Curbina Moderator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    Atomic Hydrogen is also formed with atomic hydrogen welding.

    Atomic hydrogen welding (AHW) is an arc welding process that uses an arc between two tungsten electrodes in a shielding atmosphere of hydrogen.

    Different metals or alloys can be welded with this method, e.g. Nickel.

    One may wonder whether this allows for forming UDH during AHW and if so, why aren't there any unexpected effects reported.

    I think there are, Energetic anomalies have been reported in very simple experiments. Not long ago I started this thread about it:


    Production of fuel with COP above 1 (electric energy input/heat energy output) patent about to expire in 2021

    Thank you for your answers, but I'm afraid that I have not grasped the overall configuration of the equipment used in the experiment.


    There is a heating circuit for the oven as designed by its manufacturer. Are you saying that, separate from this, there is another heating wire applied to the reactor that is used to heat it up?


    Let us call the power used to drive the heating coils installed in the oven by its manufacturer the "oven input power". And let's call any power used to drive a wire applied directly to the reactor itself the "reactor heater input power". Which of these are you calling the "heater power"?

    I don’t know why you ask this, in this case it’s clear there’s no heater power into the reactor, it is heated externally by the oven heater, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

    This is an Article I just found about, must have been uploaded recently:


    Neutron Flux and Soft X-Radiation Created by Heterogeneous Plasmoid


    A I Klimov et al 2020 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.1698 012034


    Abstract:


    Experimental results on registration of different radiations from a heterogeneous plasmoid(HP) created by pulsed-repetitive discharge in the experimental set up PVR are considered in this work. Intensive cold neutron flux, optical radiation and soft X-radiation (E<10 KeV) were measuredin the HP. It was revealed that there is a high voltage threshold Ud>3.8 kVin the electric dischargefor stable generation of intensive cold neutron flux.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…42-6596/1698/1/012034/pdf


    This other article was published a bit later but I had already mentioned in the other thread, might as well post it here as it also shows evidence for SR.


    https://sci-hub.se/https://www…abs/pii/S1364682620303242

    “Strange” particles and micro-sized ball lightning in some electric discharges (Anatoly I. Nikitin, Vadim A. Nikitin, Alexander M. Velichko, Tamara F. Nikitina)


    And finally the also recently published paper on the biological effects of SR.


    https://sci-hub.se/https://lin…10.3103/S1062873820110222


    Biological Detection of Physical Factors Related to the High-Current Electric Explosion of Conductors in a Vacuum (E. A. Priakhin, *, L. I. Urutskoev, E. V. Stiazhkina, c, G. A. Tryapitsyna, c, A. E. Aldibekova ,A. A. Peretykin, E. E. Priakhin, K. A. Alabin, N. D. Pilia, N. Z. Chikovani,D. A. Voitenko, and R. M. Arshba)

    I already stated that more robust calibrations are being done with sufficient replication to be able to calculate error bars. I also stated that this was an early report.

    Please Daniel_G , don’t feel like you are being attacked, People is just eager to know more, I hope you can share more data and context with us. Thanks for your comments, we really appreciate them.

    Interesting read, and by a Mexican researcher with a research grant, no less. He doesn’t propose any experimental conditions to observe this “anomalous state” but by saying it needs electromagnetic interactions, is basically opening the door to what was observed by the legendary Carlo Borghi and all those inspired by him.

    Back when I was working in a project for characterization of so called “biochar” made out of several locally available materials, we used a similar oven to make the Biochar in a very air restricted atmosphere to cause the pyrolysis. We set the oven to 250 +-3 degrees and It stayed there spending energy until you put a sample inside or turned it off.


    Some materials produced a great heat during the pyrolysis (and many volatiles that ended clogging the oven’s exhaust) and at those instances the oven switched off all heaters and started a fan to cool down the chamber, so we learnt quickly we had to restrict the amount of material put into the oven in each batch to avoid the samples to burn entirely by overwhelming the capacity of temperature control of the oven.


