What does Russ George' talking about making the thing available in months not years, mean to you? Does that imply commercialization, as I doubt just selling the recipe would be of any benefit to those in need?
All that is between rapid availability (at some lower level of output) and where we are now is a few million dollars and a fair wund.
Ask in here is the best way - then any someone can answer. And btw, welcome to the forum, I must warn you some people bite, but don't worry, they mostly have no teeth.
In my experience it is rare for industrial equipment to have a UL sticker.
UL will only certify the exact item that is subsequently marketed. They wont certify (for example) a breadboarded version of a pocker radio, only the production version. And (in the EU) custom-built industrial items like controllers are only expected to pass an electrical safety inspection-on site. Boiler rules are more arcane, but onsite inspections are a possibility. Just.
Nor me Jed, why I made that post. After all, they are one of your principal sources of entertainment in here.
And here are some more. These are of various vintages, almost everything in this picture is more than a month old, so already obsolete. There are 'naked reactors -with geiger pancake detector sitting on top, insulated reactors, pid/psu set-ups, data logging etc. Some may not be new, but they might save somebody hunting. The last picture btw is of the smaller of our two gamma-specs.
The thermocouples ** are shielded t/c's in ceramic thermowells. There is no need to keep them totally gas-tight since there is no free hydrogen inside the reactor - just air. They are bound closely to the surface of the fuel tube in the heart of the reactor, so hard to get closer to the action zone.
As for your little quip, go look at the photos in this thread, and you will see how it is put together. It might be the end of me spoon-feeding you age. 
** Mostly K-type, but some 'S' type too.
Kanthal is much better than nichrome, but depending on the type of Kanthal, its resistance can still change by up to 3% from cold to 300C. See this datasheet:
https://www.kanthal.com/global…d-strip/S-KA026-B-ENG.pdf
Assuming you use the same type of heater wire for all reactors, you could include the adjustment from these tables and keep all the readings within 1%. Before I had not heard what type of heater wire you were using. In some electronics high temperature tests, I uncovered some errors because the engineers assumed that the cold and hot resistance of nichrome wires was the same, but the delta was actually quite significant.
Of course we use the same Kanthal A1 wire, from the same bulk reel too. As we mostly use PID temperature control on both control and test reactors, we keep them at the same temperature, so there is no meaningful difference in resistance. Otherwise the control would not be a control. An XSH temperature excursion in a fuelled reactor actually switches out the heating so variations in resistance are not significant since there is no electrical input. I note that the resistance of Kanthal A1 (our chosen wire) actually varies vary little over our chosen working range of 200-500C. So taken together with the fact that we are always looking at data from pretty much isothermal reactors and working at XSH outputs measured in W and not mW this small variation is of little concern. But thank you for raising the issue.
I would point out to those asking the mods to sanction (they know who they are) Axil, Adrian and Sam, that if we did you would have nobody to argue with. So long as everybody stays within the bounds of common courtesy nobody is going for an early bath. So keep it nice.
But the power is the same only if the coil resistance is the same. The heater coil resistance changes significantly at high temperature, so you would still need to measure each current separately. And if you need to monitor them separately, how is one big supply any better than a bunch of separate smaller supplies?
This is schoolboy science and we left school before the Vietnam war. Let me explain. We measure and compare the performance of the reactors continuously over long calibration periods using various methods, at the moment the energy they use to keep at at (for example) 300C without LENR heat is 120W and the criterion we set ourselves is that they should all be within 1% of this figure. The coil resistances are exactly the same, they are made and measured very precisely. The coil resistance does not change significantly with temperature in our case, look up temperature/resistance curves for Kanthal. Then you will understand why we use Kanthal. We only monitor current separately for each reactor, and believe me, it is better to keep an eye on one PSU than 6 or 8. Uniformity is important when making comparisons
Ni transmuting to Cu
This has been demonstrated many times in many labs. DYOR before claiming a win.
