MFMP Publishes Project Dog Bone Experiment Plan

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) has published a document outlining their plans for an initial set of experiments to answer some of the questions that have been raised by the Lugano E-Cat testing report.

Note that initial testing will not attempt to replicate the excess heat effect reported in the Lugano report. The first order of business is to observe how a device of similar construction to the reactor used by Levi et al. behaves when it is subject to the same energy inputs reported in the test.

I spoke with Bob Greenyer today and he emphasized that one thing they will try to discover is whether it is possible for a device of the size the Lugano reactor with inconel resistor coils to produce the levels of heat measured in the Lugano report when acting like a normal heating element.

Below is a link to the document published by the MFMP. The team is inviting comments and questions from the interested public to be posted on their Quantumheat.org website, or their Facebook page.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F12E3BEtjr8PTm7-t-uWDF0OSNrdO9biuD5GJWoHWhE/edit

  • LCD

    Maybe a article here on what the dog bone is going to try for the fuel would be a helpful endeavor.

  • Dr. Mike

    Bob,
    Your initial plan for experimentation looks good to me. I think the single phase will work out okay at least until you try to duplicate the 1400C results. For your secondary heater, I recommend comparing the heater centered to the heater sitting on the bottom of the main alumina cylinder. The second position would be about as close as you could get to duplicating the Ni powder being at the bottom of the reactor during the Lugano test. I predict you will see fairly uneven heating on the outside of the reactor (100C or more) when the secondary heater is just sitting on the bottom of the reactor. Also, you may find that the secondary heater has to be well above 1400C to produce 1400C on the outside of the reactor, even with 920W of heating provided by the main reactor coil. Therefore, try to duplicate the result at 1260C run first and see what temperature is required in the secondary heater. (If the secondary heater is a hollow alumina tube as shown in the diagram you can have a secondary TC positioned at the center of the secondary heater. You probably should use a higher temperature TC than Type K for this TC.)
    One other difference that might affect results with the secondary heater is that the heat transfer from secondary heater to the main walls of the reactor might not be as efficient in air as in an atmosphere rich in hydrogen. This will be hard to quantify since partial pressure of hydrogen is not known in the real reactor.
    Dr. Mike

  • Bernie777

    Maybe MFMP should change their project name to Dog Bone and Brillopad. (:

    • Bob Greenyer

      Oh, that’s good…

  • Ged

    Good luck guys! This is exciting work, whatever is found.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Ged, we have been at fever pitch, piecing all the clues together alongside our own experience.

      Contributions from the likes of Alan Goldwater, Bob Higgins and Osmo Laarksonen have been outstanding – but it is so encouraging when the crowd is out there trawling their knowledge and other resources to help us.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We had a terrible problem with bot registrations, some 20,000. We have resolved that.

    There was moves to re-organise the site, but that fell down part through process because resources could not commit or did not have the requisite skills.

    We are currently re-designing the site to enable Synology notes, that will enable the same functionality as the ever notes – but we can embed in site so followers do not loose track of what we are doing.

    At the same time, we are moving the site to Joomla 3, a responsive template and JoomSocial. Followers can then use mobiles and desktops alike to follow projects and and comment easily.

    This will allow more labs to come on board, enable contributors to easily follow and contribute to experiments in a similar way to the way FB works with experiment “pages” that can be commented on and blog items that can be commented on.

    http://www.jomsocial.com

    Please bear with us as we make this transition.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Dear Ivan,

    We have gone a long way to simulate the waveform and understand the equipment needed. We have purchased a PCE830.

    Pulse energy / waveform simulator
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SGu_ZtNjkSMhGuqkeqSt6b5BvXYPM-Da8JFUymfgif0/edit?usp=sharing

    *Heater wire calculator 1*
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13U9b6qt8_3zvURSHs4Qj_GkI66sP8LgS0A9dE92RRAI/edit#gid=0

    *Heater wire calculator 2 – for all types*
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oJk58_6_slOWBoMiEJ_5zTHdfB4L3myH50YlylSbSIc/edit?usp=sharing

    *Dummy core calculator”
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q8s6Qxtmxlk1rxgeD2Qo7X7jhotoF-cgsNnEH-xN8ng/edit?usp=sharing

    For the first thermal characterisation tests two simple variacs will be able to provide the power to the heater coil and the “dummy core”.

  • JYD

    The Rossi’s JONP is currently unavailable. Do you know why ?

  • David Nygren
    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks David, very interesting.

      http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014172012&recNum=1&tab=PCTDocuments&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=

      Could a similar process explain where all the Neutrons come from for the Ni62 formation in Rossis reactor?

      Might all the activity of Brillouin be because the Lugano ash is the biggest evidence so far that the Brillouin process happens?

      Since this was submitted in February 2014, this is unintentionally one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the findings of the Lugano ash analysis.

      Here is the 2007 patent

      http://www.google.com/patents/US20070206715

      Key text

      “In broad terms, embodiments of the invention are believed to operate as follows. Reactants (e.g., hydrogen ions from water surrounding the core) are introduced into the core (e.g., palladium), and phonons are induced in a controlled manner to provide sufficient energy to convert protons into neutrons via an electron capture mechanism. The phonon-mediated mechanism is sometimes referred to in this application as quantum compression, which is a coined term (to be discussed in detail below). The neutrons, so generated, are of sufficiently low energy to result in high cross sections for neutron-hydrogen reactions.

      This generates increasingly high-atomic-weight isotopes of hydrogen, resulting in 4H, which beta decays to 4He. It is noted that the data in the National Nuclear Data Center (“NNDC”) database is all derived from experiments involving multi-MeV colliders leaving the resulting 4H with enough momentum that it is energetically, the path of least resistance to simply eject a neutron. When there is little to no momentum involved, neutron ejection is not a viable decay path as there is no energy to overcome the binding energy no matter how small that energy is. In the NNDC data the neutron is carrying reaction energy away from the system in the form of momentum. The neutron absorptions and the beta decay are exothermic, and result in kinetic energy transfer to the core in the form of phonons”

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The fins not only affect convection, but they also increase the effective thermal emissivity of the surface. Including them, even approximately, would be important in my opinion. -Commenting on quantumheat.org didn’t seem to work.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If they ran the test twice, once without and once with the fins they could quantify the effect they had. They do not need to do a prolonged test for that.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are planning to make 3 reactors and we are discussing ways to make fins

    • Andreas Moraitis

      From the viewpoint of measuring, the design with the fins is obviously not ideal. I wonder if some of the IR that is emitted from the flank of one fin could reach the flank of the neighbouring fin. In this case, parts of the output energy might be absorbed by the reactor immediately after release. It would be very difficult to include this effect into the calculations, even if the exact geometry of the fins were known.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        To be more precise: Of course, parts of the IR emitted by one fin will reach the surface of the neighbouring fins, since the angle between the flanks of the fins is smaller than 180 degrees. It would be important to know if this could lead to a smaller ‘effective’ surface area of the radiator.

        • kemosabe

          When you model a black body with a cavity, the surface area is not the surface of the interior of the cavity. It is the area of the opening from which the radiation can escape. For a cylinder, it seems, the detailed surface structure should be ignored, and the effective area from which radiation can escape would be the area of a smooth cylinder. That is what the authors of Lugano used.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Thanks, that sounds logical.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          moreover the calibration was done at 450C, which says that only temperature dependent factors may have impact

    • Denis Shagimuratov

      Can you please describe issue with comments on quantumheat.org? Did you have any errors or something else? Thanks!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It worked fine now when I tried it again. I was with slow connection when I tried it in the morning, possibly the issue was due to that.