I do not see the logic of Beenes to choose a Sodium light for his experiment. Why not make an experiment with a range of all frequencies through a prism, to see which frequency(ies) that give a higher yield? Then choose a light source for optimizing the found input frequency.
Mats002
Member
- Member since Apr 18th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Mats002
-
-
Very interesting. Beene suggest an experiment and that is the way to verify or dismiss or refine the proposed suggestions about SPP.
However I don't see why photon frequency can not be efficient in the range of IR. As long as we have coherent light (visible or IR) in the 'right' frequency then the nanowires can densify and amplify EM as expected.
What is the 'right' frequency (or multiply of) for Axils theory to work?
-
Ecco and Axil: I do not see any conflicts in your suggestions, you are describing processes at different level of abstraction. Both can be correct and in fact supports each other in the suggestions that a cycling/pulsation is needed. The cycling of temp and pressure will in Axils underlying process be building up new nanowires. All this is also consistent with Piantelli co-deposition and Storms Active sites, NAE:s.
But: I feel this will be a never ending discussion, unless some real experiments will be performed along your Lines.
-
I see two ways moving forward:
1. Rerun many times with and without fuel to prove without doubt the mouse effect. Use calorimetry.
2. Rerun with extra stimulation of T / P / EM looking for the Cat effect.
I vote for 2, that way will prove both mouse and Cat, if exist. Postpone calorimetry until Cat found.
-
Well, someone has to say it: LENR! (again)
:lenr:
-
How about the power (voltage) into your house/building? Is it stable over long periods? Is it AC - AC or AC - DC - AC converted before your Triac?
I guess the PCE830 would do the correct measurements of input energy anyway, so - just asking. -
Axil Axil wrote:
" Mats002, Rossi explicitly stated the the Cat was a reactor that was identical to the Mouse. The Cat/Mouse combo is required for Self Sustained Mode. To convince yourself, scan all reference to cat and mouse in rossi's responses to questions: it's all in there."Axil, I have spent some time searching through Rossi Blog Reader, the first mention of mouse was March 25th, 2013 at 8:03 AM in an answer to Steven N. Karels. The sum of all Q/A and especially A:s from Rossi makes this simplified conclusion:
- The reactor we see in the Lugano report is one single unit with combined mouse and cat.
- There is only one charge (fuel) to share between mouse and cat
- if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between mouse and cat vanishes
- The mouse is the only one with external energy input (as electric current in a coil, at one time replaced with a gas burner without success)
- The mouse have COP > 1, but not much over 1.The statements below about the first and second process described by Me356 are still valid:
"Mats002 wrote:
Me356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and catFirst process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2.
That is the mouse.Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiH
The higher rate mean higher COP.
That's the cat!" -
Tyy, your postings are not worthy of any answer, but if this is a scam, replicating is the scientific way to test it. Your consistent message is 'I already know the outcome' which you of course do not.
That is why you are a clown here. -
Breaking news! Brian Albiston running new test NOW! started 10 hours ago, using calorimetry and with extra Li powder.
QuoteBrian Albiston running LIVE TEST NOW! with added passivated Lithium Nano Powder!
Test in progress:
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/590/temperature-power-pressure/
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/593/calorimeter-mass-energy-cop/Nanoshell was the supplier of the passivated Lithium nano powder which cost $300 for 10g and took 2 weeks from order to delivery.
Brian Says
"I will be holding at 500ºC for several hours waiting for the water to boil. That is the annoying thing about heat of vaporization calorimetry, you don't get any measurements until the water boils.Here are the details:
- 0.5g INCO 255 Nickel, baked
- 0.3g LiAlH4
- 0.2g Passivated Li Powder, APS 80-100 nm, 99.9% Purity
I thorougly ground the Ni and LiAlH4 together using a mortar and pestle. I then added the Li powder and lightly ground and mixed using the mortar and pestle. All of the powders were mixed in my Redneck glove box which was continuously purged with Argon.
Powders were then loaded into a 5/16" OD, 316 stainless thermocouple protection tube. The open end of the tube was plugged with alumina wool. The tube was then dropped into 18" long alumina outer tube. The alumina tube was evacuated before the start of the test.
Let's cross our fingers. We may have the right ingredients now, but there still are a lot of unknowns, i.e. nickel type, pressure profile, em stimulation, etc."
See more info and links to plotly at MFMP link:
https://m.facebook.com/MartinF…sts/1051914348172597?_rdr -
Hi guys! Nice to see the future of space, I believe in a new golden age thanks to LENR and EMDrive - but I miss EMDrive on your web. Is it too early in development?
