How to Make a MFMP ‘Glowstick’ Reactor (Video)

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting about the following.

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has just released a video titled *GlowStick*, in which Alan Goldwater and Bob Greenyer of the MFMP demonstrate how to build what they call a Glowstick reactor, which they used in the recent testing during the famous experiment which ended with a Bang!

Alan shows how they seal the reactor with a Swagelok bolt system used to seal the reactor chamber so that there is no hydrogen leakage, and then how they test for leaks using a jar and a flame. Alan explains why he thinks this should be a very safe system, but of course — safety measures are crucial in any kind of experimentation, as we noted on Thursday night when the MFMP team needed protection from their explosion.

I recall hearing on the live feed that this Glowstick reactor can be built for around $25. From the MFMP testing on Thursday with this hydrogen leak detector, the sealing system seemed to work — until the explosion happened. And from what I can gather, it was the reactor wall that failed, not the Swagelok seal.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Setup images, video and detail shots before and after

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Ryan and Bob have just uploaded a huge amount of visual resources which we would be very happy for you to evaluate for clues.

    Here is a video of the setup

    http://youtu.be/CcogboHfDSA

    In one image there is a close-up of some of the debris from the reactor core breach with what looks like…

    – the sintered fuel showing very small spheres on the surface of something

    – parts of the fractured alumina core, with what appears to be a smooth aluminium (/Lithium?) deposit which diffuses a little through the Almumina

    – fragments of the Silicon Carbide heating element

    Another picture shows the melted SiC element section that was near the post explosion “bloom”, could this be from an arc, H2 or something else?

    Attached here is a small fraction of the images shared. More shots of the collected debris are on our main site here:

    http://www.quantumheat.org/…/pictures-and-vid…/gallery/bang…

    Also, Ryan has produced an Evernote sharing images of the debris and his thoughts.

    https://www.evernote.com/…/8005e9af-a887-4…/a13d2003f856236d

  • Dr. Mike

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,
    I did a few simple calculations on the fuel mixture on the “Bang!” reactor- see my comments on the post “MFMP Anlylzes Fuel Mixture, Causes of Reactor Failure”. You are correct that there was way too much fuel in the “Bang!” reactor, but more importantly the ratio of Ni to LiAlH4 did not match the Parkhomov or Lugano test. A replication of the Parkhomov conditions would have required about 0.5 gr of Ni and about 0.05 gr of LiAlH4. The 2.97 gr of Ni (my calculation) used in the “Bang!” reactor should have easily been able to absorb all of hydrogen released by the LiAlH4 if the reactor had been heated slowly, unless the Ni surface was contaminated or oxidized to where it could not readily absorb hydrogen. The pressure rise in the MFMP reactor should have been mostly due to the expansion of the residual air in the reactor if the hydrogen was properly absorbed by the Ni.
    Dr. Mike

  • Bernie777

    This is the headline I was worried about when MFMP started their “open” E-Cat replication program, “Cold fusion E-Cat experiment ends explosively”. To a person just learning about LENR it means an out of control LENR nuclear experiment with all the possible hysterical media ramifications, which could set back LENR for years.

    • Mr. Moho

      If anything, that would make people even more willing to replicate.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It was a live experiment, no one got hurt and it has sparked a MUCH needed debate on the issue of safety. Now real calculations and studies are being done on the pressures attainable, yield strength of Alumina at various temperatures and the toxicity of the materials involved.

      Find me a researcher in this field that has worked for a decent amount time experimentally and not had a similar event. Pons and Fleischmann, Piantelli, Ahern, McKubre, Mizuno, Rossi, Parkhomov etc. etc. Some were there at the event, others not. What is different about our experience was that we were there and it was live streamed and recorded.

      Scientists doing research with hot things know things can fail – that is why Parkhomov’s approach is elegant, because it has in-built protection.

      With the understanding that has come out of this and the added simplicity of Alan’s proposed approach and other peoples suggested improvements (like feathering in heating coils to reduce step thermal change stresses) I believe more people will be enabled to research the field – but with their eyes wide open – in the back of their mind will be the certain knowledge that the reactor could “go bad”.

