Posts by can

    Alan Smith

    What steps or measures are being undertaken to build a watertight data set? Androcles #2 has now been running for a few weeks, I believe; what is currently being studied exactly? What's the general plan about Androcles #3-10?


    It is a good sign that they think they are onto something, when they switch from straight talking to parables. And no, one can never be too inquisitive in LENR. If you never ask, you may never know... grasshopper.


    If questions are going to be met with vague, conflicting or convoluted answers 'because reasons', it's pointless to even ask. Furthermore, Mark H summarized well what tends to happen by asking too much.


    If I have to regard this thread like the JONP, that's not a good sign to me.

    Alan Smith

    I don't want to sound needlessly inquisitive, but Russ George previously reported (elsewhere, not in this thread) that one other fuel mix also produced the gamma emission and that more fuel mixes would be planned over the coming weeks, so I assumed that it was not only related to the simplicity of the setup, but also of operation and preparation.


    RussGeorge wrote:

    One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my experiment and its ‘lovely gammas’ coming from an ‘unfueled’ reactor. That is most certainly not the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared ‘fuel mix’ that is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of other fuel mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma signal save one other. I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10 grains of rice, but it is most certainly a cold fusion ‘fuel’ that was chosen with guidance of the atom-ecology of the environment it would be subjected to and create. By the way I also prepare and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a big tip to those skilled in the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes go into the oven(s) over the next few weeks I expect/hope more about the specific characteristics of the atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent will be revealed. [...]


    Besides, hasn't the gamma signal been reported a few comments earlier here to even occur spontaneously without heat cycling or other triggering? Unless this involves something else besides waiting with the apparatus at elevated temperature in a hydrogen atmosphere, it doesn't sound too much complicated.


    I guess the question I made in my previous comment could be reworded as: what are your plans on third-party replications after you replicated in your laboratory the specific fuel mix that has been highlighted in this thread? Will it be academia first, then amateur experimenters?

    Alan Smith

    Hopefully more clearly put, which of these cases best represents what the previously quoted statement actually meant?

    1. No garage/amateur replications allowed before this is replicated in the academia.
    2. The academia is already working on it and will report before garage experimenters will do.

    I was under the impression that the setup would be easy to replicate/reproduce, or at least Russ George suggested so on E-Cat World.


    RussGeorge wrote:

    Doesn't get any more simple that this. Rossi's myriad obfuscations and misdirections aside this hot dry tube cold fusion ecosystem is very simple for anyone skilled in the art to create. The idea that it is difficult to 'reverse engineer' is preposterous. Mistakes that render it inoperable are also as prevalent as potholes in Potsdam.

    I think we are going to get this replicated in academia first.


    Does this mean that efforts are already underway and will get published soon before other people will manage to replicate the experiment or that the latter won't start before this is replicated in academia?

    One more comment - Ploty discontinued their on-line live streaming feature some time last year, and finally removed the hooks in the interface so that it no longer functions at all. I'm looking into alternatives that I can host on my own server. I would appreciate input from anyone experienced in real-time data plotting from a .csv file that is being updated by Labjack's data logging.


    I do not have specific knowledge or experience in real-time data plotting, but it seems that the creators of Plotly have created a framework called Dash for interactive graphing which has become relatively popular as of late.


    https://plot.ly/products/dash/

    https://dash.plot.ly/

    https://dash.plot.ly/live-updates


    A more established popular alternative appears to be one called Bokeh:

    https://bokeh.pydata.org/


    Comparison article:

    https://blog.sicara.com/bokeh-…-alternative-c5b576375f7f


    Setting these up is not going to be a plug and play task either way, but Dash seems simpler.


    The most straightforward and painless thing to do would be producing static graphs with any API or programming language of choice and uploading the results onto a shared directory.

    Following other comments written elsewhere, it might be worth pointing out once again that this thread is not just original research for LENR replications. For the most part I looked for more detailed studies about the characteristics of these catalysts following Holmlid's references and pointers from his papers about them.


    Even in his latest one, Holmlid still refers to other works in the literature describing in detail the characteristics and stability of their active state. That he's been citing specifically these two papers consistently throughout the years, should suggest that perhaps the subject they cover might be crucial.




    From Meima and Menon (ref. 31):



    From Muhler et al (ref. 32), right in the introduction:



    axil

    The catalysts used are the same, and so are the methods required to make them work. I could quote Holmlid's words form his papers suggesting exactly the same thing, which I will later in the other thread.


