The Length of Replication Attempts (Axil Axil)

I have been clamoring for an automated Hot cat replication process using a software driven experiment controller that would allow for a time unlimited experimental capability. This change in the control process is meant to address the one flaw in the replication experimental strategy: the extremely short duration of the replication attempts as a consequence of the finite tolerance of the experimenter to endure a long test.

In the Lugano test, an automated feedback system controlled the test for at least ten days before the LENR reaction eventually set in. This lack of experimental endurance by MFMP and others could be responsible for the lack of positive Lugano replication results.

To be a valid replication, a gestation period of up to 10 days at low power should be put into action before a reduction of input power consumption should be expected. MFMP is fooling themselves as to what a valid Lugano test replication should look like. An initial startup phase of up to a fortnight should be planned for. After the 10 day startup period there was a gradual period of downward adjustment in the input power over a unspecified period of time. It is not surprising that MFMP is not seeing the results that were reported in the Lugano report.

As stated in the Lugano report as follows:

“Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the Ecat fluctuating at around 810 W. Although we had been informed that the E-Cat was capable of operating at higher power values, we had previously decided to keep to the lower value, and for almost 10 days no adjustments to the apparatus were made.

“After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W.

“Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the
reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.”

  • Gerard McEk

    What you are proposing is absolutely true Axil, however that appoach requires time and money and that can hardly be asked from the enthausiastic volunteers doing that work to their own cost. Maybe that the industry or reseach instituions have started with testing this and no doubt they will use these methods and much better instrumentation to get the first signs of LENR.
    One thing I would do anyway is to evacuate the fuel and then keep it in an hydrogen atmosphere untill short before you put it in the reactor. That may enhance the reaction start.

  • wizkid

    Dear Axil, the wheels are turning. Unreliable ignition systems are painful. A reliable, single, unit, computerized replication process device, complete with a small internal actuator (mouse), is almost ready to share with others that can assist with the line testing. It is temperature driven, not power driven. It automatically adapts to SSM mode by backing off the power usage. Cheers!

    • Mats002

      I can’t wait to see your creation coming alive 🙂 !!!

  • Warthog

    Long induction times are “old hat” in Pd/D2 systems….the exception being the codeposition process developed by Spivak and colleagues at SPAWAR, which shows excess heat “immediately” on being run. It is all about the structure of the “nuclear active environment”.

    You can either “build it in place” (Pons/Fleischmann, Rossi, and many others) during a long induction time interval, or “build the structure from scratch” (Miles(Pd/ZrO2 lattice), Mitchell (Nanor)). The latter either show excess heat spontaneously upon being exposed to D2 (the Pd/ZrO2) or after a short heating step (Nanor).

  • Leonard Weinstein

    One other point: The power should not be the variable of control, the temperature should. Both need to be controlled and measured, but the computer control should adjust input power to hold temperature settings at desired levels.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Any operation other than immersion in water and measuring boiling mass loss is too difficult to do well and has too many sources of errors to be useful. The process by Parkhomov was a very good approach to accurate measurement. The need for long term continuous operation requires interface of measurements with a computer and controllers. A good approach would be to have the pot of water well insulated and mounted on a scale with a computer compatible output. These are easily available for less than $50 (25 pound capacity). The initial water fill is boiled and rate of loss of weight shows power to generate steam. Conduction loss can be easily determined and added to steam loss for full power out. The ratio of this to power in (using true RMS measurements) gives COP. The water is automatically replaced by the computer when a modest fraction (about 1/4) is boiled off, using a powered valve and water line controlled by the computer and output from the scale. A delay is used to allow the input water to reboil. Recording the loss rate after the water is boiling gives long term performance.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Leonard, you just described my experimental setup to a tee!

      https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/pb.466698113360893.-2207520000.1436281099./988125057884860/?type=3&theater

      This type of system does require a significant investment of time to get working properly. I’ve likely spent a hundred hours or more writing software to control the system and prevent it from burning my house down (I had a close call when Windows decided it needed to update and shut control down while leaving a solid state relay on. I’ve now included watchdog timers to ensure that doesn’t happen again). I’m currently in the process of adding PID control to my software and I hope to have it finished within the next week or two.
      The good news is that once the software is written and working properly I can share it with other inventors that would like to try a similar system. Once the software is complete, it should allow me to run a test hands-off for several days (other than occasionally adding distilled water).
      One challenge we still face is developing long running Kanthal heating elements. I’ve taken steps on my latest design that I hope will help. Some other inventors have considered silicon carbide heating elements but I do not think they are a good candidate for a water calorimetry system since they are easily and permanently damaged by water vapor.

    • Warthog

      “Any operation other than immersion in water and measuring boiling mass
      loss is too difficult to do well and has too many sources of errors to
      be useful.”

      As I recall, this was precisely what Rossi did in his first few demonstrations, yet the skeptics found all sorts of errors (wet steam/dry steam). No matter what method is used, the skeptics will ALWAYS find fault (whether the fault exists or not….it sppears to be sufficient for propaganda purposes simply to raise the level of doubt).

  • John

    Replication needs investment. With no money we can talk during hundreds of years… I’m capable of trying dozens of set-ups, but I can’t pay all by myself. Rossi Sold a House and burned the money in the new fire…

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      John, very good point and something I have struggled with for a over a year as I’ve emptied my own meager savings working on this. No one believes in this, so why should they invest? The only solution I’ve come up with so far is sharing our results and methods so that collectively we can do more than we would be able to individually.

      I’m a very strong believer in capitalism, but until we get the science to the point where the risk is low enough that investors will take interest, I think sharing is the only way forward. Unless you want to sell your house…I’m not quite ready to do that yet.

      • john

        Yes, but the entire process we are using to share is completely wrong. I tell you, EcatWorld is a content managed website, much probably the answer for the issue of achieving cold fusion is here on the thousands and thousands of comments but it’s impossible to find this answer. Why ? Because there is no Heuristics here to organize every bit of information/Idea. Same for experiments, there is not a collective sharing well organized, for instance, I need an instrument you have it, I use it and turn it back, others have tools, others have even 10 or 20$ ok its a small amount but it helps always. Where is this organization? There is not. So IF we are a community we must work as community and I don’t see any ideas to concentrate all that I said and much more in a platform, “A LENR platform”

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Tools are in place to address many of the concerns you have. Frank has set up the knowledge base to organize information. We just need to lead by example and use it.
          The MFMP and Energy 2.0 Society are avenues for organizing replicators/inventors. The Energy 2.0 Society is even currently working on a web based software platform to organize test efforts. Both of these groups could use more volunteers and or donations.
          If you are a replicator/inventor or even just desire to be, let us know. Frank can put you in touch with other replicator/inventors like myself.
          The worst thing you can do to move the technology forward is just be a lurker. Get moving and sharing.

  • Nixter

    With the many variables at play here, fuel composition, container type, type of stimulation, amplitude of stimulation, length of time of stimulation, length of time of heating, etc, etc. It’s not too surprising that the exact formula for success has yet to be achieved. Replication teams coordinating on trying different combinations of the variables might have a better chance of finding the optimum parameters than the scattered approach seen so far.