Posts by FreethinkerLenr2

Quote from me356

Here are some photos from my current reactor.
It is driven directly by Optris Pi instead of pyrometer so I can see Hot Spot, etc.
I have written my software for displaying, recording and sending the data from Optris over the network in realtime so it can do exactly what I want.

A very impressive piece of crafting, looks very solid.

I terms of controlling, using 2 dimensional data, what do you plan to use as a default parameter to control the temperature, is it and average, hot spots, or ...?

I appreciate the fact that you could change this easily if you wanted, but I guess you have a general idea what to use. When using a 1D detector, a TC to control temperature, you are limited to that info, here you have the possibility to go on averages, but if a hot spot gets too hot, that information could supersede averages and be used to lower power, so that you don't get a too hot event, that may be destructive.

So, how do plan to map your information to control the power?

@Ecco

Well, Ecco, you are right about the baking time, that Parkhomov talked about longer duration. I keep and deploy my powders (except at baking) in a N2 rich environment at very low humidity. Parkhomov just keep his chemicals in the kitchen (or so it seem) and does not worry about humidity or air, except that to note that one should check the potency of the LAH. If it is 2 minutes, 5 minutes or similar in hours, let us all agree, that no one really knows for how long I need to bake to have similar compound status as Parkhomov. There is a matter of practicality, as I am sure also many times governed Parkhomov. I have heard about other successful replicators (in third person) that they have baked for 4 hours, and have had interesting runs after that.

For now, two hours baking will suffice, as it is a reasonable amount of time for me so I can directly run hydrogenation during a reasonable working day. I do not live in my lab, like Parkhomov. Like I said, a matter of practicality. I cannot bake over night due to the make shift nature of my oven contraption - I don't trust it to not start a fire when I am not there, nor am I completely sure at what temperature it would land on after such long baking.

As far as the grinding goes I will keep my current mortar and pestle. Had it been that I made run upon run never seeing anything interesting, I would perhaps look into details like that, but for now, I have no problem filling my time, without parameterize also the grinding of the powder.

With that said, I thank you for the link showing the freethinker page in your database. I am honored that my work would seem worth while tracking like so. I also agree with your suggestions. I don't find it to be a stretch to bake both alumina and Ni at the same time, increase the amount of Al2O3 or for that matter grind for a couple of more minutes.

@StephenC

Regarding "loaning" such equipment.... First of all I really need to be anonymous, for the time being. Secondly, in my circles, the only place to borrow such equipment would be from the university, and that would mean involving - likely - physicists at that university. They are well known skeptics, and would not lend me anything, nor giving a the time of day to explain my hobby research. Further, the current reactor has lost its spunk. There was no really extreme values during the run yesterday and if you check over the three days of running this thing, it seems as though it has diminished in "perkiness" over time. There is no telling if I can get it going again, either with this payload or a new one. Also, I expect Li mid week coming week, and I will for sure prioritize a Ni-Li-LAH run before trying to get a new reactor that radiates. Ofcourse, that said, maybe the Rossi-Patent like run will give up all kind of subtle radiation.

But you are right that one driving force could be positron-electron annihilation yielding two 511keV gamma photons. It would have been very interesting to get the spectrum, I remember doing such an experiment a long long time ago...

I thank you both for your links and encouragement.

Thanks Longview for the interesting information.

Surface, I would then surmise, is important. As almost every run has been showing up something odd and interesting, using Al2O3, I will continue using it.

Today, I made a new run with the radiating reactor, but it seem it has now lost it spunk.It was a weird day, starting with a unusual high baseline on the GMC, more like 35+ on average. Soon after I started there was a thunder storm, and after that the values were lower, as though the electrostatic buildup played a role. Also, while during the run there's a buildup in the GMC, values increasing, there was an amazing thunderclap just overhead, and the GMC count dropped like a rock. Those were the top weird things.

Otherwise I managed to sort out that just a aluminum plate and a couple of copperplated pertinax boards were not enough to block the elevated count, but putting a 25mm thick lead brick infront of the GMC did bring it down to normal level. This then suggests that the radiation is either X-ray or gamma, not beta. No directional test was done, as it was hard enough to trigger levels to test shielding.