      • Bernie777

        Bob, please, I understand the scientific value of the
        experiments, I am talking about perceptions.
        This headline is going to be used by opponents of LENR and probably more
        important by a stupid, illogical media, they just love sensational headlines. This is going to be the next headline, “Explosion
        is the result of unregulated nuclear experiment”. You can do your experiments and fully
        disclose the results without the negative headlines.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Agreed. It cannot be undone however. It is a double edged sword, on the one hand bringing exposure – on the other hand, unwelcome attention.

          Without this having occurred safely with no injuries, it was 100% certain that one or other of the experiments being spawned right now would have ended in a similar or MUCH worse way – now people are aware some of the risks we have tried to warn about before.

          Of more concern is the blasé approach to just trying (or suggesting) the use of other mixes of fuels. If we are to accept the energy yield is of unknown Nuclear origin, we personally feel it is UTTERLY IDIOTIC to try ANYTHING other than that which has been shown by Lugano researchers and Parkhomov to work and work without measurable ionising radiation.

          We have seen evidence of Gamma in Celani cells, but Piantelli reported a full range of particles from his experiment that went bad – as have others.

          A momentary explosion is one thing, a radiation event really would be a bad headline, so I would caution those that seem to approach this like a bake-off, do not do anything unless you fully understand what you have in your fuel and what all the permutation of the reaction are. I seriously doubt people have done that level of thinking – and given the jury is out on what is going on theory wise, people are plainly STUPID to stray from a fuel mixture that appears to be safe from this much more serious point of view.

          • Omega Z

            Bob

            I have noticed all along that Those of MFMP have been a little to care free/careless & a little bit of cockiness.
            I note the- If you aren’t breaking things, your not moving fast enough…

            Can I assume this has been a Major wake up call & a Major change in the attitude towards safety. Be safe

            • Bob Greenyer

              We are certainly taking stock, we always wore personal protection and additionally chose to have a shield. It is our hope that everyone should take this seriously.

          • Bernie777

            Bob, I respect your scientific knowledge and goals. Please, restrict yourself to those sites that understand what you are doing, do not put it on YouTube. Fox news audiences are not the people you are trying to reach, but they will react to “Explosion of nuclear devise, needs regulation.” When that happens your and all other LENR experiments will come to a screeching halt.

    • LuFong

      Rossi has stories of explosions and melt downs too.

      You are also assuming that LENR is safe! We don’t really know that from the hundreds of experiments and a few years of operational time. Consider what might be the case for millions and billions of LENR devices running over decades if only a few explode out of million every year. That’s too much. If in the interest of safety LENR (commercial) is set back a few years so be it.

      • Bernie777

        Of course safety first, with the understanding this technology is critically important to the world. Every new technology has risks, landing a man on the moon took huge safety risks but that generation of Americans thought it was worth it.

  • LuFong

    A) They do not always have the information/material available to follow the original experiment.

    B) In addition to replication they want to produce a low-cost easily repeatable platform that is available to anyone wishing to experiment with LENR. This is is why have designed the heater element the way it is and have attempted to use off-the-shelf components.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi never said he heated a Factory in Florida. Have you lived in Florida. 99% of the time, that would be just plain silly.
    It was 1st stated by “Focardi” that Rossi heated his factory in Ferrari, Italy. Rossi merely confirmed this info at a latter time when asked about it. Everyone just assumes it originated with Rossi.

    The term Factory as used by Focardi & Rossi in most of the communications is a matter of perspective. According to some Italian influence here at ECW, this can be interchangeable to some degree in meaning. My own perspective differs from Rossi’s. I would be more inclined to call it a work shop.

    Semantics aside, I can see the E-cat heating a shop as such & many times we see Rossi testing it in a much smaller area like an office & I have no doubt it would get quite toasty even in the dead of winter.

    I have no doubt that he has something similar in Florida. We do know from those around him that he prepares his nickel fuel there.

