[...] My opinion is that the Ultra Dense Rydberg Matter (like the Leif Holmlid studies in Sweden) is a good candidate for a part of 95.1%.
Although this is probably sort of off-topic in this thread, you might be interested knowing that in 2002 Badiei and Holmlid proposed that Rydberg Matter (not the ultra-dense form discovered later on) could be a good candidate for the "missing" dark matter in space (see: Rydberg matter in space: low-density condensed dark matter - source here).
Quote from me356As I have written previously, I plan to make a real devices that can be used by anyone.
So you want to make a "product".
QuoteIf possible, we can sell the devices - if everything will be without any problem. Of course with respecting all the patents, safety issues, etc. I believe that this way is the best one to help mankind.
I predict that as soon that happens you will be reported for the sale of unauthorized nuclear devices.
QuoteHow do you know that making available the recipe for such thing will help the world?
It will help many; the entire world, I'm not sure.
QuoteHow do you know that it will be not banned and/or regulated because there will be many cases with major accidents (because of such replications)?
100% guaranteed this will happen. Accidents will be set up for this to happen.
QuoteHow do you know that it will be not misused sooner than before we can use it in a real life?
This is too 100% guaranteed to happen. If it can be dangerous, it is dangerous, even if you pretend it isn't.
QuoteHow do you know that this technology will not cause a new wars?
It will be probably used as a tool for new ones.
QuoteThis thing has potential to change everything.
Even that the original intention is the best, you never can't expect consequences.
If this is your concern you should scrap everything, stop posting and forget that LENR ever existed.
At this point that would be only delaying what will eventually happen sooner or later, however.
You're not the owner of the technology and in my opinion it's not up to you to bear the responsibility of controlling its deployment.
@me356: sorry if I'm sort of repeating myself, but I still don't understand your motives.
You don't want profit, you don't want recognition.
Yet, you "fully understand Mr. Rossi" who "must live from something"; you don't want to publish all your results because all you would get would be "trilions of questions, maybe media interest and thats all".
However, you want a "peaceful life", unaware that simply posting that you are able to obtain neutrons at will from your reaction may get you unwanted attention, and I'm not referring to LENR-Forum members.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but what is it that you want exactly? Can you clarify?
@me356: you seem to be indirectly implying that you want to be rewarded with $$$ for your work. Is that correct?
It takes pressures in the order of several GPa to significantly alter the melting point of Ni, see: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…103/PhysRevLett.95.167801
Here's another finding. The differential spectra from the Amptek CdTe detector, when it's affected by the supposed EMI, for the most part have a smooth shape reminiscent of that of an electromagnetic pulse:
However, some of them (when the EMI gets stronger, at higher input power) seem to be showing interesting peaks. See for example:
Here is a Google Drive folder containing plots of the differential spectra from this run: plots-20160608-postcali1
Here's a graph using data from the last two temperature ramps. The test still used H2. It looks like the mu-metal shield reduced some of the EMI reaching the CdTe detector. A slight increase in counts from the TN7200 X-ray probe could still be observed during negative pressure changes at elevated temperature, which I find quite interesting, especially since it seems to be a reproducible effect, at least with this cell.
Quote from me356[...] If your house will be radioactive or contaminated in any way because of inexperienced experiments, you and your family will not be happy. You would wish it never happened. For now it looks inaccessible, too far from real.
I hope you'll realize, if this is what you're actually thinking, that once a proven working concept will be in the open, making the reaction dangerous will be #1 priority for a large number of people for many different reasons (which do not necessarily include harming others) and holding back information in the hope of avoiding that would not just be naïve but also only slightly delay the inevitable.
Just knowing that it can be done will be enough for many resourceful individuals and teams.
A few personal observations on the paper, after reading it a bit:
* Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) still exists on the surface of metals at least as hot as 750°C (judging by the TOF spectra, the upper limit - if there's any - is probably way higher than this), which should clear some of the previous doubts about its stability at higher temperatures.