    This is just an anecdote to illustrate that I have used these kind of ovens and if I had to use it for testing a Mizuno reactor a would go The way already described, by measuring the heat input compared to a control / inactive reactor.

    This is a rather recent thread where some “SR” literature has been discussed.


    Strong evidence for a new kind of radiation.


    The latest paper of the effects of biological systems was really interesting for me.


    Paradigmnoia has been focused on explaining away the “tire tracks” as mere scratches, but an effect on a biological system is completely different to a “mere scratch”.


    Keith Fredericks has compiled many observations that go way beyond the “tire tracks”.


    The so called “birdies” are also very interesting, And the fact that they are produced in inverted pairs, Something that already had been observed by Matsumoto.

    Does the reactor require any added heat to activate it when placed in an oven?

    I mean, the average temperature of the reactor at 300 W was shown to be about 50 C, with hot spots as high as 180 C or thereabouts. So if the oven were set to 175 C, should not the reactor fire up without the external or internal heater and start making excess heat of over 100 W?

    I understand you are talking about the R22? Please correct me if not. If you are talking about the R22, then The situation is not directly aplicable, as that reactor was heated internally. (Edit to add, probably I meant R20, the Mizuno reactor of which the data was presented by Jed at ICCF 22, R22 is a refrigeration gas, LOL).


    I see these late “in oven”experiments as completely different, the oven is designed to reach an maintain temperature within it. Regardless of the losses, anything inert placed in the oven should reach the temperature of the oven and stay there.


    If you put a stick in there, it of course will burn and release chemical energy and reduce the power input for a while and when the chemical energy is spent, it will get back to the set temperature.


    A control reactor will simply get heated and stay heated while the oven is working.


    A working reactor will start getting heated by the oven, and when the reaction is activated by the temperature, it will start producing heat, and it should start to be sensed by the oven controls and it would throttle down the energy consumption to maintain the temperature within the set point. The excess heat can be deduced from the power consumption to achieve a temperature, not very precise but good enough for practical purposes.

    That is exactly how I ran some of the tube furnace experiments. Every time the thermostatic heater kicks in the data logger records the on-time and the current. Although the current was notionally constant, some of the heater inputs were so brief that they beat the 'rise time' of the heater coils, so it was always measured and timed


    Comparison of test and control is relatively easy then, once you establish the complete calibration for any given furnace.

    I think It is a clever and relatively easy way to wrap around the complexities of calorimetry, for obtaining a clear cut and relatively quick answer. It probably won’t convince any purist, but a reduction of the energy bill is always convincing for engineers and investors.

    May this be a blinding flash of the obvious, but from the specs I can only conclude the Yamato oven being a constant temperature oven, that once fixed controls the temperature within 0.5 degrees of the setting, is being used as a gauge of how much energy takes to maintain the oven at a certain temperature setting. An active cell producing excess heat should reduce the power input to attain the temperature set, at least within the range of temperature in which the active cell produces heat. A control, inactive cell should not induce any change in the power levels, all other things remaining the same.

    Don't ever do that!! That way lies failure. Learn as much as you can. If possible, get the materials directly from the original experimenter. In 1989 and 1990 Martin Fleischmann handed out Johnson Matthey cathodes that worked. Other kinds did not work. He said: "When uncle Martin gives you a cathode, it works. When other people give you cathode, they don't work. What does that tell you? Hmmmm???"

    Frank Gordon has already hinted where he purchases materials so it’s less of a hassle, However if he could prepare and send co deposited wires it could probably increase the base of replicators as the “reactor” itself is kind of simple to replicate by anyone with access to a good shop, but the co deposited wire requires a lot of implementation that only people already in the co deposition trade or at least electrolysis has in place.

    Ah, yes. I should have remembered that is what they call an "incubator" in Japanese. I would call it a constant temperature chamber in English. The ones I have seen have a thermostat. You can only measure excess heat by measuring a decrease in input power to maintain the same temperature. That is not very precise. That is called the compensation heater method, I think.


