StephenC Member
  • Member since Apr 2nd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by StephenC

    the following book seems relevant and ni&f=false

    It mentions ball milling liAlH4 with Ni intrestingingly it points out that including Ni in the fuel prevents the LiAlH4 melting near 150 deg C about the temperature it starts to desorb Hydrogen.

    I suppose that if ball milling is performed care should be taken that the temperature does not increase significantly.

    and great care that the liAlH4 does not react violently with moisture.

    Hi Freethinker. I wish you could get hold of a gamma spectrometer. Any chance anyone near you could loan you one? The signature could be very significant about the type of processes going on for example 511 keV would imply beta + production and annihilation which might be indicative of proton absorption rather than neutrons for example, other values may indicate good signatures of other processes.

    There is also this analysis by Sangho Bok recently performed as part of the current analysis:…kED9Wa1dqb2c5eWI0U0k/view

    It is reported and discussed a bit on the MFMP Facebook page on 27th August this year. But I don't think it was discussed much else where at the time as some interesting experiment were going on.

    Is the Oxygen Aluminium ratio in these SEM/EDX analysis from the surface only as opposed to the bulk?

    I suppose once the LiAlH4 is broken down any water present is not a problem providing there is sufficient Hydrogen available for the LENR.

    Hi Freethinker.

    Was both the LiAlH4 fuel and Ni baked in your experiment or just the Ni powder?

    Im no Chemist but I am curious about a couple of points and if Oxygen in the LiAlH4 rather than the Ni could actually be a problem. (Thats not to say it would not still be useful in the Ni)

    I notice in the MFMP SEM/EDX analysis of their powder that the one sample that looks like fuel #46 tends to have more Oxygen associated with the Aluminium (and by implication the LiAlH4) than the Nickel. Also the SEM/EDX of the source material shows similar ratios. The LiAlH4 seems to have quite high Oxygen content compared to the Aluminium about 9 or 8 times. I'm not sure where the oxygen would be stored in this sample as if it s unlikely the be H2O since the sample is dry to prevent reactions. I'm also not sure if MFMP baked the Ni in this cases.

    I suppose that if LiALH4 was baked it would need a much lower temperature if it is baked or during grinding since it normally melts at about 150 deg C (about the same time it starts to desorb Hydrogen to form Li3AlH6). Interesting the melting can be inhibited when ground with Nickel powder of the right type apparently. Note pure Lithium also melts at about 180 deg .

    Is there an advantage to bake the LiAlH4 at below 150 deg C in dry nitrogen to remove the Oxygen?

    Note if Hydrogen reacts with Oxygen it will produce water which will itself react with the LiAlH4.

    [SO] SSM???



    Thanks Sveinn for your patience with my questions and for your interesting answers. Regarding SSM, I was curious if the duration of some stable state in this matter could explain in part the self sustain mode (SSM) seen in some LENR experiments where prolonged heating is observed after the heater power is switched off. But may be its not relevant in this context.

    It's getting really interesting seeing this develope especially the UDD and the detection of muons I wish you well with your continued research.

    The effect of applied external magnetic field is relative low compared to a say magnetic film were the field can become locally quite strong.
    The orbit of Rydberg electrons create small magnetic field but most common effect of magnetic field is that electron energy levels split.

    Formation of Rydberg matter is mostly affected by the intensity of incoming flux of Rydberg atoms and that should not be affected by magnetic field.


    Thanks for your reply Sveinn. I was wondering if electron spin ordering and charge ordering effects were important in Rydberg matter formation or if the Rydberg matter state itself was affected in some way and if the external field could disrupt this process. If so then may be having the Rydberg matter form in a null field perhaps if the heater coil is counter wound or inside the center of some kind of quadropole may have some advantage. But if I understand right your answer the flux of Rydberg atoms is more important and the Rydberg matter would form regardless of the external magnetic field anyway. Is this correct?

    if electron charge and spin order is important in Rydberg matter this link might be interesting:…damental_Physics_999.html

    It is about charge and spin order States in certain crystals (not Rydberg matter) and indicates they found some common behaviour with the formation of charge and spin ordered States in correlated electrons that depended on pressure. I wonder if this could also be relevant to Rydberg matter formation?

    Once the Rydberg matter has formed does it have a certain life time or would it degenreate into free Hydrogen after a certain time or under certain thermal or pressure conditions?

