Posts by Daniel_G

Transmutation experiments are not unusual. US Army, NASA, and other credible researchers have already published credible evidence of transmutations. In my humble opinion, showing something on the pathway to practical scalability and practicality at least should theoretically have the highest impact in a mainstream publication.

A 100% repeatable hundred watt scale reaction should have impact. In later publications we have plans to examine the transmutations pre and post operation. We plan to send two or more identical reactors to an independent lab and they will randomly choose which one to run and then compare catalysts from both the operating and non operating reactors.

Yes that is correct. We have literally thousands of experiments where we have measured neutrons, gamma rays, x-rays, Geiger counters etc. and do not consider those to be reliable indicators of LENR. With current generation of reactors, we feel XSH is by far the most reliable fingerprint of LENR.

We agree that credible third party testing is a indispensable element of any serious LENR company. I am sorry we haven't been able to do this earlier as my hands were tied for many reasons but we are back in the game now and hope to have some results soon.

Thank you Alan. Ideally we will want to reduce the pressure to about 1mbar if this doesn't introduce additional variability which we definitely want to avoid. Its very helpful to have these discussions here. We are planning to use commercial grade 2 Ti sheets.

So as for third party reviewed results from credible labs, is BEC’s 6W the best we have?

Yes I think it probably makes sense to do a bake out at maximum operating temperature and then reapply the vacuum. I’m not sure how much vacuum we can apply before the titanium box starts to collapse with the ceramic wool inside. They is why I was considering just about 50mbar maximum vacuum so any possible outgassing should result in a minimal increase in heat transfer, but the overall thermal conductivity will be higher but the variation will be minimal. We will have to see but as I want to remove any source of variability more than achieve the best possible vacuum. I agree as we move forward and we start to aim for infinite COP operation then minimizing thermal conductivity will be a higher priority.

All valid points. It’s not a hard vacuum in the panels, normally between 50 and 100mbar. Yes the innermost section is where the temperature is measured. Also calibration runs are done both before and after the active run so any effect of outgassing would become apparent between the two calibrations.

As Alan says outgassing isn’t an issue. We are just reducing the gas pressure inside the VIP to reduce kinetic energy transfer between the walls. There are more exotic materials available such as aerogel insulation but that’s overkill in this application.

Quote from orsova

Not trying to be difficult, but I'm genuinely confused. You seem to be working with Mizuno, but not Mizuno Tech..?

The confusion is understandable. To be clear this statement is correct. It will all be clear when the official announcement is made.

Quote from orsova

Forgive me, but I'm still not clear who 'our' is. Are you still collaborating with Mizuno? He does not seem to have confirmed your prior comment that the two of you are still working together.

Not trying to be difficult, but I'm genuinely confused. You seem to be working with Mizuno, but not Mizuno Tech..?

There will be an official announcement soon

It’s quite simple actually. It’s simple a titanium double walled box filled with ceramic insulation to prevent the walls from collapsing and then removing the air with a vacuum pump to further reduce heat flow.

Yes I’m aware of this fact. We are attempting to narrow down the best reports and analyze whether they are fit to be published in the mainstream journals

as promised this is the second draft design drawings of our new calorimeter that is aiming to reach infinite COP.

The inner shell is ceramic board insulation, surrounded by a vacuum insulated panel made from titanium and an outer layer of ceramic wool insulation.

The top hinged cover will have two ceramic bearing titanium tubes that will attach to a shaft to spin the circulation fans to make sure that the internal environment is highly turbulent with no hot or cold spots.

The principle of operation will be as I presented in our iccf24 talk. There will be multiple calibrated sensors place inside the hot portion to measure the temperature.

Calibration will record equilibrium temperatures at various power inputs. These calibrations should all give the same temperatures at the same heater power regardless whether it’s empty or a dummy reactor is inside.

Active runs will include our heat amplifier reactor and xsh will be recorded as the power output to reach the final equilibrium temperature vs. control calibration.

Quote from Daniel_G

I think the SRI report from Brillouin represents good science but for whatever reason they chose not to pursue publication in a mainstream journal. Does anyone know the reason for this?

I have asked some contacts if they can shed some light on this issue.

So which of the actual research papers quoted in this review summary do you suggest is the most convincing LENR positive result publication?

Ed I think it’s a very valid question whether LENR is scalable to practical power outputs. Therefore the numbers which THH requested are valid. in my humble opinion this is key to the future of LENR technology. I think it’s abundantly clear that as a desktop physics experiment we can produce LENR results 1000 times out of a thousand.

Your theories about NAS represent a possible pathway to scale up. In Mizuno’s old experiments where they found cratering in the electrodes those sites were very sparse and covered a tiny percentage of the total surface area. So it’s an obvious target for improvement of power output and power density.

Yes the taboo factor of working with LENR is a well known issue. Mizuno was shunned out of the university for doing so and was only able to continue his research through generous donation of around several million dollars. However today I think that this taboo factor is declining as NASA, US Army, Navy, DOE, EU and more and more credible institutions are endeavoring to study this field.

I think the SRI report from Brillouin represents good science but for whatever reason they chose not to pursue publication in a mainstream journal. Does anyone know the reason for this?

Yes the hypothesis I want to test is: After 30 years without a positive LENR publication in the mainstream journals, is at least one reason that the quality of research or writing not up to the standard of a mainstream journal? I think its a very relevant question for us to ask, answer and discuss here. So in the last 30 years, which paper do we feel best represents high quality research in support of LENR results?

Let's get a list of candidate papers and analyze them.

Ed what kind of power range of XSH can you produce? What COP? Why you don’t get some labs to validate your results?

Best paper post the original