* Ultra-dense hydrogen (an extreme form of HRM) is produced by the K:Fe2O3 catalyst both by admitting hydrogen directly through the catalyst pellet at elevated temperature, or - albeit at a lower rate - by a more indirect slow diffusion of the gas in the chamber.
This is not in the paper, but I personally suspect that in this case the starting low pressure used (< 1e-6 mbar) is helpful, since as far as I understand from other papers the volatilty of the alkali oxide promoter in the catalyst is instumental in catalyzing the formation of RM (which means one might want a low pressure, a high temperature or both).
* There's a temperature above which the ultra-dense hydrogen underoges a phase transition. This temperature depends on the metallic surface it collects on and is correlated with its melting point (the higher it is, the higher the transition temperature). For nickel surfaces this temperature is approximately 150°C. This transition temperature is lower when using deuterium.
Although it's not related with it, this reminded me of indications by others (e.g. Piantelli) that exceeding the Debye temperature of the transition metal used is important. Perhaps they were actually seeing this transition temperature?
I haven't noticed anything interesting from the Amptek CdTe detector, however as far as I'm aware of it was at some distance from the spark coil. The differential spectra all looked like this:
Here is a folder with all the differential plots saved from the cumulative 1-minute spectra from the CdTe detector:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7eIOSe9g5EnMjNuTmpFWXFLczg&usp=drive_web
Total Counts from the 1-minute spectra didn't seem to be showing anything like last time either:
Here are the cumulative counts from which the above graph was derived from. No jump to be seen (btw: the labels read "CPM", but they're not actually CPM here):
From saved webcam images it doesn't look like there was any GS5.2-like signal form the UCS-30 spectrometer, so I'm not sure if it's worth the effort of a more detailed look. Here's how a typical webcam image showing a fully converged UCS-30 spectrum (lower-left portion of the screen) looked like:
I haven't had the time to read it yet, but I'd like to note that the paper is open access.
BTW the tungsten H2 reactor was first described by Irving Langmuir around 1911 and he found excess heat as well. I have also thought that would probably be the simplest test to prove LENR. Nice you picked this up!
Some researchers have proposed (and experimentally observed) in more modern times that excited states of atomic hydrogen can under certain conditions form condensed clusters having special properties: Hydrogen Rydberg Matter. I find likely that this is a precursor to many observed LENR effects.
@Eric Walker: they haven't been part of a protocol and have been more or or less been carried out as random tests (for example upon user request) to verify the behavior of the cell under different conditions.
All the ones above 8 psi(A) have been manually triggered with externally supplied hydrogen, as far as I recall.
While looking at longer term data I think I found an interesting correlation. Can you see it too?
The Blue line shows total counts/s from the X-ray spectra saved every 20 minutes by the Tracor Northern 7200 Multi-channel analyzer (hopefully I got the name correct). Red line is absolute H2 pressure.
It looks as if there is a very slight increase (30% at most) in counts when pressure is bled off/decreased and generally when it's on the low side. Upon closer inspection it appears that generally speaking this occurs to a larger extent when pressure is decreased when temperatures are elevated. See this graph (click to enlarge):
The TN7200 MCA and the Amptek CdTe probe seem to somewhat agree each other on longer term pressure changes but don't quite see the same signal. The UCS-30 spectrometer on the other hand doesn't seem to be showing anything related to pressure or power changes.
@BobHiggins
RFI sensitivity as a source of the signal was only my speculation after realizing the similarity of the spectral distribution (disregarding the actual range) with that of GS5.2, given that there don't seem to be issues when a variac is used. I also recalled that a power spike seemingly occurred during GS5.2 in the timeframe where "trace #7" likely also occurred (see the arrow; I remember that other people did point that out at the time): http://i.imgur.com/zfDT7IA.png
The experiment I wanted AlanG and JustaGuy to perform with GS5.3 was actually originally intended to verify:
1) The reproducibility of a radiation count spike from the same CdTe detector when hydrogen is pumped or vacuumed out of the cell, which was caught earlier as it happened by an other user;
2) The behavior of the cell when a relatively deep vacuum is applied after hydrogen is pumped while the cell is hot - similarly to how @me356 seemed to be doing from some of the data he recently posted. This actually resulted in an odd (apparent?) pressure/vacuum level anomaly which AlanG reported here on LENR-Forum a couple days ago.