    Being Deceptive. There are some not so nice people in this world. If that’s what it takes to get the Job done, So be it…

    “There is clearly no factory in NC” Really. How do you know that.
    Because of what JT Vaughn said in the thread here at ECW. He’s likely more savvy then Rossi about the need for deception in these matters. Has Vaughn or Darden either one said anything about the other 9 entities involved in Industrial Heat? No. They are hidden from public disclosure by a legal document. What Facilities do they have that Rossi may be using in the N.C. Triangle.

    “Rossi is willing to say anything to throw competitors off his trail”
    Yes, And he has said as much on occasion. Note: Being Deceptive. This is being repetitive. Is it not?

    The 1Mw plant isn’t the same. In developing the Hot-cat, Rossi came up with a different setup called the Mouse/Cat. He indicated at that time that it would be incorporated into “ALL E-cats” regardless of the type. Hot, Low temp, Gas and of any size.

    Recall that the Original 1Mw container didn’t hold all the reactors. About a dozen? were on top. Tho not completely clear on the arrangement, Rossi has said in totality that the 1Mw reactors can fit in about a cubic meter. The 1Mw container is designed as a plug & play with the boiler & heat exchanger, Etc all contained within.

    How many Hot cats exist. As many as they need. I note that 3 reactors were shipped to Lugano in case of breakage. The MFMP demo explains a lot. Think about it. Breakage. This would actually explain Rossi’s presence at the start up & shut down. MFMP & Parkhomov aren’t the only one’s with breakage issue’s.

    As to the Reactor used in the Lugano test. If I recall, it was CUT open in order to scrap/extract the ash. This reactor, the spares, plus the remaining ash were all returned to Rossi & brought back to the U.S.

    The Hot cat is still very much still in R&D. Rossi has indicated on JONP that it has changed in design since the Lugano test. So Timmy, are you caught up now.

  • Ophelia Rump

    They are learning how to perform the tests and measurements accurately with dummy loads so that they know what no LENR reaction looks like. They want to understand the equipment, methods and materials they are working with.

    It is foolish to try and reproduce a reaction when you cannot even tell the difference between a good and a bad result. Once they have consistent techniques, and have baseline measurements to compare actual test results to, then they can do a reliable successful experiment and have trustworthy interpretation of the results.

    To recognize an abnormal condition, you must first know what a normal condition looks like. You need a point of reference.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Did we bend a dog bone?

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    http://youtu.be/7T3pfpwT1tU

    The above video clearly shows visually the fin temperature variation across a wide range of temperatures. It also shows something else.

    In the “Glowiness” video, we described how we were going to test a “fake lenr core” inside a “fat coil” dog bone to explore the questions raised in the Lugano report on the issue of “was the hot core shining through the heater coils or was it the coils themselves glowing brighter”.

    http://youtu.be/CMToFnXxhOE

    The recorded live stream of the whole event is here:

    http://youtu.be/O6m884fr198

    Nearing the end of the test, when we were achieving extremely high internal temperatures, Alan Goldwater suggested that the dog bone was sagging in the middle. Well this video might just prove him right!

    Here is a separate video showing the displacement change as the reactor cooled down.

    http://youtu.be/gMLJW_Z2tfw

    This raises a number of thoughts:

    1. Was this why the centre of the Lugano reactor had support

    2. If so, were they expecting these kind of temperatures and higher in the core?

    3. Was it gravity or coil expansion driving this?

    4. Does this have implications for failure modes and reactor designs?

    • Anon2012_2014

      Get Alumina hot enough and it will yield/deform plastically.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Given the following parameters

      Initial length = 20 cm
      Linear thermal expansion coefficient = 5.4 * 10^-6 / deg (for alumina)
      Temperature difference = 1200 deg

      one could expect a linear expansion of the reactor by about 1.3 mm. (I’m neglecting other factors here). This will have caused the DogBone to move slightly on the rack. The apparent vertical movement might result from a different distance to the camera, rather than from bending.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Andreas, the reason I suggested that it might have bent was

        1. Alan Goldwater, who pretty much had his eyes at the same level as the DB said he thought it was sagging at the time, I said I wasn’t sure.