-
Axil Axil wrote:
" Mats002, Rossi explicitly stated the the Cat was a reactor that was identical to the Mouse. The Cat/Mouse combo is required for Self Sustained Mode. To convince yourself, scan all reference to cat and mouse in rossi's responses to questions: it's all in there."Axil, I have spent some time searching through Rossi Blog Reader, the first mention of mouse was March 25th, 2013 at 8:03 AM in an answer to Steven N. Karels. The sum of all Q/A and especially A:s from Rossi makes this simplified conclusion:
- The reactor we see in the Lugano report is one single unit with combined mouse and cat.
- There is only one charge (fuel) to share between mouse and cat
- if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between mouse and cat vanishes
- The mouse is the only one with external energy input (as electric current in a coil, at one time replaced with a gas burner without success)
- The mouse have COP > 1, but not much over 1.The statements below about the first and second process described by Me356 are still valid:
"Mats002 wrote:
Me356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and catFirst process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2.
That is the mouse.Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiH
The higher rate mean higher COP.
That's the cat!" -
Me356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and cat.
"First process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2."
That is the mouse."Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiHThe higher rate mean higher COP."
That's the cat!hep!
-
No-no-no tyy, you are excited to know, as the rest of us!
-
Tyy, you have humor! A tiny taint of dark, but still funny.
-
Nigel ask a question, where next? Before doing anything, think of what the open experiments have accomplished, given us insights in:
How to make a gas tight vessel
How to heat it to challanging temperatures for days without breach
How to control with PID, that in itself took several months to refine
How to measure output, what is prone to error and why
How to measure input, what is prone to error and why
Which actionable parameters are in play as leading, trailing and why
What material pre-processing is needed
...the list goes on and all this made in about 9 months from volonteers
The engineering result is great! The LENR result is - well LENR! Because the latest experiments show radiation and probably transmutations in fuel vs ash.
Is it scientific evidence? No, because then the same results must be repeated many times.
Is it good enough to merit further work? Absolutely!To get higher yield, the list of untested parameters is still quite long, EM stimulation is a parameter space not explored yet. I vote for that. Brillouin have sharp EM as their core solution, named CECR.
-
I need to be logged in to get the replybox. Is this in order? If you expect anonymous replies you might want to take it further.
-
Very encouraging results Freethinker! Many knowledgable sources (Piantelli, Storms, ECW comments, ...) says that temperature of Nickel must be increased above it's Debye temp (177 C) before any LENR can take place. Peter Gluck: "The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin"
Parkhomov's march experiment with the big pressure meter show the same behavior: At temp pushed up above about 190 C, pressure start to go down from 5 bar to below 1 bar (below 1 atm) over a period of 8 hours, your latest run with added Li do this in only 30 minutes (!).
The steep pressure drop might be Rydberg matter forming, because Ni can not absorb H at the rate and scale of that pressure drop (can it?)
The common denominator for all known LENR experiments today is that it is a surface effect giving transmutations in (so far) unpredictable pathways and those transmutations will give out heat (phonons) and/or a strong magnetic field (and some gamma you already measure). Do you have any way to measure a static magnetic field around the reactor?
-
I am a Little confused. Are we talking about the same experiment? I refer to this one going on now: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…nt-page-3/#comment-232822
I am not aware of any known errors of mechanical changes or shorted wraps, but of course I can have missed that
-
It look like the difference is there from the beginning of the current run. Curves are parallel, just multiplied by some factor, thus I guess there is no excess heat.
The Active and Null side are part of the same device, heat communicating, the answer is in 'Power in' (Voltage) compared between calibration run made the day(s) Before. -
MFMP GS4 is running in Alans garage as this is written. We have seen above 70 C differences in the Active vs Null side temps, looks like 25% OU, COP 1.25 for hours - and the run hopefully have much more to show before ending (all this assuming no equipment malfunctions, still to be verified).
Pressure going down steady from about 90 psi to 40 psi in the past 12 hours, still going at that trend ( see HugNet http://data.hugnetlab.com/ ) and if assuming it is not ABsorbing H into Ni, nor ADsorbing and instead due to Rydberg Matter formation then it should be possible to calculate the pace of Rydberg Atoms created, and by that the totals, by combining mmol of H in fule (according to Ecco above), the definition of a Rydberg atom and map that to the pressure decrease we see.
@Ecco, Svein or other: Is this information enough for the task, can you calculate it?