Basically, the spunk has left the reactor, it was not possible to coax it to any higher value than into the 60s of cpm.
There were another interesting phenomenon though, that will be investigated Monday. At about 1000C, where I could previously pull the power, put it back, and I would get a boost in radiation of 46/47 cpm, the same maneuver would only give a slight increase in cpm, but a weird increase in temperature, directly connected to an increase in power. So after turning on/off like so, when the temperature would be restored, it would then increase some more, and typically the cpm would meander to lower values, after a while of this weird Power/temperature increase, there would come a rapid increase in cpm, being coupled with a similar downfall in temp and power. My interpretation is that the radiation somehow interact with the coil/reactor tube/shell such that the impedance of the load get varied. It looks as the temperature is rising, but it is not a free ride, you pay by pumping more power.

A weird day in the lab.

@Ecco

Yes, I have seen those pictures before. I believe your first part there is exactly what I am looking for, while the non-oxidization in alumina matrix is of less importance. As the powder is in the crucible, the largest part of the volume will not be in contact with alumina, but rater to other Ni particles. The pictures and other information is the basis for the 200 C argument. The main reason is to make the surface rugged and create cavities that can hold H- and Li, basically create NAEs. The main thing is to get rid of H20, but I was under the assumption from the previous reference we discussed that there was also a redox effect while heating to 200C. I may be wrong, but CO and water and possible other compounds or elements may be removed. This is one of the things that MFMP presented after discussions with Parkhomov (as I recall). Heat the Ni to 200 degrees for 2h. The reason would be the one you mention (albeit related to oxidation, but also from "blowing up" water molecules to condition the particles for LENR.

I have never seen any radiation in my experiments before. I think the baking may be a good thing. I just need to come to terms how it changes the game for me in my test bed and how I go about heating my reactor.

@Ecco
@StephenC

Thank you for your excellent input.

I have only baked the Ni powder. When ready to fill the core tube, I have moved the miniature crucible, capped with a piece of aluminum foil, (actually an end stump of a COE Alumina tube) while still warm into the N2 rich glove box with a relative humidity of maximum 30% (instrument is a cheap one and not reliable at the low end, minimum is allegedly 20%). The warm powder, not warm for long is weighed in again and put into a mortar where iy is allowed to cool a few moments while LAH and Al2O3 is weighed in. Then all is ground together for a couple of minutes. The Sum of the fuel is again brushed down on the scale tray and weighed again, after which the power is put into the core tube using a funnel.

The baking serve the purpose of removing the water as such but also in breaking up the surface of the particles to make them more rugged and potentially create more NAE's.

Ecco: No I have not had the plan earlier to bake both the Ni and the Al2O3 together. But I will consider it. It is a question now of priorities, as I have my argon kit delivered, and the Li is inbound, expected Wednesday, while still having an interesting payload in my reactor.... We'll see. When the Li comes, I will no doubt put my focus on that immediately.

StephenC: To bake the LiAlH4 either by itself or with Ni... well, I guess it may throw out some humidity, but so far I have had no problems with getting the H2 out , to the contrary. On the other hand if water is detrimental to the possibility of achieving LENR, it may be a good idea. It is not something I plan at the moment. I have a, perhaps over exaggerated, respect for LAH. Messing with it inside the glove box is way enough for me.

@Ecco

I will not push the envelope on this discussion I am by no means an expert, just that it did make sense to me that way.

At any rate, it does seem to have a good effect on trapped water and CO2, and in the end, it should have created a more rugged and cavity rich environment. What I hear from other replicators, is that those who have been baking 2-4 h have seen clear indications on anomalous heat. As I of late have had a tough time getting anything good going - Longview may be right - I though the baking might help. And help it might have done, after all. Not just the way I wanted. But still, the elevated radiation seem not to be from normal inorganic chemistry mixing Ni and LAH and Al2O3 and heat it. It is still a special observation, regardless if the Ni is oxidized or not.

Many thanks for the input.

@Longview

I wouldn't mind the destructiveness, if it could only be led in evidence that it was and indication of LENR.