This issue/signal I linked in the graph of my previous comment actually appeared a bit before the actual experiment began, when the detector(s) was put closer to the GS5.3 reactor tube. It seems to vary in character depending on the power applied (and I guess, distance, but I wasn't there to check in detail). I have plotted other spectra from that experiment section on this page. The data I used for these is available in this shared folder. These files were saved at regular interval with a (sort of) macro script I made for the Amptek DppMCA program, which doesn't natively allow this (only manual saving).
Here's an overview of that experiment section mixing pressure data from Hugnet on top of an image showing the total radiation count rate from the Amptek X-ray probe and other detectors. As data from Hugnet cannot be properly downloaded I had to superimpose it on another plot with an image editor. Amptek CdTe radiation counts have been scaled down by a factor of 100 here. The detector was brought closer to the reactor at about 21:30 (UTC) and power was switched to a variac at about 1:55:
(EDIT: from this chart it looks like either the Amptec CdTe probe or the Ortec Quad Counter have an incorrectly setup internal time)
I have to admit that it is possible that all instruments that are measuring radiation can be highly affected by RF coming from the reactor.
Depending on the control electronics you can observe the peak only at certain moments (e.g. state when some transistors or circuits are switching to a different mode).
My reactors are radiating strong RF a few meters away. Some of tested circuits can affect even LCD display to the extent you will see a blurry screen and even USB connection can break.
Even if it is all powered from the battery and shielded.
Could you clarify here? Do you actually mean that the reaction is producing strong RF with suitable stimulation, or that the power control system is?
There is a slight possibility that the GS5.3 tube under certain conditions (driving power with a SCR controller instead of a variac) is for some reason emitting some kind of EMI which is affecting the output of the CdTe X-ray detector that is being used with other instruments, which according to the manufacturer (Amptek) is sensitive to such interference.
Upon closer analysis (from cumulative 1-minute spectra that I made AlanG/JustaGuy set up for that experiment), it turns out that the x-ray spectrum of such interference from the detector looks similar in character (example here) to that of the GS5.2 "signal", even though the scale is different.
So I'm wondering if in both cases we're not actually looking at some kind of artifact caused by unexpected RF/EMI/ or EMP-like interference to the electronics of the detector rather than really x-rays. The UCS-30 spectrometer which detected the signal in GS5.2 this time didn't seem to detect anything special, perhaps it was a stronger interference last time.
I recall it was reported that the steel inserts/fillers inside GS5.2 developed rust on the cold ends of the reactor tube, which could have formed from steam coming from the slow decomposition into SiO+H2O of the silica fraction (SiO2) of the mullite ceramic tube in a H2 atmosphere at high temperature. Steam could have then interacted with the metal, forming oxides and hydrogen in the process mixed with residual water.
I wonder if a possible getter for hydrogen could be the water-forming reduction of Fe2O3 (and probably other oxides) under vacuum+heat conditions in a residual hydrogen atmosphere.
EDIT: I guess this would be possible only with the pump continuously operating, however.
@jeff: while a large density of carbon clogs active sites on the surface and generally reduces catalytic activity as Holmlid also noted in the excerpt I posted in a previous comment, it's been observed that the dispersed formation of carbide phases at elevated temperature is often associated with higher catalytic activity for the kind of catalysts used in his and similar experiments.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content…y/c4cy01631a#!divAbstract
http://connection.ebscohost.co…ecursor-titanium-butoxide
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/237401
In the case of the experiments described by Holmlid there's probably a trade-off between higher catalytic activity and suitable surface work function, which is affected by the presence of (nano)carbon. From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/14/49/305
