Posts by FreethinkerLenr2

Me356 has done a lot of good work, as far as I understand. He has also let some info slip over time that can be useful. Let's hope he gets back with the full story.

But one must keep this in perspective. If he has found a methodology that is workable (you know, repeatable, good output, and manageable) then it is worth a mother load of money for others that may be willing to front cash and make research resources available on a scale that is not easy for a single guy to neither muster nor manage. Might be hard to say no. Or then again he is simply busy working, like myself.

Yes, I "managed" to get a job You know ... :crazy: I mean..... who would have thought... I am self employed and have been so for the longest time.

No more fantastic data although some experiments done. Use same setup as before, with a tungsten pipe enclosing the reactor. Manage to melt another core a week ago....
I am a bit detached from the rest of the community currently - have been for a while - just barely following the IH/Rossi brawl, and other replicators efforts, and whatnot papers that emerge that tickles my interest.

Why can I only "dislike" comments and not "like" them? Have only thumbs down, no thumbs up button·.... My browser is firefox ESR 45.2.0 on Linux 64bit.

In Edit: How ever did this end up in "Announcements"?? At any rate, chrome work, but firefox is the normal browser for me (work related), so hints on solving would be nice.

In Edit 2: Note that the submit button does not do its business properly in firefox, so commenting and editing comments is flaky, at best.

Quote from me356

This could be achieved by changing power supply for the coil.

With my setup in mind, what would you then recommend in terms of power supply?

StephenC,

I have made several runs on the same core giving a significant excess of background radiation (baseline) and excessive events, topping 125 cpm, many other over 100 cpm. Normal background average 25-35 cpm, with a stddev of 5 cpm, event very rarely tangent 50 cpm. There is a thermal dependency of the instrument, but with that removed there are multiple distinct detections. I have seen excess background and high single events many times, but that one core has been unprecedented. It is baked Ni and LAH + Al2O3, no Li. Not seen same excess events with Li in core, only a weak elevated baseline, not really significant enough when taking the thermal bias of the instrument into the calculation.

I have purchased two new GMC devices and made one run so far without the hoped for response, but further experiments are on ice as I need to focus on getting some revenues to my business, and make a living....

So regarding your muons .... Not so crazy. No, I have not looked at it like so. In fact, I do not know how the GMC would act if it was receiving a muon instead of a beta. It is interesting, and if I get time to do more experiments, I will use my 3 GMC's in different geometric setups, and see what I can find.

Quote from Mary Yugo

As for anti-LENR brainrot, it's a disease which could be easily cured by a few high power experiments done with a credible method by reliable people!

No George,

It would not help, as you and your likes have proven over and over again. You are not open to the possibility, and as in any experiment, there are always things that can be put into question hypothetically, and thus you will forever deny the existence of LENR, no matter what empirical evidence is put before you.

But please, humor us. What does qualify as "credible methods" and "reliable people"?

In the table of APs abundancies before/after, does anybody know the estimated errors in those values?

Yes Timo, you are really a troll.

What a lame excuse, and "only hate obviously false, and potentially harmfull idea"..... Wow....

You are not a skeptic, you are a pathological skeptic. Ohh ... that is right ... You are the illustrious manager of the truth site "pathoskeptic.com". So it is self admitted.

"Enemy of rational thinking". You know, you should take a very good look in the mirror. You are yourself the enemy of rational thinking. But you are so rational, you see the light. Right. Not. I myself have a very good scientific education, and I do not entertain vague notions or accept any unsubstantiated ideas (no doubt you will argue against that). Having been skeptical to AR and LENR from the onset, I found the vast amount of written work on this subject compelling and clearly showing that this field had been very very mistreated. I do seriously doubt that you have taken the time to open minded study the work in LENR over the last 26 years. To me it seem mandatory for a guy that so completely reject something, to have looked at what he rejects, especially if he is to be taken seriously when "fighting woo and pseudoscience".

