Posts by Longview

OEL = GAR,

Please let us know when did this work transpire? Or shall I say, what years did you observe these results?

Do you want to replicate this again? I would certainly be willing to participate. As I mentioned I have FiberFrax (not sure which grade at this point), I have a quartz tube muffle furnace with heating tape that might reach suitable temperatures. I have a thermocouple suited to temperatures not recalled or specified at this point. I have hydrogen (surely not 6 nines though) in a very outdated cylinder and I believe I may have a hydrogen regulator, somewhere. I have Raney nickel, but not the NiO your specify.... not hard to get from here to there.

The only problem is that most all of this equipement is scattered inconveniently great distances apart. But the will is there--- if you are still interested.

Your recollection of this is very clear and consistent. It is important that the community of folks here see and understand your result.

Do you believe or think that the thermal runaway only stopped the process because the Pyrex tube melted? Or was there some other indication of breakdown. I assume the FiberFrax did not fail, but perhaps something about the NiO became either activated irreversibly or reached a critical point at or even well beyond 830 C?

From your initial recollection I may have received the wrong impression that if a quartz tube (for example?) had been used, the 830 C might have been substantially exceeded and the device would (or may?) not have have failed.

Here is my deduction and reading from your excellent recollections so far: As you heated the tube externally below ~800 C there was no (apparent?) positive feedback loop, and the temperature rise in that portion of the curve was essentially determined by external resistive heating. As you reached 800 C, there appeared to be internal heat production, that is the temperature rise began to be dependent not on resistive heating, but instead (began to be?) dependent on the rate of H2 flow. This process reached criticality at 830 C, so that you had to tightly regulate H2 flow, otherwise the device would rapidly rise to a supercritical level and fail due to runaway heat that may have greatly exceeded 830 C.

Kindly correct any impressions or misimpressions I am giving in the above description. Now, in retrospect, I think we in this growing LENR community see how important your much earlier results to have been. I wonder if somehow your results came down through the "folklore" around CF over the years and came around again because some actually remembered your results, or is it just a coincidence and essentially the reinvention of a similar system in Ni and H2?

In your opinion, would there have been any chance that Piantelli, Celani, Focardi or Rossi to have somehow heard or read about your results way back whenever?

I personally have experienced "being too far ahead of the field" on a couple of occasions. Not in this field (yet?), but nevertheless I recall being told that "big ideas" are not welcome or are not to be pursued. Perhaps as a youngster in the 1950s I read too much about Michael Faraday, Humphrey Davy and others in the pioneering era of electrochemistry in the early 1800s. The idea of "too big an idea" in science came as a bit of a shock, particularly from a successful scientist. And I remember reading some years back how a young graduate student had fight with her advisor to pursue a "big idea". She (Candace Pert, who passed on not long ago) succeeded in overcoming resistance from above. I now know that many young scientists in training are not so persistent or so lucky to have the right guidance.

To read a little more on the idea of detecting such tetrahedral neutron structures, please see the "Ultracold neutron isolation and detection" thread here.

So, is 830 C a minimum? Does the configuration not tolerate higher than 830? Or is it the other way around?

Thanks for your open communications and the clear responses. This is what we all need to do-- it is literally a planetary issue.

What was the motive of the faker? Any idea would be informative. Let's not immediately jump to "Big Oil", although anything is possible, including "Big Joke".

Briefly, this post suggests a non-relativistic explanation for variation in effective mass of elementary particles such as electrons and protons. I hope it will benefit progress in understanding LENR.

It would be good to know if anyone felt it was useful....

Thanks!

OEL = GAR ?

I must assume so, although the change of name is puzzling.

Anyway, the details are appreciated. I had deduced H2 flow would be good moderator. But I suspect dilution with helium or argon might also work well.

Seems fairly benign, except for the first text sentence: "Cold fusion - one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of our time...".

If one simply thinks of LENR as lowering an activation barrier in a catalytic sense, then an enzymatic approach is at least feasible. If it can work, it is very likely that selection for fitness would have come up with at least some version of it. Certainly it is not commonly considered in biology, but then again no one in conventional science has really been looking.... yet. There are hydrogenases and hydrogen metabolizing microbes. They might be the place to start looking.

For those who may be wondering how one goes from a 200 m/s cold neutron to a detectable event. Apparently a simple pixelated device in silicon called a TimePix has been adapted to this very purpose. I am sure it is not the only way, but the general approach is to use either ⁶Li or ¹⁰B to convert the ultracold neutrons into charged particles which are then readily registered. The ultra cold neutrons (UCNs) in this exemplary case are really cold, that is 7 m/s or the equivalent of 0.005 K in temperature. The centrifuge idea presented earlier [above] produces neutrons nearly 30 times faster. Further, the centrifuge appears to allow one to precisely localize the origin of any cold neutrons to the vector (i.e. speed and direction) of the tangent of the rotor, thus eliminating some possible confounds. Here is a link to some published description of this conversion approach applied to the TimePix for UCN detection:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&biw=&bih=&q=TimePix&oq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=

Without the centrifuge, it would be difficult to get the UCNs out and into a detection device such as a modified TimePix.

The TimePix, by the way has a nice feature of allowing temporal sequence information, exactly what might be needed to interrogate pulsed activation of an LENR cell for example.