        2. The Lugano reactor has a support in the middle, that suggests to me that they did not want it to sag, sagging may cause unwanted stress in the core whereas elongation alone may not given its linear nature.

        3. When reviewing the video, I noticed that there was what appeared like some deformation.

        I had not seen this potential aspect of the Lugano report discussed and because of its importance to structural dynamics of similar systems and given the temperature and data points we reported, I felt it was important enough to share.

        Indeed it may help us understand the failure mode of the “Bang!” reactor, as that may have failed due to plastic deformation due to the cantilever effect of the cool end with the Swagelok and would suggest the need for adequate support or maybe hanging vertical operation (if that did not cause thermal complications).

  • robyn wyrick

    I’m sure they work for catching a boy as well.

  • GreenWin

    Andy, fascinating to see you and Timmy scratching at scabs on corpus of skepticism. In subconscious there is frustrated belief that impugning Dr. Rossi will somehow stop the spread of LENR, and preserve your tower of dogma. Try as you may, you will likely not find the mud you hope to sling. And these transparent diatribes confirm the deepening frustration of diehard skeptics.
    As the “other” GW would say, “Curse the Rosie!” 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    We will know more from the next experiments. Bob Higgins is working up an apparatus inspired by the recent tests that will allow pressure monitoring, gas capturing (for analysis) and de-pressurisation if needed. We will message on this soon.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Jars are cheaper

  • Bob Greenyer

    It was a 0.25″ OD

    It is pure, stimulating science – whatever the cause of failure.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “How do we interpret these [Rossi] statements?”

    A. Rossi’s statements are inherently unreliable, either intentionally, accidentally, or delusional (i.e. the Robotic Factory + Snakes + Clowns). That we (the rest of Earth) have progressed now this far without accurate statements from Rossi is actually very fortunate. We are on the verge of independent verification by multiple third parties. So, why exactly do we care so much about Rossi — that is his and Industrial Heat’s business.

    We third parties no longer care about Rossi’s statements. Let it go.

  • Surveilz

    I usually don’t bite at wildly off topic posts, but I’ll privilege you here. How could Mr. Rossi be misleading anyone? Perhaps he needs a lesson or two in marketing and worse case he is daydreaming out loud of a final product. But misleading, fraud and other speculative accusations are nothing more than cheap shots. Look, I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard of this website called KickStarter.com, but I suggest you head there and try the same kind of rhetoric on people who are, unlike Mr. Rossi, asking the public for money in exchange for non existing or unfinished products.

    • Adam

      I agree, Dr. Rossi owns nothing to anyone and he can speak whatever he wants. For the background story, please invest in Mats Lewan book.

  • Bob Greenyer

    UPDATE: Mark Jurich calculates the pressure to be exactly half (H2 not H) so his estimate is that the pressure was ‘only’ 9,930.5 psi.

    http:[email protected]/msg101570.html

    This is now over 3.5X less than the break strength, could there have been a sudden energy release, or could it be as we and others have suggested, there is a temperature gradient and a localised pressure on the swagelok that might contribute to non-uniform stresses?

    • Anon2012_2014

      I made an estimate of Parkhomov based on a 7 cm long cylinder with an intern diameter of 0.5 cm as per Parkhomov, or 1.3744 cc. Assuming a mass of 0.1 grams of LiAlH4, I get 0.0057 moles of H2, suing R_specific of H2 as 4120 J/kg/K and 1190C/1463K, ignoring any air in the chamber and using P = rho*R_specific*T of 46.6 million pascals, or 466 bar. I get the same thing using R of 8.315 J/K/mole and P = nRT/V, i.e. as a double check of my units.

