Posts by Mats002

    Hi Bob, some more questions for you about the added EM coil:

    Do you plan to run EM coil only without heater coil to see if/how much of heat (energy) you can transfer to the fuel that way?

    What If you feed the EM coil with 4KHz square wave vs sinual wave? I think square wave would be more efficient to feed energy into the Nickel core. Not by much though.

    If this community of experimenters and armchair scientists are right about the outer frames of the parameter space then Bob Higgins setup should have all needed to produce a positive result by script only - supposing the fuel has the right characteristics.

    By scripting temp, pressure and EM in an intelligent coverage of variants - at some point a sweetspot should be revealed. Hope is up!

    I want to congratulate BobHiggins for taking the open NiH LENR science one step further than anyone before him!

    Parkhomov took the first step with the addition of NiAlH4 to the Nickel grains and reported a positive result at high temp and low pressure.

    We have seen MFMP Glowstick evolve in a number of steps with pressure control, pre-treatment of fuel and more accurate COP- and radiation measurements finding COP ~1.1 and the 'signal' of gamma/x-rays. I cannot recall if Jack Cole, Wizkid or Brian Albiston aka Wishful Thinking ever claimed COP>1 or radiation but they all are worth to be mentioned as pioneers in how to engineer and run NiH systems as open science.

    Freethinker used a 'Clamshell' approach like Bob Higgins but disappeared after reporting gamma/x-rays. Freethinker might used some kind of EM field to produce his radiation results but we simply don't know - he has gone into the dark.

    The case for EM field as an important parameter have been in the discussions for a long time; Rossi with pictures of power supply voltage patterns, Parkhomov with 'dirty' chopped power supply to the heater coil and last but not least Brillouins Q-pulse claimed to be the solution for starting and stopping the reaction at will.

    The Me356-reactor to be tested by MFMP later this month is a black box test and we cannot expect to learn the parameter space used in his solution. I guess that the control box of Me356 include EM stimulation by inverter technology (pulsed, high dI/dT) and not by an analogue amplifier which would need some (probably) visible cooling solution.

    So - the parameter space not yet openly explored is EM stimulation and thanks to Bob Higgins we now are about to take part of this important step.

    Maybe we will see some interesting new results before MFMP test of the Me356 reactor later this month? I have popcorn ;-)

    I am glad to see real science on this forum - too bad it is burried in nonsence from other sister threads - keep going with this - LENR is worth it!

    Thanks to Alan G et al for giving me a real time, first seat, been there EXPERIENCE of the Glowstick runs. Seing is believing.

    That said - anomalies can have unknown origin, the answer is repeat, repeat, repeat. And use other/more measurement methods.

    The GS runs have been following that route so I am only telling what I have learned from it.

    Wyttenbach wrote "What count's is the Kathode surface, which should have just the optimal contact (optimal current/area size) with the electrolyt."

    From this I make the conclusion that scale up should be done by having many cathodes (rods) in the same electrolyte. That would make a higher power in the same volume.

    After that multiply the setup in parallell connections to scale up output heat-mass (power).

    COP 10 is more than needed to drive a sterling engine-to-electricity converter and it should end up in self sustain mode.



    Thanks for your comments about the video.

    I am thinking of ways to scale up the electron density. Am I correct in thinking that the larger area of the anode (the metal container) the more electrons will go towards the cathode (the tip of the rod)?

    If so, would a metal foam inside the container increase the area and by that increase the electron density at the cathode?

    I am intrigued by this video:

    It is a very simple way of making a high electron density at a tungsten rod, giving a COP > 10 (!) over 30 minutes and with enough error margin to use simple garage calorimetry.

    If this really works - it can be scaled up quite easily. What is your take on this?

    The name if this thread is: MFMP: 18 steps to LENR excess heat (BasE-Cat recipe) - But it is heavily contaminated with irrelevant posts. To get it back on track I copy a current summary from Bob Greenyer from a DISCUS post a way down at this link:…on-part-1-new-mfmp-video/

    "Our GS experiment have shown evidence of COP consistently above 1 - we are very cautious in our reporting - note we have only ever got really excited when seeing emissions - not COP. We would get excited similarly if we saw statistically significant isotopic shifts.

    What is interesting, our Celani cells never reached the promise of Celani's own NI-Week / ICCF-17 data - it took two years, but we found out why, and the adjustment was to Celani's data to come in line with ours. Ours was a replication of the actual results he had achieved before then and during those events when adjusting for control system errors.

    It is interesting that Parkhomov's most recently reported data with mass flow calorimetry is in line with our consistently above COP 1 but not earth shattering 1.1 - 1.2 results. His previous data was far more exciting, but with the more accurate method used, his data matches our calibrated active and control / Optris PI160 data. Again we find that bold claims by a third party iterate to our findings.

    Moreover, the levels of excess are similar between Celani wire and our "Rossi formulae" experiments. Have we been consistently lucky? have other researchers been consistently unlucky.

    It is simply not accurate to suggest that our findings have not been replicated - the most striking example was in late 2013, when we had repeatedly self-replicated the detection of gamma from our leaking Celani wire cells when re-charging with fresh H2 - Jean-Paul Biberian replicated the observation in his own lab, following the same temperatures and profiles / procedure within 24 hours.

    We replicated our GS5.2 experiment as best we could and there was one inconclusive burst - however, for the first time in GS 5.3 we had neutron bubble detectors and we observed thermal neutron production within a low temperature range. This means two out of two experiments following a published protocol produced evidence of nuclear reactions. Brian Albiston following the same protocol saw increases in gamma counts also. me356 reported (without sharing data) that he two had observed Neutrons from his bubble detectors from Rossi fuel reactions (amongst others), and he had no lead in play (by that I mean no lead brick cave surrounding a NaI scintillator.

    No one has seen me356s recent data, but his claims came after an examination of the Canon patent that I alerted him to on Nov. 11th 2015.


    We would all love the solution, handed to us on a plate - in an easily digestible form that we can learn with trivial effort. I believe that with such a complex thing as the New Fire, a stepwise progression of learning and application of the scientific method is all we can do when there isn't someone offering us the future simply because we demand it."

    With thanks to Bob and MFMP.

    I got an answer from coldquanta. Because it is labeled 'confidential and proprietary information' I give a short summary:

    Think of the MOT as an assembly of three systems; the vacuum system, the optics package, and the laser system.
    Price for the vacuum system starts around $12,000 USD.

    Laser system and the optics package is standard products, coldquanta can offer them but those are not produced by coldquanta.

    My contact know people who have built MOT systems using a miniMOT for as little as $25,000-$30,000, other groups have spent as much as $60,000-$80,000, with the difference really being the lasers.

    Hi Freethinker,

    I use safari in my smartphone and Explorer on Windows, also Chrome works fine for me except that the smartphone/safari after writing enough to scroll down the text I write is invisible until I hit the Submit-button.

    So you managed to get a job? Grattis! Any more experiments to tell about?