Quote from Ecco

I remember discussing about this. I also remember that they attributed the weight loss during the low temperature baking process to:

So, not really due to loss of oxides. I could be misinterpreting this, though.

Or maybe it is ... :

". As discussed before, it corresponds to the removal of organic
matter as well as absorbed water and gases. The dwell period at
250 C shows a very slightly weight variation after the aforementioned
loss, keeping the total weight unchanged after the whole cycle.
In the case of the sample treated at 300 C after the start of the
heating period, a light weight gain can be observed, confirming
that oxidation starts to be detectable between 250 and 300 C."

@Ecco @BlowFish

The rational is that the Ni infact, in the regime 100-350C does not oxidize but actually shedding oxide. I will look into the ref for this, But it is something I picked up in discussing this with Bob G and some other guys replicating. There is a paper showing this clearly. I will look for it.

IN EDIT: http://goo.gl/Zclfx8 p174 fig 2.

Quote from Ecco

@FreethinkerLenr2: still wondering what might have caused this behavior change. Besides having purged pressure once, since when did you start baking your Ni powder in air?

good question. And one of the factors with highest weight of probability to make a difference in this. Of course. This is the first run. That need to be added to the text as well. The purpose of baking is expunging some O2 and boil out H20 which in theory would create a more rugged and surface with nice cavities.

IN EDIT: I have updated my document with this important info

Quote from me356

Very nice report.

Did you preheated Nickel before adding rest of the fuel to the reactor?

Yes. I have made a make shift heater from some Kanthal wire and a Al2O3 brick, and a battery charger and some power resistors. It gives about 220 degrees at the end but go very slowly there. So yes, the Ni was preheated, baked, for 2 h before applying LAH and Al2O3 powder.

https://docs.google.com/docume…TKLPEhT8/edit?usp=sharing

@backyardfusion

So you think Rossi is conning us, but you intend to replicate Parkhomov, whom essentially has replicated the Lugano device which is Rossi's reactor? While doing so you feel content to follow the advice George Hody aka Mary Yugo?

I wish you the best in your endeavors and safe passage, but where is the logic?

Look like a solid setup. I wish you the best and look forward to reports in the future.

Quote from Walker

Hi all

I felt it important to re-affirm this:

My suggestion for direction radiation detection is not just about confirmation.

• Safety. We know radiation levels so far seen in LENR have been short lived and no higher than what a smoke alarm puts out. If radiation observed in LENR is directional from the reactor then it may be that a particular zone around the reactor may be a cause for concern, like the business end of an X Ray machine or Laser, I realise such a coherent beam would be unusual but then so is LENR. The precautionary principle means that directionality and coherence need to be excluded.
• Scientific: If radiation from LENR is directional then that would suggest electro magnetic influences.
• Scientific: If the radiation is from a specific spot in the reactor it may be that the material in that spot needs closer examination.
• Supporting evidence of LENR being a nuclear source, it would be a legitimate area for sceptics to question, there fore it is better to check before in order to refute that line of questioning.

I realise that an additional detector may be a considerable expense, but the instant film is relatively cheap.

Kind Regards Walker

Display More

I will in no way say you're wrong in anything you state above.

I can tell you this: I moved the GMC around and found that I had high levels from the side as well, even on top of the insulation brick (however lower value). These were quick, dirty, and ad hoc tests. There is no doubt in my mind that the GMC registered counts in what it is capable of measuring. LENR is a nuclear source as far as my experience goes ( badly worded, as there I no anomalous heat, it could be debated). But I need to move on, and I find I am not equipped to do more in radiation. Mind you, the GMC device was for me first and foremost a safety device. Well it has beeped. I have been exposed for hours in this low level radiation field, of which I know nothing about the radiation type, the actual instrument sensitivity for whatever type at some energy, and indeed the energy itself.

I pass on further test on this, and refuel. Sorry.

Quote from leDahu

@FreethinkerLenr2

Every time your experiment is on stop let your Geiger counter record the ambient events.
You will accumulate a solid baseline and perhaps detect unexpected events.
A simple piece of software would perform a fast analysis or the accumulated data for peaks.

Thanks for the input.

You're right, but for my purpose it is not needed.

