Posts by FreethinkerLenr2

Quote from GlowFish

A quick question regarding the circumstances around the event. Did anything get close to the reactor during that time? Did you move close to it? Do you have anything nearby that can emit low levels of radiation like a good quality watch with luminous dials or an old CRT computer monitor? Just thinking of possibilities.

You are right. It is a must to walkthrough.

For a while, where the buildup occurred I wasn't even inside the lab. I have modern lcd monitors, my watches are new smarties connected to the phone. Nothing in the setup has changed, or what is close in proximity. So no, so far I cannot see anything else but that this is a real and local event, emanating from the reactor. I will push for similar behavior today.

I have been busy doing runs, and struggling with either loss of pressure or being unable to rise to high temperatures due to a high pressure. Why cannot things just be "lagom"? (Swedish word for "not too much, not too little". Like "good enough").

At any rate, was doing a run and had some 50+ bars in my reactor tube, at 400, so I terminated, the reactor cooled down, was unmounted and tube evac'ed. When remounted, the pressure was comfortable 1.78 bar.

A run ensued, slowly rising the temperature to 1000C. At this temperature the background cpm on the Geiger raised from normal 25-35, to a mean more like 50 counts, and continued to rise roughly linearly or even with a slow exponential slope (in a MA sense). It had a decent number of values at 100 counts, for a total of 1.5 minutes the cpm value was about so high (not a singular value). Highest value was 107. The peak value suddenly and abruptly fell to the elevated baseline.

I let it run for a while but I'd didn't peak like that again. Solar activity was low, but there were an X-ray event of fairly low magnitude earlier on the day, but I ponder the odds that anything but a really intense solar storm would give me such peaks that otherwise are highly correlated and causal with the actions I take with the reactor. Like, when the power was cut, and the rector cooled, the elevated baseline was gone.

Test on the same reactor continues today.

https://drive.google.com/file/…b0k/view?usp=docslist_api

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Let me translate this: as far as I can.

You mean:
(1) The logic of my argument here is compelling and you cannot fault it.
(2) I'm saying something different from what you want to hear.

I agree with both of these points - you've made your views on this matter clear in this thread.

Sorry if my poor linguistic skills in English (not my native tongue) have you to stride to understand, but like I said, you have shown your face before, basically equalling 25 years of LENR research with Sasquatch chasing in remote forrest wilderness in North America or elsewhere. You also regularly portrait A Rossi a criminal, currently involved in a scam of enormous magnitude, and any skilled person being allowed close to verify his statements, either co -conspirators or simply gullible fools. Hate, hard words and unreason.

Useless, Thomas Clarke. That is what it is to engage in debate with you. You don't accept the existence of LENR, and all and everything you write or say on the matter aim at discredit it of those who have accepted it. No matter how you disguise it, no matter how smooth you are.

but feel free to have a go at me. I will discontinue my argument with you, as the uselessness it represent in wasted time, can be used to do some more experiments. Something like a science person like yourself should feel inclined to involve yourself in, instead standing on the sideline, whinging and moaning.

Smooth as ever, but it makes no difference. It is not how you say, it is what you say, when the irrelevance is removed, that matters.

George,

What would be the purpose to engage you or Thomas Clarke in a discussion about what is wrong with your ill informed opinions of a whole field of physics. Seriously, I don't care about your constant drivel any more. It is utterly useless to engage you, Thomas Clarke, or any other pathoskeptic on this matter. Mind you, it is not a lack of trying. But it is useless and a complete waste of time. And infact, it is what you want. So no, there will not be a prolonged inane debate about the value of Thomas Clarke's "pièce de résistance".

Both you and him are undeniably very odd characters, spending so much time writing your, amusing at best, prose in a forum like this, where the absolute majority are informed individuals who has looked into the scientific evidence, found it to be both abundant and compelling, and certainly of credibility, and thus being forward looking in their minds. You are but the twig on the path, an obstacle easily surpassed and ignored.

You may find Thomas Clarke's analysis both compelling and thoroughly built. What a surprise. Be my guest to enjoy that moment of your common truth. Reality is that you both, as with all who reject new emerging ideas, that you cannot, even with a solid scientific education, accept that what goes beyond your preconceived notions, and hard wired learnings, even with the compelling and abundant facts that is present, accumulated over 25 years.

You, George, are so easy to ignore, because you bring nothing to the table. Thomas Clarke atleast make some efforts in trying to motivate his opinions at time, however futile and misguided they may be.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I find these repeated debates - about Rossi's devices - frustrating.

The facts are that the best most independent test of Rossi's device shows no excess heat. Isotopic analysis from samples handled by Rossi show inexplicable and unexpected complete isotopic shift. The isotopic shift coincidentaly happens to be identical to that you get from easily purchasable isotopes. Careful radiation detection showed no high energy particles.
....

These so called fact you are referring to is your own interpretations of a limited data set, and are not really "facts" at all.

It may come as a big surprise to you, Thomas Clarke, that some people might find your arrogant selection of information and consequent quasi analysis as quite frustrating as well, to express it in a diplomatic way. But you have showed you true face before, and your pathoskeptic nature is evident.

