BobHiggins MFMP
  • Member since Oct 13th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by BobHiggins


    Discovering the error bars of the system would be a valuable contribution to the experiment. However, obtaining error bars requires significant effort; much more than the experimental raw data gathering. Since the experimenters own the measuring equipment, and the setup is well documented, the equipment can be setup post-experiment in a more controlled environment for evaluation of error bars (for example using the on-demand water heater they bought). Collecting the experimental data first allows the evaluation after the test of whether the investment in apparatus characterization is worth the effort. If there were hints of real excess heat, the investment would be worth the effort. So far, the team has not seen those hints of excess heat even though Me356 set the expectation for what would have been unmistakable sustained excess heat.

    If Me356 repairs his reactor and the next test shows real evidence of excess heat, I am sure there will be a lot of post-experiment evaluation of the data acquisition system.

    In the watching the data from this test (or any other test), you should be aware that there is a time delay between putting in power in the input and seeing it register in the output. Then when you have burst heating at the input, and you measure the output, you may heat on high and go to low heat before the heat generated on high registers in the output. It causes the heat coming out to be apparently high when the burst heating input is low and you can see the apparent COP swing above 1.0. Imagine a system where the input power goes from 1000W in a pulse to 50W for half of the time. If the delay is right, the heat coming out from when the 1000W was applied is measured in the output heat measuring system when the input power is in the 50W portion of the cycle. You may see an apparent COP=10-20 for the short term.

    To be able to claim excess heat, you must measure the total energy input from the beginning (turn-ON) until a while after the input heat has been completely turned OFF and look at the ratio of the energy. In a well settled system that is burst driven, you may be able to use a long term average (many cycles) of input power against the long term average of the COP to see if there is some excess heat.

    The moral of the story is, don't get excited about short term COP>1, because short term COP is meaningless. You could have this even in a resistive on-demand heater.


    Thanks once again. I have written a program that automatically searches and dynamically finds the boundaries where the voltage steps, and then takes samples backward from each of those boundaries as settled temperature points for the calibration. Instead of averaging each of these data points to get a settled temperature, I take all of the settled data points into the fit. I also create an ambient set of sample points with P=0 to add to the data to be fit. The program spits out the 3rd order polynomial fit as:

    P(watts) = 9.09461527238551e-009*T^3 + 4.10041913857542e-005*T^2 + 0.097225895042357*T - 2.296695979152

    I have not plotted it against your curve, but I am sure it is very close. It may have differed by the number of points taken before the step change. In this case, I ignored the 3 closest points to the boundary and used the previous 77 points [Boundary-80 to Boundary-3].

    The reason I don't want to use the command line is that it doesn't have much advantage because it would take significant re-coding of the script driven control program to add the capability to compute the values for the frequency for example, and compose a command line to drive it. It is a whole lot easier change to the control program to use the .wav file which I can create in a nice sound editor.

    In my opinion, Me356 would not have invited MFMP to test his device unless he honestly believed it produced excess heat. Anyone who has run LENR experiments himself can fully appreciate what can go wrong and what does go wrong. I am certainly looking forward to seeing additional tests to demonstrate his device. This device may yet surprise us.

    Since yesterday I completed testing of the system to a core temperature of 1200°C and the coil didn't melt or smoke, I am starting a comprehensive calibration run tonight. This will reach 1200°C tomorrow (while I am awake and can still monitor things) and will begin cool-down through tomorrow night. There should be no oscillations in this run. I am using 3 different .wav files for the excitation, each having different frequencies to compensate for drift in the resonant frequency with temperature. I am also taking a stab a equalizing the amplitude of the stimulation with temperature. Additionally, I have chosen a slightly different waveform than just plain sine: 3s of sine followed by 2s of nothing - repeated 6 times. This will be sort of a hammering:

    I hate to say it but I have change the link to ALL of the experiments. I put all experiment folders under a master folder called "Experiments" that is shared. Each of the experiment links I had before are still on Google Drive under this master folder, including this one. For this latest calibration folder, look in the folder for "Experiment_Wav_20170521" for "PreCalibration_20170525". Here is the link to the top level folder:…FkMVNaSEtaNWM?usp=sharing


    Our Ortec NaI gamma spectrum detector is functioning very poorly. It appears that the crystal may have been damaged."

    The spectrum they showed did not look like the 40K response was broadened over a normal measurement. Instead, it looked like there was a lot of broadband noise. From a durability standpoint, it is more likely that the photomultiplier tube got damaged than the NaI crystal, if the problem is due to rough handling. Of course, it could just be a noisy radiation environment due to Chernobyl.