And about honesty and hating. You "only hate obviously false, and potentially harmful ideas" . I too hate those ideas. It is just that you are the one standing for them, as your ideas are close minded, group think based, and thus harmful. I certainly do not find you honest. A far cry from it.

Your bs notion that you are on some mission from a higher power, or from a delusional inner being, to defend the "truth" and engage all foes, "enemies of rational thinking" is laughable. Go write at ECN where people actually may give a damn about your boxed in thinking. Here you are nothing but a nuisance and in the end you will face a permanent ban. But I guess they want to keep you here for a while, so when not even you can deny the overwhelming fact of LENR's validity, we all can laugh at you and point finger.

@admin: Despite the potential future amusement it may be to thoroughly ridicule Tyy, I seriously recommend him being permanently banned, due to the massive, and disturbing spam of nonsense texts he is contributing, with the soul purpose of advertising his own sites, disturb the forum and offend people.

I am neither rambling nor drooling. Seriously.

Again your prose is exemplifying my point very clearly. You have NO IDEA what is motivating Fabiani and others working for AR, or what they stand to gain when the E-Cat hit the market, or the company being sold.

And there is a market, but you conveniently choose to neglect it as it does not fit your meme on AR. See, most everybody else realise that there's an energy market. You can either produce energy yourself and sell that on the MARKET, or you manufacture your energy producing device and sell IT on the MARKET for such devices.

So it is sad that you cannot gauge the value of the market, but that is your own problem. Reality, though, is that you can gauge most everything, it is a question how you interpret the data.

And you are further lost in your reasoning. Any company, big or small, when acquiring or being acquired has to deal with due diligence, and ofcourse there will be a higher degree of transparency required as the value of the deal is greater. Of course. But what is it you think will happen? The due diligence is also veiled in NDA's. It is not public information. Do you expect the shareholder will, or even can, demand the recipe of the secret sauce? They want to hear that the due diligence gave green light, they want to know the projected revenues, as it relates to the current market and future markets, never mind what your OPINION is of the immeasurability of said metrics.

You are very sweeping in your way to argue your case.

For example your two reasons to keep a secret. Are you lost? There are more reasons why they would not disclose the due diligence information. The most obvious is that it did cost money, and whatever conclusion it came to is theirs to ponder. Understand BTW that the investment came AFTER the due diligence. Something to most people is an obvious pointer on the outcome. Nevertheless, they do not want to share that information to other investors, so the can freeload. They must find their own data and draw their own conclusions.

I haven't read your deep analysis on the non validity of NDAs, however beautiful prose it must be, but you seem again very lost, as you think that breaking an NDA is something safe to do. It is very much not so. As an individual you will be mangled in the courts until you break down into bits, if the corporate counterpart so wishes. The Italian temperament of AR no doubt would take this to the limit of prosecution, if Fabiani or anybody else would break the NDA. After all, the E-Cat is potentially worth billions on the market, and nobody would sit idly by, letting all that money go down the drain. So he does indeed have plenty to loose by breaking the NDA.

On the other hand, your reasoning is backwards, as you mean the NDA is no problem, well, if it is not, then if Fabiani had found something fraudulent or inappropriate, then he would come out with it ? A stand up guy like him? He has not, so there, in your own reasoning, you have another social piece of evidence that AR is not fraudulently and scamming people left to right, stealing money hand over fist.

As with so many other things you written, you convey your ill founded opinion as though it somehow was the truth.

"There is a multitude of worries that any kind of investor should be aware of and know about."

Really? I would say that the scientific and social evidence base is steadily increasing, indicating that exactly those "worries" are dissipating. And personally, I trust the judgement of Woodford a hell of a lot more than I trust you. Not because they in themselves are so very trustworthy, per sé, but rather because you think we should believe you and follow your non coherent logic because you "in the late 80's worked for Japanese technical intelligence"? Please. We only have your word for your self proclaimed excellence, and as your logic does not make sense, that is in no way enough.