I have baseline recorded already, and it will suffice.

@ogfusionist

Thanks for your input.

I think your setup is so different, with H2 flowing and NiO. I think in my case we are in a space where supposedly LiAl and LiH would be melted possible split up, and filling out the nanoscale cavities of Ni particles, and where protons, H,and H- would interact with Li. I guess, for I cannot say I know.

Whatever happens in my reactor right now, is wrong. Something is klicking, not being present or any other kind of non event phrase that may fit. It is like the drive is there but the recipient of that drive is not, it just left the building, and it was not Elvis.

As interesting as this run is, I think I need move forward, with a new fuel, and retry. After all, I am not sure I have correct (in absolute terms) readings of the radiation, and I don't fancy that kind of tan.

Spectroscopy is for another day.

Quote from me356

Very interesting.

I have tested GMC-300 and it is highly affected by ambient temperature so that around 40°C counts are nearly not detected at all.
What you are describing is opposite, so I guess that count increase may be even bigger than registered. I suppose that counters are similar inside.

If you have seen sharp count increase, than definitively something happened.

The causality is there. No doubt.

Today GMC data, BTW. https://drive.google.com/file/…YlE/view?usp=docslist_api

@Walker

Thanks for the input. It is true that a second device would be good to secure the detection from being spurious. But there are other ways that are faster. The fact that I have reached the same levels on two consecutive days, the activity being highly correlated and causal with control actions confirm it on a level good enough for me. While pulling the power to increase it (my usual modus operandi) I noted an immediate rise of the cpm of 55 units. Note: essentially same temperature. Second, I dropped the power for a few moments to induce a small temperature drop, at a later time, and when the power was again engaged, the cpm increased 40 points, again essentially same temperature.

I don't think this is artifact from thermal stress on the GMC device. The device was today make shift shielded, and there are no other source that make sense at this point, except the reactor. In the current composition of the reactor, at about 1000C, there is a distinct elevated presence of radiation of a kind the GMC310 react on. I know nothing of species, or energy.

What I also note is that there is no excess heat, and it seem as though when the count go up the temp go down a ever so small amount. Enough times to make it interesting.

Your analogy to a car is fitting. I noticed in my first active run, semi successful, that when I pulled down power, the pressure increased. Possibly this is what is seen here, as when I pull the power the count go up, possibly being a release of H- to the core chamber. Maybe, having this failed mix, what I see is the mechanism, but from another "angle".

Adding that I found a number of Copper coated pertinax boards, intended for etching your own circuit boards, and I have boxed in the GMC. Also the ambient TC has been placed infront of the GMC. Temp is about 35 C. With these changes, the baseline remain at a slightly elevated level of 40cpm (eyeballing) on average, where it's been since temp increased to 700C.

Ecco: standard C799 Alumina COE tube (closed one end) 250mm length, 250 bar transducer in open end mounted on swagelok tube fitting connector. ID 5mm OD 8mm, filler rods 3mm diam, SS core tube 85mm, loaded with Ni spherical 5-15 micron, baked 2h at 200C,
LAH, and Al2O3 sawoff dust from bricks in the follow proportions: (830:70:50) mg. Powder was grinded in mortar about 2min.

The initial hydrogenation run gave an excessive pressure of 29 bar at room temperature. Integrity of tube and seals class act. Too high pressure for operational work, tube evac'ed to 1.8 bar, before resuming operation, for planned target temps ranging 800-1000C. Elevated baseline in excess of 50cpm detected at 1000 C.

@Alain: for sure, it should be done. I have no good shields except some AL plating. But put into this perspective: I have now made quite a number of runs the same way, on never have I seen this. Previously, a few weeks ago the device was differently placed, no LOS for the device, change when I saw mfmp setup in one of their latest experiments.

@GlowFish 2 detectors would be good, but will not happen right now.

At any rate. As the level of background is also increased, there is some correlation with the reactor temperature. The device is standing 12 cm away from the testbed, looking at the closed end of the reactor, that is exposed to the milieu. There is the odd chance that this is a thermally triggered internal jitter in the detector. More reasonably, the baseline increases may be thermally triggered noise in the detector.

But we'll see. I continue.