    The past 2 days I have been manually evaluating the resonant frequency of the coil vs. temperature and what temperature the coil settles into for a given core temperature. Currently I am regulating at 1200°C and the field coil is settling in at about 178°C. The epoxy on the coil is only rated to 150°C, but I am not seeing any smoking or softening of the epoxy (of significance). I have relocated the audio PA about 2' farther away from the coil with a longer lead to the field coil. No oscillations have been seen since this change. The resonant frequency of the L-C appears to go lower with temperature, being about 3930 Hz at room temperature and about 3840 Hz with the core at 1200°C. It is more likely the coil is changing frequency with temperature based on the coil temperature going from room temp to 178°C.

    Because I have the opportunity to play a different .wav file for stimulation every time it is applied, I am going to create a number of .wav files at different frequencies and choose which to use based on the temperature. Also, the resistance of the coil is changing. At room temperature, a full gain setting produces about 6.3A peak sine wave current while at 1200°C core (178°C coil), the same drive only produces 5A sine wave peaks. So, I will also change the stimulation level based on the temperature.

    The coil current sensor has proven to be really useful. I can change the frequency of the input at each manually set temperature and adjust to maximize the coil current to find the resonance. It also lets me see when something is changing or if there is an oscillation.

    Cool .. like WAY cool.. MFMP plots .. who gets the plaudits for those.. Ryan, Brian, Alan ....? couldn't resist the screenshot

    I believe that the plots and the control panel are tools from Plotly. These tools are programmed from Python and the programmer is Brian Albiston. Using the Plotly tools produces a real time plot that can be served over the internet and updated in real time. Also, it gives the end observer on the internet some control of what is shown in the plot.

    comparable to that of the Patterson cell, which was a proprietary technology, knowledge of which Patterson took to the grave, except that we knew something about Patterson

    Actually the details of the Patterson cell are pretty well known. Dennis Cravens was working with CETI during that time. In fact, Dennis still has an original Patterson cell with its beads. George Miley also had access to the Patterson technology and has been working on it for years. Patterson did not go to his grave with the secret. Patterson lost the secret. He began with surplus microbeads from NASA that had a finite supply and in a short time there were no more. Also, the plating solution supplier he was using changed their (proprietary) plating formula and the new recipe did not work. During this period, Patterson was grooming his grandson to run CETI. When his grandson died, Patterson lost any motivation to make a business of this technology (he didn't need the money). So, Patterson went to his grave not knowing "the secret". Sad story.

    Will this test be ran at a "MFMP location" or at ME356's facility?

    Of MFMP's group, who is present and conducting this test?

    The Me356 test will be run at Me356's location. Bob Greenyer, Ryan Hunt, Alan Goldwater, and Brian Albiston are known to be traveling there, but Emanuele may be along to document the experience in video. He is behind the camera in many of the MFMP European videos - does a good job with video production (and a really nice guy :) ).


    Suhas seems willing to supply details on everything and Bob Greenyer is keen to document everything. Suhas has been designing a single tube reactor for a customer and has said he will help design a replica single tube reactor for MFMP to replicate. Suhas had never seen lab analyses of his fuel. His objective in high power ultrasonic milling was simply to make his powders smaller particle size. BobG has obtained some samples and will get more and have each of these analyzed for particle size, morphology, and element composition. Nothing is being held back by Suhas, and, of course, MFMP is not holding back anything that they learn. The real first step, though, is to probe his reactors produce real XH. Suhas has been very responsive to questions.

    One of my first questions was, how are the ultrasound transducers coupled to the reactor tubes? They are apparently hard coupled through, I think, stainless steel couplers that go through the water cooling area and contact the alumina tubes. It is not clear to me, but I don't think the stainless steel couplers are exposed to direct water flow, so they get hot. I am not thrilled by the design and I am designing my ultrasound fluid-ized reactor with water as the coupling agent to the reactor tube, and the reactor tube directly water cooled. As I have said before in a number of these threads, you can have plasma inside a tube that is cooled to room temperature - the tube does not have to be super hot or a refractory material.

    The breathing phenomenon you describe is interesting. My understanding and the present thinking is that Ni simply cannot take-up much hydrogen - its lattice constant simply won't accommodate much. However, after LiAlH4 decomposes at about 200°C to LiH, the LiH is a reversible hydride and will undergo periods of hydrogen release and absorption as it is heated. I.E. it is not monotonically releasing H2 as it gets hotter. It may prove that in certain special conditions that the Ni will take up H2 contrary to conventional thinking. So, keep your eye on that phenomenon and please continue to report about it.


    The columns should be identified in the column header in the .csv file. Column 7 or G (column label 4, CoilTop) is J-type measurement of a temperature in the top corner of the field coil. Column 19 or S (column label 16, Neu CPS) is the counts per sample from the neutron counter - similar to the GM, and spectrometer ROI counts per sample.

    It is interesting that the calibration has changed so little compared to the reactor without the field coil. I will post some pictures today of the setup.