Sorry, but I fail to see why you waste your time here. You were banned at Frank Acland's site, one can discuss the fairness in such an action, but seriously, you have no real matter to contribute, but your anger, ill informed opinions and incoherent logic.

Brian Albiston: I concur, as I see the same, albeit with less percentage of Li than prescribed by AR and with additive of Al2O3 powder.

@ Ecco:

No breach.

Today's run was in itself interesting, and Murphy paid a visit.

The pressure was from the onset below 1 bar, and did not show any tendency to rise much during the exercises during the day. There were in fact a couple of interesting pressure related events, as were there radiation related ones. I pushed for 900C and 1000C levels, mostly staying at the 1000C level (now talking about measured values, not core values). I used the PID extensively pumping from a relative high power of 500-550 W.

But while progressing well, seeing interesting things (no excess heat), during the afternoon, the power went in the lab (not my doing) and in the end as it happens, I lost all DVM data. This include power as well as pressure data.

I will have a short break now in my activities, and will return to this reactor when back. Later, I will refuel it, but there is no meaning in doing so until I have a new strategy as how and what to test.

Time for contemplation.

Quote from GlowFish

I am not sure what effect EM fields would have but perhaps the pulsed power that you applied has the effect of producing heat related pressure pulses in the gas and this was the driving force that enabled better loading to take place?

Thanks GlowFish,

You may be right. I do see oscillations in pressure at times, and in temperature as well, and that is under a static set of power, not using PID, in thermal equilibrium also. But nevertheless, in an erratically varying electromagnetic field the Ni particle will be put under some physical stress, which also may play a role.

@Ecco

The device used is

http://www.gemssensors.com/~/m…m%20H-30-47_05-05-14.ashx

0-16 bar, 4-20mA.

You are right that thermal error, zero tolerance, accuracy, etc, may even hint as large error as 100mbar, or more. It is possible. So yes, harder vacuum. But how would I know....? The meter goes below spec as is. And why risk the reactor, by putting in more Li, if current run show promise? It might be called for later, but right now I have no reason to do it.

Regarding cooling. The shell temperature is measured inside the insulation (Al2O3 bricks) whereas the coil is measured from the side at the closed end of the tube, exposed to the milieu. The dissipation of thermal energy to the milieu is therfore much more efficient in the coil temperature, compared to the shell, being, as it were, inside an oven. At the very end of the cooling, having set a 200 C threshold before allowing myself to leave the lab and being in a hurry doing so, I lift up the top enclosure which cools of the shell faster.

Thanks, Ecco, for the input.

Quote from Ecco

Have you considered operating the reactor tube at a temperature/power range where pressure cycles between vacuum and a relatively low pressure (no more than 1-2 bar)?

I did progressive voltage increases, and 100% duty cycle. In retrospect using the PID would be nice. Will see next run, after refuel.

Quote from Ecco

This could be done by applying power intermittently at a slow rate (see the Levi report on ArXiV, page 25 onwards) or by setting the PID to somehow work with pressure, rather than temperature.

Agreed that pressure could be a good input signal to use. The PID I use is best used with a TC. In later projects I will for sure go for more control. I will have a small embedded Linux based unit. Likely Raspberry Pi. But not now.

Quote from Ecco

EDIT: by increasing the amount of lithium in the cell (you've previously written that you used a very little amount of it this time) you could probably make these pressure changes with temperature stronger, achieving a deeper vacuum when pressure is in the "low" state. This would also likely increase the operating temperature range as the higher the temperature, the less lithium will be able to retain hydrogen.

I don't think the vacuum can go any deeper but possibly there might be lower pressure to somewhat higher temperatures, when ramping up power. I will not increase Li at this point, because a leak is terminal for the reactor.

Quote from Ecco

EDIT2: I think that the slight and brief pressure (and apparently also temperature, to a lesser extent) increase when you removed power is a further incentive for attempting to apply it intermittently.

