in Moskow a few months ago. This could be important for several reasons. It also looks like Parkhomov mixes nickel powder and LiAlH4 with a mortar and pestle. This could have several effects on the particle's surface morphology, but we can't know for sure. It can be hazardous, and he still takes the risk. Why?

Several people experienced weird artifacts while heating their alumina reactor tube using a coil, from anomalous melting of the coil (even though no powder was loaded and input power wasn't high), to electric potentials leaking inside the reactor tube. It looks like ceramics have unusual electric and thermal conductivity properties at high temperature. Heating these ceramic tubes in a furnace will avoid many of these issues, but what if they're actually needed, ie that they're not really "issues"?

You're planning to use stainless steel, but we don't know yet if there's potential for sulfur poisoning. If catalytic reactions are involved inside these reactor tubes, it's possible that trace sulfur from the SS could inhibit them.

The list could go on over and over, that's why I'm basically saying that one shouldn't take anything for granted and preferably try to replicate the original cell design as accurately as possible, even if it means that it will not be reusable. Of course, if you won't, it's your choice and it will still be more data for others to analyze no matter the outcome.

As a side note, apparently one of his replications was successfully tested in a water flow calorimeter at the Moscow university, so he must be doing something right:
Successfully replication at Moscow University - June 19 2015

He's the one in contact with Andrea Rossi and G.Levi, after all.

Display More

I see your point, and as I said last time I have since decided to first carry out an EXACT replica of his test, with original electrical heating and calorimetry methods. I'll then go onto use my own reactor design. With everything that has been said, I will most likely be using ceramic for the inner tube as well. Thanks for all the feedback, I will be drastically adjusting my plan of attack with the experiments now in regards to reactor designs.