      For dimensional analysis I get

      P=rho*R_specific*T
      kg/m^3 * J/K/kg * K = 1/m^3 * kg m^2/s^2 = kg / m / s^2

      and

      P=nRT/V
      moles * J/K/Mole * K / m^3 = J / m^3 = kg * m^2/s^2 /m^3 = kg/m/s^2

      which is the same as the dimensions of the Pascal/

      Therefore, the answer may be to use a ratio of 0.1 gm/1.374 cc of LiAlH4 = 0.73 gms/cc to approximate the Parkhomov conditions. Additionally, cooling the external reactor wall in water directly (e.g. immersed in a pot, if we can accept that amount of thermal transfer limiting the internal reactor temperature), may improve the structural properties of the alumina tube pressure vessel.

      We need to get from MFMP some consistent data on the reaction in the absence of pressure vessel failure.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Anon, thanks and yes.

        • Omega Z

          Bob

          Have you taken into account that the swagelok ferrule itself creates a pressure point to achieve it’s seal.

          This would produce a bolt cutter effect, but instead of increasing pressure from the cutter, you’ve increased the pressure from within.
          You also have 2 different materials that expand or contract at different rates.

    • Gerard McEk

      Parkhomov did see several times local hot-spot. Those you may have missed now you do not use the IR camera. Local runaway is possible. Did the tube break near to the swagelok ie not at the hottest spot?

  • Gerard McEk

    Swagelok seems a perfect sealing solution, well found gentlemen! You use a thinner pipe with fuel which is obviously open at one end. That takes some volume for H2 expansion away as well. I am not sure that Dr. Bob included that in his calc’s. The pressure was too high in the Bang! reactor anyway. Maybe you can take longer pipes to adjust for the right mix of required volume and resulting pressure, and the needed amount of Lithium.

  • Obvious

    I vote mundane. I am stoked at the overall device, with the swagelock seals, though. A sub-explosive fuel load could make this design very repeatable in volume.

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    Thanks for sharing guys. There’s nothing like witnessing Edison style LENR experimentation.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Alan Goldwater makes first estimate of pressure reached in the “Bang!” reactor core…

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    You can see Alan Goldwater’s calculation of pressure reached.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    The conclusion is “(gulp) 1352bar or 19861 psi”

    and “the tensile strength of alumina at 1000C is 35244 psi”

    Whilst it is in the same order of magnitude at the point of rupture – did something nearly double the pressure in a very short time?

    • Ged

      Interesting, so the alumina should have been enough to contain that pressure, in the absence of serious defects. That supports the idea of a rapid localized event that pushed matters over the edge.

      Did the reactor fail where the nickel powder was greatest concentration? Or uncorrelated?

      • Anon2012_2014

        Alan, thanks for the NIST link. Here’s the whole table:

        1) tensile strength falls with temperature increase:
        http://www.ceramics.nist.gov/srd/summary/scdaos.htm

        1000 C = 243 MPa

        1200 C = 140 MPa

        1400 C = 22 MPa (!!!)

        1500 C = 13 MPa

        The strength essentially falls by half at 1200 and then by another 6.5x 1400C, and then by about half again at 1500C.

        2) I needed to relate bursting pressure to tensile strength. I found this formula — a better materials/mechanical engineer can find a better formula

        (http://www.sapagroup.com/pages/522736/Brochures/Sapa%20Pipe%20and%20TubeTechnical%20Inserts%20June%202011.pdf)

        P = (2*t*s)/(D – .8*t)
        P=bursting pressure
        t = thickness
        D=diameter
        s=tensile strength

        Seems to be independent of the units (cm or inches) because they cancel out.

        Simplifying:

        P= 2t/(D-.8t) s
        Parkhomov has a 10mm outer diameter and 5 mm inner diameter, thus t=5, D=10

        P=1.66 s
        Using Parkhomov’s 1190C experiment, the bursting pressure is 232 MPa.
        As I have already calculated, Parkhomov’s internal pressure is around 46 MPa at that temperature, i.e. 5x margin.

        I am looking for the OD and ID of the boom test tube to calculate bursting pressure of the material, i.e. to see if it models.

        • Anon2012_2014

          Just guessing for the glowstick that blew up

          D=5 mm
          t= 2 mm
          P=1.18 s.