    Maybe this one has a constant input power mode, where the thermostat is disabled?

    I agree this is not a precise system, but no one can argue that if the presence of the reactor inside the oven makes it reach the same temperature with less power input, it is an interesting observation, and is quite easy to reproduce as you use an off The shelf standardized product.


    Again, not ideal as proof for anyone skeptic, but I think is a good compromise for practical purposes.

    You may be surprised to find out how easily some tracks are made by “mundane” processes.

    I am getting pretty good at making some types of particle tracks of types identified by some researchers as being caused by strange radiation.

    Being able to mimic tracks and concluding your method is the likely cause is a big leap of faith. You have to be able to prove how contactless experiments produced the tracks with your method.

    Holmlid always make the same error in believing that a proton just decays as he learnt...To crack a proton you need 53 MeV's not just a laser. Also Pions do only occur as a follow up particle of a Kaon...


    The only reaction that really works is 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. So this paper is just marketing with a false claim of a 43% gain where in fact it is roughly 1/9 = 11%,

    Wyttenbach , can you comment in the paper? This would be a very interesting discussion with Holmlid.

    Curbina I agree with you but based on Kornilova interview, she had pronounced it as a done deal. So somebody here is being unrealistic. Sometimes scientists must get down to Earth and clearly show investors how to turn their $1 into $1000 instead of pretending to be tired of winning and asking for money for another decade of research.

    Can You point me to the specific interview? I need the context for having the chance to make a proper comment.


    Anyway, I would say that a technology transfer in this case is merely having the correct strain of bacteria and knowing how to keep it growing. From there to the application to radioactive waste, All the engineering and scaling up is a completely different matter.

    Aren't lixiviation and transmutation two very different things

    In specific terms yes, but you are asking why a bacteriological process based in the work of Visotskii and Kornilova has not been adopted by the Japanese to clean up Fukushima. You imply that this is because the process doesn’t work, and I am saying that the slow adoption of any bacteriological based process is not due to the process itself but because of the engineering challenge to implement it at large scale, as bacteria are heterotrophic and it needs to be provided the conditions to thrive (food, temperature and respiratory gases). Scaling from Petri dish to millions of cubic meters of radioactive waste is a huge challenge.

    It´s remarkable that they prioritize a remediation reactor prototype over a transmutation reactor.

    Looking at market need, I would guess that an energy reactor would be far more desired.

    Maybe their view is that solving conventional nuclear energy issues (waste elimination) allows for expansion of conventional nuclear energy generation on the short term is more accepted than introducing new energy generation technologies without the a new theory yet in place.

    They seem to think this as a huge market, which on the surface I doubt anyone would disagree, and should be a great opportunity for nuclear waste remediation.


    However, I don’t know if that is really the case due to regulatory restrictions, bureaucracy can make anything that is technically feasible, but not wanted by politicians, impracticable.

    Speaking of Visotdkiy and Kornilova bacterial transmutation, there are couple of controversies surrounding them. First, there was failed trial performed by the unit of Rosatom. It was explained that Rosatom was not following the protocol and there was allegedly a successful second trial.


    What is more interesting is that Visotskiy book was translated to Japanese. Japanese have huge problem with radioactive water from Fukushima and bacteria were thought to be a perfect fit to dispose of it. That was long time and so far no positive news from there.

    Engineering any biotechnological remediation program takes time.


    Bacteria needs to be fed, and doing it at large scale sounds much easier than it is.


    As an example of laboratory proven to large scale use of bacteria that can be used as a gauge is the case of copper biological lixiviation. This was never controversial at all, in the sense that was provent at lab scale and by all means it was going to work at large scale. Yet, Chilean mining companies have been developing the bacterial copper lixiviation from low grade materials for decades now, it requires complex irrigation and aeration systems, it works fairly well now (after way too many dissapointments and bakrupted start ups), but it took decades to get the first pilot plant with decent yields.