Live Experiment from Denis Vasilenko (AKA Firax Tech) — (UPDATE #3 May 24 Test Ends with Indication of a Possible LENR Event)

A new LENR Experiment has been started by Denis Vasilenko, aka Firax Tech. He writes that this experiment is designed to test his quartz reactor for hydrogen leaks.

In this thread on the LENR-Forum, Denis describes his reactor:

​Features a small tube: quartz, external diameter – 6.1mm, 3.8mm internal diameter, length – 13.5mm
It features a large tube: quartz, external diameter – 10mm inner diameter – 7.6mm, length – 20mm.
Spiral – Nichrome, 100 turns, the thickness of 0.5mm, 6 ohms.
Fuel – 500 mg nickel, 35mg – LiAlH4.

Here’s a picture of the reactor (more images can be seen here:!OYI1zDoK!3Z5ICjog31VQeYKcf8Cn9Q)


Live video showing the measurement instruments can be seen below:

The round dial is the manometer showing pressure; the red display is the temperature; the display on the lower left is current, and the display on the lower right is the voltage.

UPDATE #2 (May 24, 2015)

A new test by Denis Vasilenko has just begun today. In this test he is using a ceramic reactor in the style of Alexander Parkhomov, instead of the quartz used in the previous one. There are actually two reactors being used in this experiment: one fueled, and one unfueled (the control). A live video stream is embedded below:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

There is live chat with the video, and Denis is participating (his name there is Firax Tech)

Spreadsheet with live updated data is available here:

UPDATE #3 (May 26, 2015) The test is over, ending with a meltdown of some kind of the fueled reactor.

At around 5:45:30 on the Part 5 video, you begin to hear a buzzing noise, and the the fueled reactor burns more brightly — at the same time the unfueled reactor goes dim.

The meters are hard to read during this episode, but I can make out the fueled temperature at one point reaches 1300 while the unfueled temperature drops into the 800 C range.

So to me, if you combine both the meter readings, and the visual evidence, there does seem to have been an unusual event take place — abeit very briefly. Of the live tests by replicators we have seen so far, to me, this one seems to be the one that has best evidence of showing an LENR event taking place.

Pictures of the reactor in the aftermath of the test can be seen in this folder (thanks artefact):!mBAwTCLI!A7g5i8LjxdPZdsoZjXCBWQ

Here’s a closeup of the fueled reactor:


  • Axil Axil

    I wonder if the LENR reaction in the Hot cat might benefit from a wider swing in the temperature in the PID cycle, say 200C. For example, let say a delta T temperature swing of 200C…the minimum temperature is 800C and the maximum temperature is 1000C

    Why do I say this?

    I believe that there is a nanoparticle formation process going on caused by the temperatures swings. Without temperature swings, the reaction does not seem to work. The nanoparticles are formed when the temperature goes through the supercritical gas saturation boundary between the supercritical gas state and the non supercritical gas state. The wider that the temperature swing is, the better is the chance for nanoparticle formation.

    I believe that the pressure drop seen in the hot cat over time is due to the formation of nanoparticles as gas turns into a solid nano-dust.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    How about the inside-out design of reactor (see the scheme of the reactor on the link below) for better heat exchange (heater inside and reactor active zone is outside) and temperature control (one TC on the reactor shell outside and and another one on the heater inside) ?

  • Sanjeev
    • Stephen Taylor

      Looking forward to these upcoming replication attempts. Many well prepared hard working people working on this so more learned on every attempt. Thanks to all of you.