          The unit failed when the Williamson IR pyrometer measured 1027 C. I think we can assume that the pressure vessel was hotter since it appears it was hidden from the Williamson sensor by the outer reactor wall. Let’s say it was at 1100 C.

          Then by interpolation, s = 191.5 MPa, bursting pressure = 226 MPa at 1100C, and using ideal gas law we get a reactor pressure of 137 MPa.

          At 1200C, s=140 MPa, bursting pressure = 165 MPa, and reactor pressure = 147 MPa.

          Again, by interpolation, at 1250C, s= 110 MPa, bursting pressure = 130 MPa, and reactor pressure = 152 MPa.

          Thus, by interpolation we would expect the reactor to fail at 1225 C.

          We don’t know the reactor wall temperature, but it could have been near that.

        • Ged

          Beautiful analysis. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Thanks.

            I’d like to know where the unit failed.

            I think if they just put less into the tube, they can get to Parkhomov temperatures and pressures. However, the alumina looks pretty poor strengthwise above 1400 C.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Anon, I think we need another “collaborate” document to gather and organise all this thinking. Would you be interested in co-authoring the google doc?

          • Anon2012_2014

            I don’t have an anonymous way to do it. I try to help you here.

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,,
      I agree with Alan’s conclusion that there was way too much hydrogen in the “Bang!” reactor. It seems that all the hydrogen needed is one atom of hydrogen for each atom of Ni plus an excess amount of hydrogen to produce an internal pressure of 100-200psi. Perhaps more hydrogen would be needed for extended test.
      Has Alan calculated the pressure within the Parkhomov reactor? Did he account for the hydrogen that should be absorbed by the Ni?
      Also, has anyone in the MFMP group tried to estimate the internal volume of the Lugano reactor? With the measured weight of 452 gr (and assuming 30-50 gr is heating coil wire) my calculations indicate a much larger internal volume than your .568 cc volume in the “Bang!” reactor or the 1.0-1.2 cc volume in Parkhomov’s reactor even if the alumina used in the Lugano reactor is assumed to have a density at the low range quoted in the literature. It seems that if you are trying to replicate Parkhomov’s results, you should use a fuel load to volume ratio that is nearly the same as Parkhomov’s, and if trying to replicate the Lugano results, use a fuel load to volume ratio nearly the same as the Lugano reactor.

      Dr. Mike

    • Anon2012_2014

      The solution is very simple — limit the amount of LiAlH4 to around 0.072 gm/cc as I suggested above. In the glow stick this would be about 43 mg, and would produce a pressure similar to Parkhomov of around 466 bar = 6850 psi at 1190C.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks for the guidance. Bob Higgins is designing an experiment variant that will allow us to more accurately study the pressure profile.

  • Jarea1

    Off topic

    but i found an interesting link about the oil prices.

    http://www.gaspricesexplained.org/#/?section=global-oil-supply-disruptions-vs-u-s-oil-growth

    The graphs here shows very good how the oil production of the US has been increased since sep 2012. Before, the US has always considered that the oil is a strategic resource. US was keeping the reserves for the future in case of scarcity of oil. The thing is that according to these graphs US politic has changed since sep 2012 in a very clear way.

    What can be the reason for this change? 🙂

    • Ged

      Consider that this boom in oil production is what pulled America out of the recession starting in 2008 (this is probably the reason it was pushed for, as the only thing we had to try to get life back in the economy), and then just barely and only in some metrics. And now, OPEC is killing that industry dramatically with the increasing glut of oil on the market (storage is starting to run out, that is how much production is outstripping demand currently). We will unfortunately live in interesting times, at this rate.

      LENR or other cheap energy sources couldn’t get here fast enough–we need to transition to new paradigms of economy and industry rather than petrodollars and debt shuffling.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        why on earth do you think the US oil boom “pulled America out of the recession”? I’ve never heard that idea before and I follow the oil industry and economics pretty closely.