Do the long bursty episodes come after long periods of quiescence and the short bursty episodes com after relatively shorter quiescent periods?
I cant really give even an anecdotal answer to that - we have the data but have yet to check that out in ways that would answer your question.
Just curious, if you have time: how/why did you pick those particular rather odd parameters?
Well, the parameters are in part decided by the availability of pedigree high-output super smooth PSU's made for data farms at knock-down prices. About $10/kW is typical for 'mint and boxed' if you know where to look. But it goes back further than that, when supplying reactors via 'lookingforheat' I was (a) concerned about people electrocuting themselves, and (b) wishing to avoid the arguments about power measurement we so often see about AC systems, (c) suspecting that AC magnetic fields (ex the solenoid heater coil) might be disruptive. So I designed systems that run on relatively low-voltage DC - and they work very well, so not in a rush to change things.
However, in the current excitement, you probably have a same communication mode as Rossi
A little less misdirection I hope!
I'll answer for Russ on this, since he probably won't post any more. Right now we have something pretty amazing going on, but we don't yet know how useful it might be. Signs are that it will be very useful, but we need to do a lot more work to make it so. We are exploring strange territory, working with relatively novel materials, there is no map, and we are not even sure how far the territory extends. So, it would be premature to discuss commercialisation as we are still experimenting and debugging our systems - not that they are very buggy, but I believe (like many) in the value of continued incremental improvements. Right now I'm putting together a 42V 137A power bus to feed all 8 reactors with exactly the same heater power- it will only be running at a small fraction of its capacity, but does represent another variable removed and another calibration chore simplified.
Thanks for your interest, I can only assure you that we have good intentions and no fear of hard work or spending our cash on what we perceive to be important work.
I must confess that I have not been following your discussion with Bruce so I'll just say 'Yes'. The heating coil is re-energised when the PID's dedicated thermocouple hits the set value- or maybe a very small amount above it to allow for system hysteresis.
And some people never expect to die.
That's because the PID thermostat had been set to 200C. Or maybe 230- I don't have the figures to hand.
obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough
I am always wary of cries for 'less regulation'. The house builders in the UK always claim that planning restrictions prevent them building new homes, not true, they have plenty of approvals, but if they don't build slowly the ridiculous prices houses fetch would fall. So they blame 'regulation', The same is true of labour market regulations, gun laws, drug laws and so on. There is always somebody who wants less, even when it is obvious we need more. Apart from that, I cannot see how regulation is inhibiting investment in LENR- it seems to me that there is plenty of venture capital sniffing around what they see as potentially a honey-pot - so much so that some players are seeking to create and own a monopoly. It's all very confusing,, best thing IMHO is just to get on with the work.
But over a period of several hours we can suppose that this variable is quasi invariant
That would be a mistake. I have just been looking at some very strange data, with suggests there is a 15 second 'bursty heat' cycle, and at times another 5 second cycle. Puzzles the hell out of me.
As for Russ, that comment was not personal, he gets pretty steamed up by anonymity though.
It will take some time before I start simulating again since I am off to Finland for some weeks
Safe and happy travels, we look forward to more careful analysis upon your return.
As I said before, I suggest you try to repeat it and see if the results are very close the previous ones. That would be a bad sign.
I already said we repeated it and got different results. It will be repeated again and again I expect. Your argument is a bit like a 'cant win' scenario, repeat a test and get the same result is a bad sign you suggest, personally I think that repeatable experiments are better than those with wildly different results, which suggest equipment failures or data errors. Science and the data it produces will not always want to conform to your ideas, or mine.
I see no indication of a threshold at play in the freely varying fueled-reactor temperature (the red trace) in Russ George's figure.
Don't go confusing LENR with chemistry. For example, the system was much less active today, nothing in the parameters was changed, the same test gave us around 2W. Tomorrow it may be different again. Simple chemistry - or simple linear relationships between temperature and anomalous heat don't always work out in this system. In fact, we suspect that there are no less than 3 systems (or event-chains - whatever) at work here, moving in and out of synch with each other. I'll sleep on the 'dedicated thread' issue and decide tomorrow. Making another thread -as I said before- does not stop you discussing the data Russ presented. If I move everything, I will do my best to keep the discussion coherent.