  • Obvious

    A quick summary of a test last night (no fuel):
    I added ceramic paste to the outside of my tube that has been run many times, that has a thin enamel coat “wetting” the coil to the tube. This was before deciding that the paste is a bad idea, and it was already baked on, so no going back. I will do a proper data analysis later (bit busy right now), but these are the notable parts.
    -The temperature delta between outside and inside is greatly increased. I could formerly get the exposed surface to vey close to the interior temperature. Now it is very much lower in temperature.
    -The delay period of both thermocouples to reaching a steady state takes much longer. I would guess the time period has doubled, maybe more. This is due to increased thermal mass, no doubt. At higher temperatures it seems less noticeable than at lower temperatures, but it is significant.
    -The interior temperature was greatly increased at the same power level. This might seem like a good thing, but I think it is very bad. My previous maximum temperature was about 780°C, now 1075°C, at around 523 W.
    I think if there was a LENR event at my current maximum temperature, the tube would fail, the contents would boil, the coil windings would melt, the TC maximum rating would be exceeded (in no particular order). The interior heat cannot be removed fast enough with exterior insulation, and there is now a long delay before it would be noticeable. If I were to bring the exterior to 1200°C, then the inside would be well over 1500°C now, maybe much hotter.
    I think that NO EXTERIOR INSULATION would be best for testing, and the coils should be designed to make the correct heat externally. The inside heat will be hotter anyways. This way coil problems can be seen, the coils will remain oxidized properly, and internal heat will not cause instant failures. If any insulation is used, it must be very thin, very high heat conductive, etc.,until other problems are sorted out.
    The tradeoff for higher inside heat with exterior insulation is poor heat release to the outside. If excess heat occurs at a rate that the heat cannot be conducted away, there will be certain failure of the device. Maximum heat radiation is required for successful experiments. Any quality PID control of heat needs the most fast-acting, lowest Delta T, and most representative temperature reading it can get.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for testing and for your continued sophisticated analyses. Regarding the problem of heat transfer, it might be an alternative to mount the heater inside, and the vessel that contains the fuel around it, or – perhaps better – to use a flat heater and place the (also flat) reactor on top of it. I recall that some reader proposed a similar setup a while ago, with the idea to use it like a hotplate. A simple pot filled with water would then suffice for basic calorimetry.

      • Obvious

        I think the tube is probably the best design generally. A hot plate might work also, but may have heat dissipation issues I suspect. Convection will be problematic, and heat radiation ability greatly limited for a fuel container. Hot plate issues can be worked out, but since almost no one is doing them (currently) there is less help and info from other experiments to guide its use.

        My tube is 3/4″ outside and 1/2″ inside diameter, and was planned for inserting a replaceable fuelled tube at some point, after working out whatever problems and tests I wanted to try. The large size makes it easier to see what is going on. I was able to get the outside temperature almost to the same as the internal temperature before putting the cement on it. I very much regret the cement addition, but I can build another tube. I need more power anyways, so a complete rewind is due, so not a big deal.

        I think thermometry should be an easy and fairly simple way to get the system worked out. If excess heat (temperature) happens then proper calorimetry is the obvious next step. But this adds a lot more complexity while getting a suitable device to even work electrically in a reliable way, let alone with some sort of reaction, if done from the start.

    • Obvious

      Graph of last night.
      The IR (dots only) used to follow the inside heat within 20-40 degrees, and match the outside (0.93 emissivity). Now both emissivity and the tight match with the inside temperature is shot.

  • Sanjeev

    Nick Oseyko, a new replicator from Ukraine, shows a neat experiment as a “proof of concept”.
    Perhaps Bob knows more and will post details. Posting here for more visibility and FYI.

  • penswrite

    Accepting that Mr. Rossi doesn’t want to reveal his secret sauce, it would still greatly behoove his, and LENR’s, commercial future to post a live-updated demonstration of one of his e-cats. At this point in LENR’s progress, a cat fight would be wonderful to behold.

    Whoever wins.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Andrea Rossi publishes new photo “listening to the voice” on his site.


    “Andrea Rossi 1MW Plant

    Photo of Andrea Rossi listening to the “voice” of the 1 MW E-Cat in the factory of the Customer”

    I actually quite like this photo – it is comical and serious and a little staged – but I actually think, if he has something, it will be come a classic.

    • Sanjeev

      Bob, how did the calibration go ? Is the active run all set up to start tomorrow as planned ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pre-heat / passivation done first yesterday, calibration started 17:30 California local time yesterday.

        Hopefully run today.

        • Sanjeev

          Great! Looking forward to it.

          One thing I liked about the Live Open Science experiments, such as Denis’s, is that the crowd sourced data collection, plotting, calculations, review and criticism all happened in one day. About 75 people saw it live (may be not continuously, because it was so long), and it cost almost nothing to publish. Everything is still available for all for free.

          Compare that to the months and months taken by a “traditional experiment” to get the same job done and money spent. We are taking Science into IT age and of course MFMP is leading.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, it does cost a lot of volunteer time and resources, and also donations. BUT – the point is SO MUCH time and effort is wasted by having many critical, interested minds suggesting, analysing etc. This massively reduces repetition of research, both paper and physical such that the iterative process is orders of magnitude faster and more efficient.

            • Sanjeev

              I guess you mean “effort is saved”.
              Yes, avoiding repetition is another advantage. But replication is not simple repetition, its also confirmation.

              • Bob Greenyer

                for sure… but we need to have a working approach first!

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Truly fun to watch & comment. Think the LENR process may be like lighting a match & needs faster look at ultra low momentum neutron generation & thermal self regulating control to interact with external PID controller. Would save a lot of burned out tubes. Denis had beautiful limit cycle glowing in the night air for a while on 15 sec period at the end of tubes life.