        And why do you blame OPEC for the glut of oil? OPEC has not increased production much at all. The glut of oil and falling price is obviously because of US rising US production.

        http://blogs.platts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/oil-production.jpg

        • Ged

          http://www.cnbc.com/id/102318531 :

          “‘The energy industry has been one of the job-growth areas leading us out
          of the recession,’ said Chad Mabry, a Houston-based analyst in the
          energy and natural resources research department of boutique investment
          bank MLV & Co. in New York City.”

          “Growth of jobs in the oil and gas industry greatly outpaced the private sector from 2007 to 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
          There was 40 percent growth in jobs in oil and gas, with 162,000 new
          jobs created, compared to 1 percent job growth in the private sector. By
          November 2014, 215,200 people worked in oil and gas extraction alone. And with job-related fields such as mining and quarrying factored in, employment in the industry hit 869,000, the BLS found.”

          http://www.wealthwire.com/news/energy/2487

          http://marketbusinessnews.com/oil-prices-falling-americas-energy-boom/37035

          http://modeshift.org/419/north-dakotas-oil-boom-leads-u-s-out-of-recession/

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/01/americas-economy Also attributes the optimistic progress of the US economy squarely to the energy sector boom, but most of the article is about what might derail the recovery rather than analysis of the recovery.

          http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/22/is-the-us-on-the-verge-of-an-economic-boom/

          http://www.philstockworld.com/2015/02/07/the-death-of-the-petrodollar-was-finally-noticed/

          About OPEC: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm

          Notice how it started: http://www.punchng.com/news/oil-prices-plunge-after-opec-meeting/

          http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/28/investing/opec-oil-price-us-shale/?iid=EL

          http://finance.yahoo.com/news/opec-oil-output-rises-january-113534780.html;_ylt=A0LEVv187tZUKEIAqSInnIlQ

          http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/investing/oil-prices-not-bottom-yet/index.html?section=money_news_international

          http://www.theweek.co.uk/business/oil-price/60838/oil-price-yo-yo-continues-as-traders-jockey-to-find-bottom

          OPEC’s refusal to lower production to stop oversupply due to them not wanting to lose market share is a big part of all this. They usually adjust to keep prices fixed, now they aren’t, and are -increasing- production to continue to force prices down or keep them down. Shale oil can’t survive at the low prices OPEC can. A simple and calculated move, which most the major analysts are agreed on. The Russian angle seems a red herring.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            thanks for the lessen on US oil industry job growth. Too bad it’s unsustainable (in more ways than one).

            The good news is that similar sized investments in clean energy would produce 3x as many jobs.

            see
            “Over 3 Times More Green Jobs Per $1 Invested Than Fossil Fuel Or Nuclear Jobs”

            http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-million-than-fossil-fuel-or-nuclear-jobs/

            Meanwhile, why anyone would expect OPEC (actually Saudi Arabia) to lower production more than they already have and thereby continue to lose market share, is beyond me. You cant blame them for doing the only rational thing. Can you?

            • Ged

              Indeed! It is a logical price war for dominance, and we’re in the crossfire–and as you correctly say, this oil boom is not sustainable, even without this price war. True energy independence isn’t in making our own oil, but in “green” energy sources, as you rightly point out. Hopefully LENR can and will play a role in that.

            • Omega Z

              EEStorFanFibb

              Much of that has to do with the fact that more of the cash flow stays within the U.S. circulation instead of exported to foreign lands. Note that Jobs actually create more jobs in this manor.

              As to the Saudi’s I agree, Usually when they cut production, the rest of OPEC takes advantage of them & increase their own production stealing market share from the Saudi’s.

        • GreenWin

          Looking at the macro-economics oil & gas jobs (BTW are private sector) – serve only the industrialized nations using fossil as prime energy. However, if we are to raise standards of living globally, there is a massive demand for product and services – hence massive job creation.
          Standards of living rise first by providing safe water, hygiene, healthcare, housing and quality food to those in need. Once LENR is available to humanitarian entities – the cost of these standards drops and job creation skyrockets. The transition from fossil/fission is already underway as indicated by oil prices – albeit under a cover of price wars.

