MFMP’s ‘Project Dog Bone’ Has Begun [Update: Video Showing Reactor Design]

The following was posted in the Replication Thread by Bob Greenyer

[]=Project Dog Bone=[]

One week ago, the MFMP asked the question “So you want to see a replication?”, well, there seems to be demand for one (thanks for all the well-wishers and donations) however, we obviously cannot do a “replication” per se because we are not privy to all the facts…

What we can do first is empirically answer criticisms of the report and attempt to use our experience to build something for the people – because everyone of us and our dogs should have one!

We think we can build initial test reactors much cheaper than the price that was ball parked to us yesterday and that might enable a much wider group to participate in parameter sweeping.

The team is working hard on the control simulations at the moment and we are starting to model a practical test reactor in 3D – you might even be able to print it on a home 3D printer! Well, in plastic – but that could be made into a mould.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

Dog Bone Simulation

UPDATE: Here’s a video recently put up on YouTube in which Bob Greenyer explains the possible design and construction of the dog bone.

 

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dear Fyodor,

    Our experiments to date have been raw baselines with “pure” components, like the Celani wire, QSI and Ahern Powders.

    Actually, what we are going to be adding had already been planned to be added to the powder, Ahern powder and wires. That is

    1. Stimulation – discussed in length on collaborate document and other site blog posts, to include

    a. magnetic pinching (already designed into powder cells
    b. RF stimulation – helmholts coils previously made for celani cells but yet to have a proper outing which can also be used for this
    c. plasma/glow discharge (can be created via RF) in powder sparker cell currently undergoing calibration, this will be tested with Stoyan Sarg’s sparker.
    e. others

    2. Additives

    a. Alkali Metal Hydrides (specifically lithium based which we have discussed the reasons for at length in FB posts but will capture fully in the forward plan as soon as possible)
    b. getters
    c. others

    3. Reaction environment

    Specifically High Density sintered AL2O3 – we have detailed specific reasons going back to published work as early as 1979 that was carried out by the US DOE researching Magnetic Fusion and published notes from 2001 on the special properties of Al2O3 that point to the surface being useful as a reaction platform for plasma fusion.

    Please set up a FB or borrow a friends account and read the last 20 posts – it is all in there – though we hope to capture it all on the main site soon. We are working on an upgrade to the site that may take several weeks but will make it much more fit for purpose.

    • Fyodor

      Hi Bob,

      Thanks for taking the time to explain/answer.

      I do check in on your facebook page and the main website, but the ongoing incremental updates sometimes make it very difficult to get any sort of “big picture” understanding of the project, where things stand, etc. It would be really helpful if there were somewhere one could look to find the overall results summarized, explain the big-picture nature of some of the ongoing projects etc.

      Thanks again for the update and all the great work that you are doing.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer

    Cool, I have just released this

    http://intermoca.com/store/index.php

    maybe if enough people download the free version and watch a few ads – I’ll get a beer out of it (I get 12.5% of revenue)

  • Bob Greenyer

    Update on FB with Images:

    Video here

    http://youtu.be/uaHq8BIS7Vs

  • Obvious

    I am almost certain that IH allowed enough details to be reported in order to allow moderate gain replications of the effect, in order to bolster their defence of their patent. I also strongly suspect that the particular device tested in Lugano was a greatly simplified version of the E-Cat technology, in order to reduce testing problems and give enough info for basic replication attempts, yet without divulging critical information that might allow powerful iterations of the device without years of study.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Respect fellow waver

    I will make the LW files open – just for you

  • Bob Greenyer

    The Dog-E is hot on the tail of the weeE-Cat (needs a Scottish accent)

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have been using it for 23 years.

  • Warthog
    • Bob Greenyer

      These ceramics are only good to 600ºC

      Actually, having done this kind of thing quite a bit, it maybe better to make a mould via something like this

      http://i.materialise.com/materials/prime-gray

      And then cast a low iron alumina based cast-able ceramic body with something like this for instance (useable up to 1700ºC)

      Vitcast 1700STD & Gun Mix

      http://www.vitcas.com/refractory-castable-standard-dense

      More detail later.

      • Warthog

        Just pointing out the possibility, not suggesting the use of these specific ceramics. My guess is that if a ceramic starting substrate can be molded, it can probably also be extruded, as both require a high degree of malleability.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It may be possible to mold the bulk of the reactor with only the technical ceramic core shell and thermo-well being critical

  • Bob Greenyer

    Now that is funny

  • Ophelia Rump

    Project Dog-E Bone.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You’re cracking me up

  • jousterusa

    I am at a loss to understand what the word “replication” means when there’s not even a working theory to test and the replicators have none of the secret catalyst. Can anyone clue me in?

    • Dods

      you are not wrong but it has to be better than doing nothing.

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes, I don’t think anyone is expecting immediate success in terms of a COP 3.5. The important thing will be to see whether they get any interesting results and they can also comment on some of the issues that have been in contention about IF measurement and the like.

        If they get no interesting results, that will certainly be a negative.

    • Obvious

      It is a conceptual replication. It is obviously, as you have noted, impossible to do an exact replication. Someone will eventually replicate the effect, if not the test, at some point. AFAIK, the MFMP folks are best prepared to test it, and better still, tell us what happened. Probably a significant number of replication attempts are being prepared or being performed, based on this last report, but many of these will never be reported on for many reasons.
      Not that Rossi said that Ahern is his closest competitor, and needs no help. And the MFMP has Ahern’s help.

    • Axil Axil

      The secret catalyst is Lithium hydride which forms when Aluminum Lithium Hydride decomposes when heated.

      • TomR

        Thank you, Axil Axil, for any input you can give to MFMP.

    • Gerard McEk

      I believe MFMP’s first goal will be to show a CF effect. That allone would be phantastic. I hope they succeed and wish them very much luck with that.

    • Warthog

      Replication means an independent experiment (preferably identical) that yields the same or similar EXPERIMENTAL results. Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and is in fact, irrelevant. Real science is all about experimental results…..NOT theory. And never has been. Theories are nice, and they can point to new and DIFFERENT experiments that can shed further light on different aspects of the same (or similar) phenomena, but they are NOT necessary for “good science” to happen.

      The fact that some physicists keep saying “there is no theory”, and totally ignoring the experimental work, is NOT SCIENCE. It is, in fact, anti-science and a complete dis-service to practitioners of real science.