I would suggest that this discussion on cooling curves and the heat/heresy relationship be moved to a dedicated thread- you can discuss our current data there with pleasure, but it's rather derailing this thread. What do you think?
I would remind all members that they don't forget the thread title. Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion. Discussion preferably avoiding personal attacks on those of opposing views.
Hi Robert. I don't do Twittering, so can only read the paper you link. Surely it is not unusual for the s/n ratio to decrease as the signal increases in strength? It can be a function of equipment quality and method, I am well aware that the superconductivity field is as full of backbiting and competition for resources as the LENR field, having had extensive email dialogues with several key players, so wary of any criticism coming from someone claiming to post it a critique 'at the urging of a colleague'. And MIT are no angels I'm afraid.
Also interesting is the "completely different". As some stated here (THH?) it would be most unusual for there to be two major but truly unique mechanisms discovered at the same time,
resulting in a similar energy discharge. Unusual but perhaps not impossible.
An unwise thing to say I'm afraid. I do believe in the conservation of miracles, and neither of the mechanisms we were experimenting with are new discoveries in the LENR field. 'Hot and dry' and 'cool and wet' are both different versions of the same mechanism. As even Jed would agree.
Has worked stopped on this "original" device or is there a dual investigation? If continued, can any information be shared?
There are only 3 of us, and I and my colleagues are working 60 hours a week as it is, since 2 of us are also very busy building a small-scale pilot plant for a non-LENR process. So just the one 'hot and dry' LENR system at the moment. Full time volunteers with scientific and technical expertise are welcome to apply for non-paying jobs btw. On the topic of sharing information, we are, but at a pace of our own choosing,
Was this device the "Androcles" reactor or something different?
Something completely different.
Can you confirm that your series of measurements exclude heat inertia in the alumina bricks as origin of the difference?
The switch on/switch off times were identical. The fuelled reactor heats faster than the un-fuelled one, and tends to overshoot the PID-set temperature is all. Any difference in the stored thermal energy is marginal, and does not explain the difference in the curves. As is usual with high-grade lightweight insulating materials, its actual heat storage capacity is quite small.
The Japanese Technova project is forging ahead, excellent paper here.
Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to
hydrogen isotope gases
Abstract Anomalous heat effect by interaction of hydrogen isotope gas and metal nanocomposites
supported by zirconia or by silica has been examined. Observed absorption and heat evolution at RT
were not too large to be explained by some chemical processes. At elevated temperatures of 200 ~ 300
°C, most samples with binary metal nanocomposites produced excess power of 3 ~ 24 W lasting for up
to several weeks. The excess power was observed not only in the D-Pd⋅Ni system but also in the H-Pd⋅Ni
system and H-Cu⋅Ni system, while single-element nanoparticle samples produced no excess power. The
Pd/Ni ratio is one of the keys to increase the excess power. The maximum phase-averaged excess heat
energy exceeded 270 keV/D, and the integrated excess heat energy reached 100 MJ/mol-M or 90
MJ/mol-H. It is impossible to attribute the excess heat energy to any chemical reaction; it is possibly due
to radiation-free nuclear process.
Index Terms − D2-gas, H2–gas, palladium-nickel, nanocomposite, excess, heat
Hi Jed, knowing that you have a passing interest in early flight, I thought you might like this 1912 instructional book on 'how to build yourself a full size aeroplane' - free to read on 'gutenberg'. Jolly entertaining in places.
Title: Flying Machines: Construction and Operation Authors: W.J. Jackman and Thos. H. Russell
Is there some way you can tell if the sample is incandescent?
Not at the moment- we have been thinking about that though, working out the best way to run a 'naked' fuel sample in a quartz tube outside the reactor.