    Could Rydberg Matter degenerate by external influence of a magnetic field? Or could an external magnetic field once the Rydberg matteris already formed be of benefit to UDD production or LENR?

    Does the Rydberg matter only form in certain temperature and pressure ranges?

    Could SSM depend on the time that the Rydberg matter or UDD is present or the Rydberg matter in in a particular coherent charge or spin order state?

    Hi Sveinn,

    I enjoy very much reading your posts and thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and experience with us.

    Do you know if Rydberg matter forms better in an external magnetic field either static or dynamic or in a Null Magnetic field i.e. shielded from or removing the effect of the earths magnetic field fro example? I'm wondering if the magnetic field somehow helps the formation or if it instead interferes with coherent correlated spin and charge order states forming and if this plays a part in Rydberg Matter formation?

    From past experience with AC heater coils, it is possible to generate a large common mode AC signal on the thermocouple by coupling through the capacitance between the coil and the thermocouple; and, in this case, to the nickel container. This can be mitigated to some extent by using 100 ohm resistors from each of the thermocouple connections to ground and use of differential measurement of the thermocouple.

    However, in this case, I don't think that is the source of the rapid fluctuations. Below 200C and above about 900C, the measurements smooth out even though above 900C the voltage driving the heater coil is highest and would produce the highest coupled common mode signal. The fluctuations are most noticeable around 280C and between 600C and 800C. Around 280C the first breakdown of the LAH occurs and between 600C and 800C another melting phase occurs. When these phase changes occur, H2 is released and the LAH foams and sputters. It is likely that as the LAH foams and sputters, hot spots come and go on the tube. Since only one spot is being measured, I think you are seeing the result of the LAH foaming/sputtering inside the tube.

    To eliminate the rapid variation, the best solution I can think of is to use a more distributed temperature sensing or multiple thermocouples along the length of the fuel tube averaged together. One way to do the distributed sensing would be to wrap the length of the tube with an insulated wire (a little problematic at these temperatures) and measure the resistance as a function of temperature (a large coiled RTD).

    Or a few maybe 3 different Tc in different locations along the fuel tube. This may help to characteris the transient and localised effects if present and may be show flow effects if present, and could also be used to find an average and help identify failed TC if one fails.

    Ahh I just saw Taruns post he just beet me to it I guess :)

    I wonder if a post test rerun would show the same behaviour in the same temperature range? If it is due to chemical or other fuel changes in the initial run then maybe the behaviour would different in the rerun. If it is the same then maybe it would indicate a problem with the thermocouple? Is this kind of test or a post test calibration planned or worth performing?

    Hi Jim, I think your comment was mistakenly double entered in to mine here:

    Jim I think you mistakenly double entered your comment with one inside the quotes from my comment... easily done so no problem there.

    Regarding Andrea Rossi suppression of comments on theory I wouldn't worry too much. I see his forum is really based on one thread so I guess he wants to keep it to topic relevant to his views and his ecat. I can understand that somehow.. From what I see he like me respects your experience and you personally. Some times theories and concepts are lost in translation and understanding between the macro scale and micro scale and vise versa. On one side there is diversity of states and probability of interaction and the other there are specific states and interaction constraints and sometimes more rarely such as in NMR there is strong crossover and interdependence. Who knows for sure what happens In LENR there are so many good ideas now and possibilities. I guess Andrea Rossi has his own good idea but can't reveal because of IP. I look forward hopefully to when he can and in the meantime look forward to the independent and unconstrained tests and data. I for one respect your experience and knowledge of reactor control and neutron behaviour in reactors.

    If I was a U.S. citizen I would sign the petition too I wish you well with it. I guess the White house will sit up and notice in time. Everything comes in its time.

    Hello trolls!
    You are adding to the thrill, keep rocking!

    Yup they are rock stars! They keep me in balance, remind me to look deeper, challenge my assumptions and sometimes remind me to not take things too seriously and sometimes to look at things more seriously. I'm glad for that as long as they do not go over over the top or over dominate the subject of the thread.

    Hah i guess one of them would say what i just said is Bullshit! Ironically that maybe correct.

    Anyway getting back to topic, can I assume they would say theory is a waste of time anyway regardless of whether it helps or hinders LENR research as in their opinion it is pointless?