That has been the plan since six weeks back. I will try cyclic downs and ups in power to see if excess heat can lured out. Actually, killing the power give a pressure rise, and a temperature fall. See the close up attached.

The continuation of the run has gone well. The vacuum persisted up to 600-700C, and then rise modestly, mostly appearing to obey the general gas law. At about 1000C (Tshell), after seeing no special behavior or activity in the run, I switched from manually voltage control, to PID control based on temperature. I tried a couple of voltage settings, and went for a quite high value of 100V giving me in excess of 500W, witch is a very high value for my insulated setup. This created a constant over/under shoot in temperature so the end to the core was not only electrically erratic and pulse like, but the temperatures also on an oscillating state (especially Tcoil).

In the last period of the run, with the erratic pulsing of power, I got a slow descent of the pressure, which I would attribute a loading mechanism, possibly Ni. The confirmation that I have achieved what has been sought fo 6 weeks, came when power was pull, to end the day, when the increase in pressure came as the power was zero.

My take away from the day:

1. Sealed SS core, with no gas venting hole, works fine. No leak of Li, no breach.
2. To achieve the state I am looking for, it is REQUIRED to have pulsed power, as the constant EM field produced by a constant voltage and current will not do to achive loading of Ni (that is my presumption what is taking place)

I have attached graphs from my lab console. Note that data was briefly lost with the temperature logger, hence there are other colors than what is usually the case.

Ecco:

My estimate is that the internal temperature is between 50-100 C higher than the coil temp, if there is no intrinsic heating inside the reactor (LENR). My guess is in this case that the temp is slightly above 500C.

The two 50 cpm peaks are enticing, and I also saw them and reacted, but one would be hard pressed to make anything statistically out of those. Small number statistics is always risky...

Also the pressure transducer should work down to absolute 0 bar. What happened is that the meter went below this and hit the deck actuall some 0.06 mA below at 3.94 mA (normal op is 4-20mA). My interpretation is that the meter consider the pressure to be really hard vacuum.

It was a good run, because it settled any question marks about I really did see last run. It is simply so, that when the melted Li get a hold on the H it suck it dry. From wiki we get about 2Li+H2->2LiH : " This reaction is especially rapid at temperatures above 600 °C.". Well there is also Ni and Al2O3. The Ni can be instrumental in serving up H+/H/H- as to have Li binding directly to H. I think this is a lower temperature than 600C in the reactor. reasoning is based on the seen pressure behavior , thermal equilibrium and energy dissipation in the insulated test bed and the fact that the onset of LAH reactions are happening at about Tcoil=150-50= 100C. Also on another note, the third leg of LAH is said in wiki to have equilibrium at 0.25 bar @500C. Maybe that play in as well.

It will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.

@Ecco
@Tarun
@ GlowFish

Thanks guys for the input. I don't personally my hydrogenation has much to do with the Lugano experiment, because it is my opinion that they used pre processed fuel. No pure Li or LAH.

My run today went OK, pulled power with hard vaccum in the tube. Will continue tomorrow.

https://drive.google.com/file/…U1U/view?usp=docslist_api
https://drive.google.com/file/…Uzg/view?usp=docslist_api

Analysis of the reactor, which suddenly lost pressure indication, after an unprecedented period of unknown and very low pressure, show that the reactor Alumina tube likely was compromised by molten Li. The pressure transducer has been verified, and seem to work fine.

So the reactor tube was penetrated by molten Li at one point, fixating also the coiland the outer shell. The Alumina appear very brittle in the region.

Regarding the realism of my pressure measurements prior to reactor failure to hold pressure, I can only say that it is similar to what has recently been reported by other replicators.

I have today started a new run, using a new reactor. In an attempt to avoid to abundant escape of molten Li into the reactor tube vessel, I am using a SS core tube without a gas release hole. The H2 will find its way out. Also I am using a considerably lower amount of Li. Further, the run is fueled with baked Ni.