    Bottom line, relating this to the LION replication efforts on this thread, if you don't know what you're doing exactly and why, it's quite likely that you're going to have troubles getting the reaction started. That's also why I was interested knowing LION's opinion on why the reaction might have not worked, in addition to knowing more about the rationale behind the suggested preparation which experimenters have trusted without success.

    axil

    For what it's worth, as far as I am aware of, Ólafsson and Zeiner-Gundersen use those catalysts below 100-150 °C at most in the apparatus, with no attempt to activate them at higher temperatures before usage. However this isn't the right thread for discussing that; I've made a dedicated one earlier on.

    Full text "Neutrons from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Muon-Capture Processes in an Ultradense Hydrogen H(0) Generator"


    NeutronsfromMuonCatalyzedFusionandMuonCaptureProcessesinanUltradenseHydrogenH0Generator1.pdf



    It got already linked in previous comments here and elsewhere, but I guess it might be useful linking it again more explicitly.


    It's probably also worth pointing out that the patent of this thread is referenced in the paper:



    For those interested in forming KFeO2 directly by heating in a vacuum instead of calcinating the material ex-situ at 800 °C or above, it might be worth mentioning that Ndlela and Shanks reported in Reduction behavior of potassium-promoted iron oxide under mixed steam/hydrogen atmospheres (2006) that partial reduction to Fe3O4 seems necessary for KFeO2 to form under very mild vacuum conditions (0.057 atm in the experiments described) at temperatures in the range of 600-630 °C (typical styrene process temperature).



    However, excessive reduction to Fe3O4 or metallic Fe (e.g. with a too high hydrogen pressure) will prevent KFeO2 formation.


    It's possible that at the deeper vacuum levels implied in the excerpts posted previously, with potassium ions diffusing from the bulk to the surface of the material (and reacting with the oxides present) more quickly, such partial reduction might not be required.


    On the other hand, under prolonged heating under such conditions, it can occur that vacuum pump oils volatilize in the atmosphere and eventually crack (decompose) on the surface of the catalysts, depositing a thin carbon layer and also partially reducing the catalyst with the hydrogen produced in the process (which is however expected to be usually rather slow unless deliberately or inadvertently promoted).


    Apparently Leif Holmlid—who used to perform prolonged experiments with the catalysts under high vacuum conditions—has observed such phenomenon in his experiments throughout the years and sometimes very briefly reported it in his papers.



    Source: http://doi.org/10.1021/jp046288m


    Source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0543-4



    Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2006.09.003



    Source: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/19/27/276206

    The Fe2O3 compound is known as a LENR H* catalyst since the early days.


    Since the start of this thread I have been showing sources explaining that the K-Fe2O3 catalysts have to undergo certain transformations in order to efficiently work and form excited atoms in desorption. Fe2O3 isn't very active on its own.


    The problem with the understanding of chemical papers/ their relevance for LENR is that they use H*/K* for ordinary Rydberg matter, where as Holmlid/Mills mostly use H* for the shrunken form.


    Read Holmlid's explanation from this patent (section "Catalytic conversion"). He's not using the H*/K* notation for what he calls the ultradense state.



    JulianBianchi

    Kotarba et al studied the role and the loss of potassium from dehydrogenation catalysts under a plethora of different conditions; I also suggest checking out other papers from them on the subject. His latest one was in 2015 with a K-Mn oxide material, also available on Researchgate. Sort of off-topic for this thread, but it shows that Rydberg K emission (and possibly Rydberg matter) isn't specific to K-Fe oxide catalysts.


    On a related note, a couple months ago I contacted Kotarba via email and he confirmed that in his past studies "[the industrial styrene catalysts] were always good emitters of K* also without any special activation procedure - just as received". However these studies most often involved heating them in an ultra-high vacuum to process temperature (~600-650 °C) and in earlier comments in this thread I already posted some excerpts from other researchers who noted the apparent formation of KFeO2 on the surface of these catalysts in a vacuum at high temperature.