    Hi Majorana, thanks for your post.
    Isn't discovery also part of science? where would biology, geology and other sciences be if there were not people prepared to go out and explore off the established path with no pre conceptions, physics should be no different… why should Physics be dominated by a theoretical approach first then investigation after? Discovery and innovation is the impetus of scientific investigation. Astrophysics is full of examples of discoveries that have only found explanation much later and in fact these kinds of discoveries are much sought after. I would say most great break throughs have come form explorers, engineers and inventors who were prepared to look beyond preconceptions. Scientific investigation and theory only later served to refine and explain them. Theory has its place and can lead to great insights and useful technology but surely so unconstrained discovery has its place in Science too.

    I had hoped that some theoretical investigation of what is currently known could help experimentation, but I fully see your point that unfettered experimentation with out preconception can lead to new discoveries and insights. This is especially so in an open science environment where all kinds of experiments can be run to see what comes up. I wish you well in your approach. I am very glad that inventors explorers and engineers with your unconstrained approach still exist.

    Why, oh why? The guy is a convicted felon for horrible environmental crimes as well as money laundering. He has never produced a single thing except cons and lies. He cheated the DOD/CERL out of millions of dollars in the early 2000's and now, he's been lying and making idiotic claims for those pieces of old plumbing he calls e-cats and hot cats. Some accomplishment. You respect an aging con man? Please tell me you studied Krivit and Wright web sites, the stuff Thomas Clarke and Pomp wrote, the stuff I wrote, and you still believe Rossi? WHY?

    Hello Mary Yugo, thanks for your reply. Your comment deserves a considered answer . I am relatively new to the LENR world but have been following it for a few months now. The very first link I saw about Andrea Rossi was a very negative piece on wiki, and my first impression is the language was too negative and aspiteful and opinion based to be a balanced view, I was drawn to look deeper into who he was and background and found counter arguments to those posed in that link I. I have since then seen different views in the media both positive and negative. But the language in the negative reviews has tended to push me towards the other side. i have formed my own view based on his interactions on the media and the way that I see and believe he works. I have met one or two people in my life who seem to have similar dedication and each one of them was remarkable in what they were able to achieve. I don't believe someone could be so dedicated to a con... If they continue doing what they are doing despite adversity they are remarkable to me.

    If there is a con then I'm not sure if it is with the accusers or with the accused. That said the greatest of all con artists are able to get the victim to con them selves . I will read the web sites you mentioned to get the view from your side. It's true that I may not have read them yet but for now I tend to believe the other side of the story.

    I believe you are well meaning and not acting out of spite so if you are correct I appreciate you trying to warn me but it seems an incredible amount of effort on his side for no benefit if that is the case.

    Simple physics tells us, that lenr is simply bullshit.

    And our dear dottore Rossi, the King of Scam, knows that very well.

    I'm glad your here Pathoskeptic and keeping me in check. When you are convinced then it means they have really got there.

    I have faith in people based on what I see and I do trust in some people and some results based on that... I'm not sure I believe in fairies though... but apparenty my cat does... Oh well.

    In recent posts Andrea Rossi has mentioned his view that discussing LENR theory in particular ideas that are not well formed or incomplete, on the Internet may harm the public view of LENR.

    I myself have raised views on theory and tried to raise discussion on a simple physics approach following an earlier post by Andrea Rossi regarding discussions in the community that in his view were focusing on new physics and ignoring traditional physics.

    My very distant and old physics background touched more on space plasma magneto hydrodynamics behaviour in the solar corona and matching macroscopic and microscopic behaviour in the earths bow shock, but it is limited in nuclear physics. Since then my working career has been more of a system engineer. My personal view however is that some aspects of what we see in LENR maybe explained with simple traditional physics principles, but maybe more complicated at system level. Other people have other very interesting ideas that I enjoy reading and trying to understand.

    I have great respect for Andrea Rossi, however and believe he already has a very good understanding of the processes involved in LENR from his current work with Norman Cook, his earlier work with Sergio Focardi and the data he has since obtained through experimentation. I also appreciate and respect his direct talking even though it can come across hard sometimes, it expresses his real concerns about how people view LENR.

    In some ways we are all climbing the LENR mountain but Andrea Rossi and some others are amazingly already close to the peak. They do not need not theory to help him get there. Would it be best to wait for them to get there before discussing the theory? May be then we can look from the top of the mountain.

    Can discussion about ideas and theory harm or help views on LENR?

    Should discussions about LENR theory be discussed and if so should it be limited to certain forums?