    This last calibration run is complete and its data is on the Google drive in the folder listed above. It was a stepped exercise from 100°C to 600°C in 100°C steps. Each step included PID hold at the temperature before and after the .wav stimulation. The problem with the anomalous behavior of the temperature control after the step has been fixed, but the experiment was not without incidents. At 400-600°C, the power amp oscillation returned and would have continued indefinitely (I think) unless I turned OFF the power amplifier and turned it back ON. Even when turning it back ON, I had to wait about 60s OFF or the oscillation would resume when the amp was re-powered. The amp is not getting hot - the only thing getting hot is the coil (not even the series capacitors). I also noticed that the current in the coil was declining with temperature. As a next step, I will probably make a longer lead for the amplifier output (it is only about 16" now) and relocate the amplifier farther from the coil. The oscillation is serious because it continues to add heat to the system and could mask observation of XH if oscillation occurred following the programmed excitation.

    Another anomaly was that on one of the steps, the power supply did not respond to a change of voltage command. When I saw that (about 800s late), I adjusted its knob to put it at the correct voltage and the system resumed operation as normal. That is the first time this malfunction has been observed. I will re-examine the code because I thought I had checks in place to cause re-sending of the command if the voltage was found operating at the wrong value.

    At 600°C the hot upper corner of the coil reached about 90°C and there was no evidence of melting or smoking from the epoxy (yet).

    Today I have a short calibration test running - up to a core temperature of 600°C. I want to take some baby steps and look for problems in the system and how the field coil is surviving the temperature in the environment. I may have to circulate air to prevent problems. I could do this with an aquarium air pump and blow air where the coil gets hot. For now, its temperature is being measured. The data files are going here:…VRSjZkLXgyOTA?usp=sharing

    Some files are already there. This run will finish by about midnight my time.

    For a plasma lamp, a truly refractory tube is not needed. You just water cool the envelope because the envelope can be at a far lower temperature than the plasma. As I described in the case of the continuously pumped YAG laser, water cooled lamps have been done for many many years, including high and low pressure plasma lamps. If you are water cooling and expect to transmit UV, you better remove all of the metal ions out of the water.

    Now it would be really interesting to see what an IR camera or even an IR thermometer would measure.

    Most IR cameras and IR thermometers measure the IR in the far infrared. When illuminating the interior of an alumina tube with a white light LED, the light is reddened because the blue light is scattered far more effectively than the red light, causing it to go less "straight through" the tube wall and undergo more attenuation. The photon energies have not been changed through this scattering - if there were no far infrared emissions in the LED to start, there will be none coming out - and there were no far infrared emissions from the LED. The IR cameras and IR thermometers have a far infrared optical bandpass filter in their bolometer sensor so that they only respond to far IR. There are a few near IR thermal sensors available, but they have even sharper filters to look at very specific wavelengths. Their optical bandwidth is small enough that they will not respond significantly to broad spectrum light or the product wouldn't be viable. Note that the white LED does not have completely broadband emission. It is a blue LED which excites a translucent phosphor that supplies some red and green from fluorescence.

    The fact that the light can escape without the envelope of the tube being high temperature is a well known design principle for plasma lamps. Take for example the high pressure arc lamps used to pump continuous YAG lasers. The lamp is lit by a high current DC discharge (about 1kW) through the gas in the tube (filled with xenon and argon I think). The fused quartz tube would melt in air, but the elliptical cavity that holds the tube and the YAG rod (at the two focii) are filled with flowing water to cool the tube (and the rod). The fused quartz envelope of the DC discharge plasma lamp is probably held to under 100°C while the core plasma is still hot and emitting light at at a blackbody spectrum >4000°K (with strong lines as well).

    In the case of the alumina tubes, there will be loss in transmission and scattering. The light that is scattered will have to pass through more alumina than light not-scattered. Light passing through the individual crystallites is bent (a scattering) by the orientation of the crystallite, but is transmitted with a loss of only a few %. Most of the attenuation in the alumina is from scattering such that on average, to make its way out of the alumina, it has to go through many more of the crystallites than necessary by virtue of its thickness. I have alumina substrates (flat, about 1mm thick). You can apply a laser to one substrate, look at the spot size on the incident side and the spot size on the exit side. Then add additional substrates to the stack and watch the spot diameter grow from the scattering. The laser spot, even expanded in size, makes its way through 5 mm of the alumina substrates with significant intensity remaining.

    Well, today I think I have ironed out the oscillation problem and the software bugs. From my changes and tests today, I expect to have far better lock-in on the setpoint temperature and proper PID operation on a subsequent hold after the .wav excitation. I am going to try to setup a calibration run tomorrow, but it may be an abbreviated one to lower temperature until I am sure how the epoxy filled coil can handle the temperature.