Posts by Alan Smith

    I do not think that difference applies. HAD is sometimes quite steady for hours,


    So are you suggesting that there is no difference? That would be fine by me. However, I don't think you could describe a slight knee in a cooling curve as 'self sustain'. Or could you?

    HAD and self sustain mode (SSM) are basically the same thing?


    I think the only difference that might be assumed is one of time. HAD might be visible as a slight 'knee'in a classic Newtonian cooling curve, where as SSM tends to imply evolution of heat over a longer period.

    They are not a secret Axil, but precisely described in the post above yours. Here it is again with the appropriate phenomena emboldened. I hope that helps.


    That's it Bob. Since we have calibration curves for matched reactors we can precisely calculate any XSH. For example, if the control reactor is at (say) 600C and the test reactor is at 660C we can establish from the calibration curves that if we add 11 watts to the ohmic heater in the control it should also rise to 660C - and as we can actually do that we have a second source of confirmation. Equally if we switch off the test and control reactor main heating elements to check for 'heat after death' (HAD) we can use the (separately powered) ohmic heater in the control to mimic HAD in the control. It thus provides a means of doubly verifying several different phenomena of great interest.

    That's it Bob. Since we have calibration curves for matched reactors we can precisely calculate any XSH. For example, if the control reactor is at (say) 600C and the test reactor is at 660C we can establish from the calibration curves that if we add 11 watts to the ohmic heater in the control it should also rise to 660C - and as we can actually do that we have a second source of confirmation. Equally if we switch off the test and control reactor main heating elements to check for 'heat after death' (HAD) we can use the (separately powered) ohmic heater in the control to mimic HAD in the control. It thus provides a means of doubly verifying several different phenomena of great interest.

    We are also using 'ohmic heaters' to assist in XSH measurements and calibration generally. These are inserted into a tightly bound and cemented together triplet bundle along with the test (or control) sample and another tube containing a thermocouple. The ohmic heater is a simple 'there and back again' length of 0.9MM Kanthal wire which has it's own separate metered power supply, and is capable of generating up to 25W of heat. The little white insulators along the return side of the heater wure are are ceramic beads- good for very high temperatures as are the fused pure alumina fuel tubes they inhabit inside the reactor.




    I hope you are not disparaging experiments involving calibration with blank runs


    All of the experiments we are doing have carefully constructed and exactly matched controls. Post calibration our best pair of reactors have heating/cooling curves matched to better than 0.5% at any temperature. The next best pair are within >1.5% of each other after calibration over a week at various temperatures from 120C up to 850C.

    Alan mentioned that the Androcles fuel mixture is modelled after a presumed geological environment.


    Or astrophysical. But these are just examples of complex environments that in a feeble way we are no more than attempting a pastiche of. I think to look for a reductionist explanation of a holistic approach is not necessarily going to move us further forward -but Russ may care to comment on this himself, he's probably tied up for the rest of the day though, so be patient.

    What is the hypothesis and the list of associated questions that this series of experiments is designed to answer?


    That hot dry LENR is possible, and that the higher the temperature the greater the XS power output. It is primarily an exercise in experimental science, not (for now) a test bed for quantum mechanical theories. Other experiments are available.

    I provided that reference to Russ when he request such info. (ETA http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf)


    But did you actually read it? I quote Focardi et al. 'Radiation was emitted early in the run with peaks that showed high intensities for many days, they decreased slowly and persisted for 78 days'. Our experiment has been running since 2nd May. How many days is that?


    All the LENR reactions that I have read about can produce momentary Gammas, not the sustained and constant gammas that LookingForHeat is seeing.


    How do you square your comment above with the experimental evidence we have produced and the work of Focardi?

    This would be a long and complex debate veering into philosophical territory that lies far outside of the scope of this forum. That is not to say that these discussions don't take place in our laboratory. In brief I can say that we have attempted - in only the most shallow manner TBH - to build the kind of environment inside the reactor that might be found in the exosphere of Jupiter, in a cool brown star or close to a volcano places where we posit that LENR might be occurring. Volcanos after all emit Tritium at times, an isotope with such a short half-life it must have been created 'de novo'. That volcano (or whatever) is a rich and complex atomic ecosystem, not a stripped-down 3 or 4 element fuel canister. We have 17 elements in the fuel, plus tramp elements, which between them have over 60 stable isotopes. It is a carefully developed holistic approach to LENR that Russ has been working on for decades, and it certainly seems to work.

    I just do not seem to be able to give you a free pass on this Alan! I truly do not see the logic.


    There is none to see, and free passes not required. It is merely an anecdote of (marginal) interest only because it came from a skeptic, never meant to be taken as proof of anything except that I have many friends on both sides of the fence. So lighten up a little, dislike is bad for the soul.;)

    Speaking of HF, Siffer has been quiet for some time now. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/author/admin/ Last article was right before the Stockholm DPS. Hmmm...Did he see the light, or too busy preparing for the massive manufacturing of the ESkat in the robotized factory?


    He's very well, been heavily involved in competitive endurance sports (and training) recently. As for Hydrofusion- they are 'still in the game' - confirmed by one of the group in a private email to me.

    Here's something to cheer ip AA. An email from Italy to me today. No more details will be given about provenance, but it is genuine and from somebody who is pretty skeptical about AR. In fact has told me in the past they don't believe E-Cat works.




    .... some weeks ago I met a guy that participated to an eCat test, with a piece remained in Italy after A was already in USA. Well he said me these things: The eCat was powered for some seconds, then stopped, after some more seconds new power and then stop again...this for several time since the reaction started and the steam happened ...In the meantime all the electronic around stooped to run,...And after the reactor power was stopped definitively the reactor continued to give steam for 15 minutes more...



    Less time? I don't see how it could go faster with pulses, but okay.


    They are 400w pulses. Think if it like this. Most (European) cars will poodle along on a flat at 30 mph in 5th gear with the throttle barely open. The engine is probably delivering no more than 7-8Hp. This is the 50 watt input scenario. But to get your car from rest to 30 mph using that same tiny throttle opening would take ages. So you apply a bit more throttle early on. The 400W pulse input method.

    The discrepancy was that Russ says he knows the heat is far greater than 2 W, and you are not sure what it is.


    There is no contradiction there. I know roughly how much I have in the bank, but I am never sure exactly how much.


    ps. Albert was last seen heading for Vegas in shorts and high heels. Best find another roofer.