    EDIT: some actual references of related studies by Kotarba and others (either as an author or coauthor):

    JulianBianchi

    It's my understanding too that at least in the context of the K-Fe2O3 catalysts he's most often suggested the first explanation, i.e. excitation transfer of the K* energy to the atomic H. The so-called K promoter reportedly makes this transition easier than normally possible. A short explantion of the process has been described in his lapsed patent in the section Catalytic conversion: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2680271A1/


    However, this transition can also be achieved in other ways, not just from these catalysts. See for example a very general explanation in section 2.2 Formation of RM in this open access paper here: http://aa.springer.de/papers/0358001/2300276.pdf


    Speaking again of the K-Fe2O3 catalysts of this thread, it could be very simplistically summarized that according to Holmlid et al. K atoms can desorb thermally directly in an excited state from the KFeO2 phase of their activated form. This probably doesn't occur only on the surface, but also in the internal macropores inherently composing their structure, but for ethylbenzene dehydrogenation the latter might not be a very significant factor.


    Compounds like KAlO2 do not seem to show the same behavior. In this paper available on Researchgate the authors conclude:



    These catalysts have been used for decades and other authors have studied the role of K promotion on catalytic activity in practical terms, without necessarily focusing on Rydberg emission like Holmlid and colleagues did. In this old review (1974) by Lee, the relative activity between different metal oxides, K-promoted and unpromoted, was analyzed. Al + K was not found to be catalytically active.



    Since it looks like we have to hunt for information, Russ George posted some more information in a comment crossposted on Vortex-l and ECW.


    Summary on what concerns the experiment(s):

    • Specifically prepared fuel mixes produce gamma signals, while others running in parallel do not.
    • Amount of fuel equivalent to 5-10 grains of rice is used.
    • Fuel is prepared and loaded in air—big hint, apparently.
    • More information about the fuel mixes to be revealed in the coming weeks.

    That's because until we get the gamma spec operational we can't be sure.


    By the way, what gamma spectrometer did you purchase? From what I'm told, many entry-grade analyzers might not be fast enough to resolve fast pulses that are apparently a characteristic of the "anomalous" emission from these experiments, i.e. might count multiple events as one, affecting the measured spectrum.

    Meanwhile, on Russ George's blog, this extended graph got posted (although raw data in csv format would be even more interesting).


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-08-1.png


    Quote

    The peaks showing here are perfectly reproducible. The apparent background is in fact a bit elevated above the lab background (note those few deep spikes) so the reaction doesn’t seem to want to shut down, just settles down. The apparent radiation dose, in human terms, is less than that one might receive in a dental x-ray. Most important here are the bits without the higher level gamma radiation! This is data from one of three Geigers being used to monitor the experiment(s).

    magicsound

    Good job. Some pellets do appear on my screen like they've acquired what has been described in the literature as an olive green color, but unexpectedly this happened mostly on the surface of some of the larger ones, while the rest of the powder except for a few of the larger chunks has now an overall slightly darker red (crimson) appearance than before the treatment.


    This makes me wonder if at this temperature and calcination time another phase generally associated with KFeO2 has formed instead (K2Fe22O34), except for the spots where the local concentration of Fe2O3 and K2CO3 was higher. Either way, if anything this shows that the composition can vary greatly from pellet to pellet also from the same batch.


    Actually I have a photo from Alan Smith showing such a color on the pellets calcinated at 900 °C for 90 minutes immediately after being put out of the furnace, but as the lighting conditions weren't controlled and the pellets were still hot I thought this was for the most part a camera effect (artifact), not an actual change. Most of this crimson tint appeared to have been gone a few minutes later. So apparently this darker compound was unstable too:





    Your "10-minute after" photo—if it has good color accuracy—appears to show too that some of this crimson coloration disappeared, while the larger pellets still retained part of their yellow-green (ochre?) color.


    It will be interesting to check out again under the same lighting conditions in one hour (although at the time of posting such time probably already passed) and then after several hours (overnight).



    EDIT: added composite image of the catalysts calcinated at 800°C for 6 hours.



    Did you obtain this?


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…oceed-in-a-straight-line/

    Quote

    Once while running an experiment I happened upon a distinct highly reproducible radiation measurement. My Geiger Counter signaled the first hint of it and upon fiddling about with my “hey that’s strange” reaction to the enhance rate of Geiger clicks I managed to make the Geiger record vastly more counts, even saturating the detector. I did that by placing various different elementary foils between the source and the detector. Normally when one puts something in between a radiation source and a Geiger Counter the count rate inevitably goes down, not up. In my work a thin Silver foil sent the Geiger over the moon.