Hence I ignore your I'll informed prose, or usually so. Making this exception, just to inform the readers of this forum, that you are clueless as to what the real facts are in this matter, as you do not have neither the data nor the basic inclination to treat this subject fairly.

Quote from Tarun

One way to achieve a quick cool down (thermal kick) is to cool the whole setup using a fan. I.e. forced air cooling.
If its cooled very fast then it can crack. I'm not sure what will be a safe rate of cooling here.

A fan? Yes.
If the pressure is less, then cooling like that could be attempted to be made ( less internal stress). The first step in cooling is to lift the top brick of the insulation, though. It is quite efficient. The fan would accelerate that convective dissipation.. To be considered.

Quote from ogfusionist

Instead of fooling with nickel that's hit or miss depending on the surface oxidation and impurity level why not try something that will work reproducibly to demonstrate p + p fusion?...

It does sound like an interesting experiment, but I pass, as it too much outside my scope and comfort zone. Having a system with continuous flowing H2, is something else entirely than releasing a mg or two inside a Alumina tube via LAH.

Well, a lot of good ideas, and suggestions. Thanks. I think I will consider to cut the filler a bit to allow for a larger volume. Of course, I could lower the mass of LAH, but that would mean lowering total mass as well, as I do not want to departure to far away from the 1:10 ratio. (I have done so too much).

With regards to the latest developments with Rossi's patent and the revelations therein, I have ordered Li granules, and gas setup for Argon. Have also found a local supplier of graphite powder for security reasons to keep in the glove box, to quench spontaneous combustion of the Li.

Today I made a new run using a better quality tube, reusing the old coil. The swagelok and transducer seal worked out very well, and at 600 C I had 58 bars. But that is my current headache. I used baked Ni powder, 830mg, 70mg LAH, 50 mg Alumina powder. The Ni was baked 2 hours at ~ 200C. I am seriously concerned that I see no obvious signs of loading in the diagrams. There is still room for it, despite the very high pressure, but I am worried that the Ni powder and LAH is loosing it's pristine qualities, and has become contaminated, loosing the "oomph". The LAH obviously has some go still, otherwise I would not get that excessive pressure. I will power up the reactor Monday and try for excessive heat.

Another concern is that the process need the very rapid temperature and pressure variations that you get from exposing the shell to ambient air, that you don't get with the insulation. It could also be that the current in the coil is too low, failing to give whatever EM kick possibly needed. This I will not address right now because of the effort gone into calibrating the current setup. I will have to stick with the insulated setup for a while longer. One thing that may be explored is the mode of deploying power. I now use manual control of the voltage to set the setpoint temperature, having effectively bypassed the SSR. In my first run, where I had some interesting data, I used the PID controller for the most part, especially, it was used during hydrogenation.

But let's see what happens. I have yet a few experiments to do before giving up

Yesterday I started with another reactor, based on my auxiliary, lower quality, Alumina pipes. It worked out well and the tube proved be good containing pressure. Today, I started up the reactor anew, the hydrogenation phase been done yesterday. The pressure at room temp was 18 bar. When having runned for a while, It started become worrying, because the continuing high pressure, may mean that the Ni had not been loaded. As I pushed the reactor into the 1100C on the shell, there was a loud bang, quite startling. The power continued to pump, and through the hole carved in the insulation, to be used by the IR gun, it was evident that the shell was broken, as was the reactor tube, as the closed end was gone, and the filler rod was peeking out the hole. Coil intact, filler rods intact. New try coming up.

Quote from Mary Yugo

What's hilarious is how Rossi perpetually paints himself into a corner with impossible claims and now with a patent which allows full disclosure of the invention-- yet he always seems to wriggle out. THAT is his true genius. Give you something that works? That will be the day. Watch how he wriggles out of this one too.

George,
I would be quite happy just to see you wriggle out from this forum.

Quote from Tarun

There is no significant difference between the temperatures with and without H2. This is a good finding and can be useful for other experimenters, who are wondering whether to do a calibration with H2 inside.
All the best for the fueled run!

Thanks.

It started out ok, with nice H2 pressure build up, but then,as it was close on completing its first reaction leg, and panning out on 18 bar, I wanted to just lower the temp a bit, pulling the power few sec and put it on. I did so ant the temp started up, but the pressure continued on a downward trajectory from which it did not recover. The seal was busted. Don't ask me WHY Just lowering the temp a short time should not do it, I think. I will have a new reactor going asap. In the light of Rossi patent, it may take a couple of days as I ponder if to make ready the heater for Ni powder that I am building. The run did not pan out the way I planned, not the slightest indication of over unity, and tomorrow, when I get back to the lab, the H2 will gone from the reactor. I will start it up again, while working on the Ni powder drying thing.

I am starting (fingers crossed) my active run in the modified test bed with insulation tomorrow, Tuesday. I have spent a lot of time making dummy runs with Al2O3 and Al2O3+LiAlH4 and have now completed my calibration set https://drive.google.com/file/…RRW5jRGc/view?usp=sharing.