Pairing centrifugal neutron isolation with cold neutron conversion to charged particles and hence allowing reliable registration would make a simple and valuable tool for LENR / CF analysis. It may be that all serious CF / LENR researchers will soon wish to have such assemblies in their research facilities. The most straightforward films of lithium are likely as the fluoride, which is fairly durable although susceptible to acids. Boron as boron nitride would be extremely durable, since it is a structural homologue of diamond. I am fairly certain both are available as coatings, normally for optics.

After allowing reddit and youtubenocookies under my NoScript Java blocker, I get a typical YouTube screen with a start arrow. On starting the application fails, or goes to a sort of old fashioned "snowy" screen. I get this link when I click the "Learn More" offered:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019?p=player_error1&rd=1

I have never seen anything like this with any YouTube video, except here the other day, and apparently I am not the only one to have this problem.

Thanks for any attention to this.

Great details. Exciting to see that. Interesting, and I think you're right that the lack of color change shows no oxidation state change, or at least not enough to shift to grey or whatever it might be.

I get from this that the "hot-cat" and its replications are actually decades behind earlier similar work. Is that a correct interpretation?

As far as "every star out there" I certainly agree fully, but I suspect George Gamow (d. 1968) might turn over in his grave at the thought.

Thanks GAR.

I don't know Alain. Nearly all YouTube stuff works for me with my outdated MacBook running an outdated Firefox. Things are getting much less friendly on the old Mac since I cannot update Plugins, Firefox, Adobe etc. because the 10.5.8 OSX is no longer supported. I suppose I'm going to have to yield and buy something newer. Someone suggested the Apple Mavericks OS, which is free, but I first have to buy a regular old 10.6 or higher OSX in order to "upgrade" to Mavericks.

Since it all seems like a marketing ploy, rather than patronize them any further, I'm thinking of moving over to something in Linux.

See added comment above, as of March 24 or perhaps earlier, it is now working.

I suspect quartz will work considerably better than pyrex. The maximum working temperature of quartz is around 1100 C. if I recall correctly, and you can push it 100 or so higher if the mechanical loads are light. But FiberFrax can exceed this, I recall one type is good to about 1500 C, and it has been suggested much higher temperatures are possible, but that is just a distant memory. I have a bunch of FiberFrax that I've held onto for 3 decades now (not easily accessed right now).

I like the idea you present, and the runaway meltdown of Pyrex is intriguing to say the least.

How did you get the nickelous oxide into or onto the FiberFrax?

Do you suspect the oxidation state of the NiO may have changed back to Ni under the reducing conditions with hot H2?

On consideration of the likely unworkable idea of centrifuging cold neutrons to discriminate their mass number and perhaps other features, I now see that a centrifuge still provides a possibly convenient way to give impetus via the tangential velocity seen there. I would propose that small experiments thought to involve ultracold neutrons through whatever theoretical construct, could be conducted in the buckets or wells of a supercentrifuge or even a benchtop preparatory type centrifuge. Supercentrifuges see rpm in the range of 10 to 30 k rpm. An ultracentrifuge can reach 150k rpm, but seems impractical due the small rotor radius and the stress over one million gravities can place on experimental materials. Well-bottom radii on supers that I am familiar with are in the range of 10 cm. The accessibility of supercentrifuges, or simple benchtop refrigerated types is widespread. The standard benchtop rarely is rated for more than about 10k rpm. However the working radius can be high in those, and the accessibility and space on the rotor provide room for well balanced and properly supported experimental setups to be run up to substantial tangential velocities. So, for example, a benchtop with a 10,000 rpm maximum and a 20 cm radius gives a tangential velocity on the rotor of about 209 m/s. Not huge, but "warmer" than "ultracold". Using online calculators and the back of an envelope I see, with a modest amount of crosschecking, that the energy acquired by such a single neutron would be about 3.66 X 10 e-23 Joules, or 2.28 X 10 e-4 eV. Using an online calculator I see that to be equivalent to a 5437 micron IR photon, or to 55 gigaHz.

These are not strong signals, but if tetrahedral neutron assemblies are involved, we would see 4-fold increases in those energies. A refrigerated centrifuge and the directionality of the neutrons could provide a convenient way to mask undesired signals. Further a particular screen or target can be used that would only react to neutrons. As far as that goes, electrostatic diverters could remove stray charged particles, protons etc. from the output. One drawback might be the dispersion of the neutrons around the full circumference of the centrifuge. On the other hand, if pulsed events were being interrogated, the rotation could provide some temporal resolution on a (very slow by electronic standards) millisecond time scale, that is at 10,000 rpm = 6 msecs per revolution. Higher speed centrifuges come with quite nice safety shielding to catch failing rotor parts. Such a safety bucket would incidentally likely absorb stray radiation-- although I would double check on any risks from such "warm" neutrons, and add sufficient additional shielding if it seemed advisable. After all, if applied to LENR, we would be separating components of reactions that presumably normally self extinguish very near the initiating event(s).

At this point it would appear that one is not able to generate enough tangential velocity to even reach the standard of a "thermal" neutron, which is 0.025 eV (considered so because it is presumed to be in equilibrium with air at 20 degree standard room temperature). But the directionality and focus of origin at the LENR "experiment" on the rotor may provide enough resolution to make such a technique nonetheless useful and / or informative.

Thanks Nickeck!

Nor for me. Admittedly i'm using an outdated player.... which rarely fails.

Added comment: As of March 24, it now is working.

Google indexes the initial post of this thread. I can only be grateful for that--it's sort of like being published!

Possibly somewhat relevant article on tetrahedral occupancy in Pd-D:
http://research-hub.griffith.e…bf72a2553c350a94d0cc69394