        • Omega Z

          Increased oil production has helped the U.S. economy in several ways. All the Oil produced in the U.S. means more money stays in U.S. circulation instead of being sent abroad. You also put people to work in the Oil industry who in turn spend there money that creates more jobs. A trickle down effect.

          A market glut translates to lower gasoline prices & more money in the pockets of the commons who in turn purchase more creating more jobs. This last benefit is actually a double edged sword. When Oil price per barrel drops too low, it cuts jobs at the front end. Oil drilling. Thus you lose some of your original gains.

          Note that not all the jobs gains are in Oil. They are a trickle down. Each Oil field job probably creates 2 or 3 more. LENR would have a similar effect tho it would eliminate direct Oil jobs, The additional trickle on jobs would still be created. LENR will not break the economy & most of those skilled jobs in oil are readily transferable to the LENR market. Especially considering it will be a gradual transition. There is nothing to fear but….

      • mytakeis

        Agree, but too bad all the foul water surfacing as a result. Hopefully LENR puts a stop to fracking.

  • Mike Henderson
    • artefact

      Swagelok can make lots of money from LENR ….

      • Mike Henderson

        We used to joke that Swagelok could be sold by the gram like cocaine or gold chains.

    • TomR

      I think the extra volume involved to get to a relief valve is a problem, but I think MFMP is working on it.

  • Surveilz

    History in the making, gotta love it. Thank you gentlemen, your open science could spark a planet-saving revolution.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    MFMP peeps. thanks for this video. very interesting.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are doing calculations on the pressure reach inside (and also for the heated and cooled mini-glowstick) and the numbers are scary. The little glowstick should NOT be dissembled.

    I have suggested adding Zirconium/Aluminium based getter St 101 (not one of the others) to the mix as that it will adsorb the H2 as it is evolved (along with gettering all the other gasses in the mix) and then release it above 1200ºC. There fore we can regulate the pressure at the top end. It also extremely quickly adsorbs vast quantities H2 when it cools from 1200ºC to room temperature. At room temperature it can store 1500 times its own volume.

    With the right mix, it should be safe to disassemble cells of this type. This however requires some further research.

    http://www.emissionlabs.com/html/articles/GETTER/getter.htm

    http://www.getters.com/Zirconium-Aluminum.html

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe this could even be interesting as a fuel. Fleischmann/Pons mention zirconium as a possible LENR-active material in their patent application from 1990:

      https://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1990010935A1?cl=en&hl=de

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is a transition metal, according to Piantelli, this would absolutely work.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          And it’s already optimized to soak in lots of hydrogen…

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Interesting idea about a chemical solution, no opinion from me on it other than it’s worth investigating. However, adding new metals, problem.

      I’ve been suggesting all along that sealing as Parkhomov did, or similar, is simpler. Measuring the pressure is very tricky to do live, and probably not worth the complications, but there is a way to do it post-facto. If a Parkhomov tube is weighed before the experiment, and after, and if there have been no leaks, it will weigh the same (assuming the cylinder has been pre-baked). With a very precise scale, the hydrogen weight can be measured enough to be able to determine the pressure if it has all been converted to gas form. It is also possible to measure the relative weight to high precision with an ad hoc beam balance.

      It is then possible to release this gas into an inverted container of liquid, like a graduated cylinder upside down. I think of doing it by drilling a very small hole, the smallest drill bit I could get, into the cylinder, while it is under water. The hydrogen will come out quickly, but the rate could be calculated in advance (I have *not* done the math). A jig would be used to hold everything in place. The force on the drill from pressure, as it breaks through, would not be high, but all these numbers should be carefully determined.

      I am recommending making “fuel tubes” without the heater and thermocouple, then making a sleeve that holds heaters and thermocouples (at least two!). That sleeve would be re-usable, and if the fuel tubes are standard size, the assembly could be reproducibly calibrated for temperature vs power.

  • Ged

    Let’s hope these instructions help to spur more replication attempts and analysis; with safety ever the mantra!

    Thanks for this methods video.