Dear George,

If this is so trying for you, explaining the facts to us halfwits, why don't you just stay in the ogrish dark pit of conformity, boxed in denial, an rejection of empirical truth in the ECN realm of Mordor. There you find camaraderie, shared beliefs and opinions.

Trust me, you anger and hate is not appreciated here by the absolute majority. It is entertaining in some sense, but so very useless.

Please leave, George.

Quote from axil

It looks like aluminum oxide has the same chemical character as potassium because of the superatom effect. Al2O and potassium are isoelectrically identical. Aluminum oxide may produce the same rydberg hydrogen formation function that potassium does. If Rossi is changing his tube material, he must add a potassium catalyst into his fuel mix. If Rossi reports a unsuccessful switch of tube material away from Alumina, then we know what he is doing. Al2O commonly exists as a gas, since the solid state is not stable at room temperature and is only stable between 1050 and 1600 °C. Aluminium (I) Oxide is formed by heating Al and Al2O3 in vacuo while in the presence of SiO2 and C, and only by condensing the products.Information is not commonly available on this compound due to instability, complex high-temperature spectra, difficult detection, and identification. In reduction, Al2O is a major component of vapors of Al2O3. There are also 12 valence electrons in Al2O.

One of the reasons why Parkhomov may be successful in his replication efforts is the presence of SiO2 as an impurity in the alumina tube that he uses. Together with Carbon, the pair of compounds creates a Rydberg Hydrogen Matter formation catalyst when Al2O is produced.

hmm.... My tubes are 99,7% Al2O3 (C799; Max temp 1850°C) and the people supplying me have no clear spec on the remaining 0.3% components but it is suggested that it is MgO, SiO2, CaO and Y2O3.. I wonder if that small part of SiO2 would suffice. Carbon I may have in minute amounts due to the fiber and adhesive in the small tape I use to cover the hole in the core. I do not have vacuum... only a massive partial pressure of H2 that may be anything between 5-50 bar... Sound that I may not need to apply ... Seriosuly. Thanks for the Potasium/Al2O relationship info.

After 5 runs on a dummy tube with no pressure integrity (1-1.6bar) and no LAH but only Alumina powder as dead mass in the reactor tube, I now have a tentative calibration diagram. I'm in this moment doing a Alumina powder and LAH run, the third in a row to see if it makes any difference. The two earlier runs have had a leaky reactor, seal giving in at about 10 bar. The runs have still given a few data point to match in the diagram, and there are so far no deviation (conditions ok as there have been some pressure and thus H2 present). Hopefully today's run will keep pressure.

In the calibration diagram is a curve plotted. It's an ad-hoc curve based on analysing the points and taking height for both systematic errors as well as random errors. Any future data point that reside above that line is a LENR event candidate.

Note that the points represent the maximum temperature for that input power.

Quote from Tarun

Thanks for the report.
As far as I know, there is no way to conclude anything from a melt down such as this, except to do -
1. Elemental and isotopic analysis
2. Compare the cooling curve with that of calibration cooling curve. If there was anomalous heat at the time of melt down , then it will show up in such comparison. The rate of cooling will be different.

True. To some extent. And then again not true, because the morphology can tell you something about things that happened. In terms of deducing LENR activity, I agree. But I dont agree with " there is no way to conclude anything"
I must also insist on that meltdown and breaking the coil is not necessarily the same point in time, so you might have had LENR just moments ago, but when the coil breaks, the cooldown will be one without HAD.

Quote from me356

I suspect, that you can release hydrogen from nickel by either sudden increase or decrease of the temperature. So in case of good insulation you have to rather increase it.

Hmm... Yes. it is like the charging/discharging a capacitor. But I was wrong about my situation (a bit). The rise time is slow in my system, the fall time quick as it seems (see excerpt of data from my insulated testbed in graph). A cut of power would cause a drop of about 60C a minute if approximating the temperature fall time between 1050 to 850C in the graph (checking another place with less fall I get 47C/min). It would mean a cut time of about 3-4 minutes to mimic the situation in my active run where I saw a peak. The time to get back would be longer, but on the other hand that time constant (or the general shape of the curve) could be used to deduce if there are other processes adding to the energy than simply the coil heating, if it is not obvious that there is a lot more heat after leveling out.

Quote from me356

FreethinkerLenr2: Yes, I am certain it is correct way. It is not so complicated as it seems to be. We have to do just more experiments.

Yes. When I do my next active run, I will do manual pull down of power (do anyway when I up the voltage to eliminate spikes) manually when I think I am in the zone . My only worry now is that with my insulation, the drop will be much slower, as compared to a non insulated reactor tube ....

Quote from me356

Yes, this could be the event I am talking about - it could be the start of excess heat. I also think that we dont really need pressure under the atmospheric. Only pressure change rate is important. Sudden increase obviously is starting the process.

Maybe that is what is happening in the "ssm" mode. No power rapidly decrease temperature, onset of increased pressure and activity, until it dies out, and then power on again to put temp back on level, pressure leveling, then power off, trigger new pressure increase, and activity, etc etc ... Just a thought .....