MFMP Team Starts New Live Glowstick Experiment (Latest: Active Side of Reactor Hotter by 20+ Degrees)

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting about the latest live experiment from the MFMP in Santa Cruz, California.

Information and links can be found at the Quantum Heat website here:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/522-glowstick-5-3

There is also a live video feed on Youtube here:

Part 1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAfl-M37r1M
Part 2 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TUCZ0e1zjwI
Part 3 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uEV_HYb0PG
Part 4 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/iiXjX_VZp_I
Part 5 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZMZxElslOVY
Part 6 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/5SeFNZDqs80
Part 7 video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-K2p_v5H0-c
Part 8 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/GfAJv-jhCY8
Part 9 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/xUyWnN–u7M
Part 10 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/M60lflLHpVE
Part 11 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/1XHE4ccw-Uo
Part 13 video https://www.youtube.com/embed/I7z8_Lt3Uhk
https://www.youtube.com/embed/C39M7GPcqRQ
UPDATE (April 14 2016)

Bob Greenyer wrote below:

So, just as we went through approximately 250ºC in the core from calibration (the temp at which excess heat onset occurs according to IH patent application) we saw the TCs and Optris PI160 average temp over whole cell sides diverge by around 1ºC

during this period, we saw at least 2 thermal neutron driven bubbles form LIVE in the bubble tech thermal neutron detector – the first time that detector has shown anything since being activated a week ago.

You can see the event by going back in the youtube stream

  • Bob Greenyer

    *GlowStick* 5.3 LowHigh temperature cycling

    http://youtu.be/__Bd04bf0ao

    • Ged

      Look like another bubble in the refreshed thermal neutron detector. Can’t tell if it is real or a background thingy without a full screen view, unfortunately.

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is an artifact of the new placement.

        I am going to do the highest power step of the experiment in a moment 1250W and then park, probably at around 80W (seamed to be a good temp for thermals) overnight with the bubble cam front and centre in a new stream – just debating with ecco if to place it at 160W given the past data.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Bob, did you read this report by Mats Lewan from October 2011? It seems to contain some interesting information about power management and triggering SSM (for the low-temp E-cat, though):

      https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/test-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have that report, I cited it in my first video of the on-going ‘Signal’ release – but thankyou for reminding me – I hadn’t considered this aspect of what it may be revealing.

  • Sanjeev

    Does someone know what me356 is doing here?
    http://lenr-experiment.tk/
    This is from 16th. I see something strange, when there is a power cut, the temperature shoots up, and there is a rise of 60C with almost constant power input.(I guess).

    • Ecco

      He is not posting information or data at all besides this limited 15-minute window silently updated when he’s working on it. Sudden jumps might not necessarily be due to actual temperature increases. It’s hard to tell.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I will meet up with him again when back in Eastern Europe.

      • Sanjeev

        May be he uploaded it to plotly unknowingly.
        Note the pressure pulses 0-2.7bar. The spike seems to be correlated to the sudden pressure vents. Almost 100C in 10 secs. It will be nice to know his secret recipe.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, that’s very interesting. I wonder what would happen if he’d let the power on. Would the generation of anomalous heat continue, or would it be stopped? The second scenario would be consistent with Rossi’s statements about the necessity of an external power supply to control the reaction.

          • Sanjeev

            From the plot, it does look like the heat will continue to grow rapidly. The PID shuts down the power completely. So yes, I guess, a pressure pulse to start it and power cut to stop it.

            • Andreas Moraitis

              I rather thought it went the other way round: Release pressure, and as soon as the temperature rises cut the power. Cutting the power completely could be more effective than just reducing it – maybe because the EM field of the coils would be counterproductive in this particular situation.

              • Mats002

                Agree, maybe not only release but avtively pump out pressure for maximum drop. Only a guess from what he said over at LENRForum.

              • Ecco

                It might also have to do with the mean free path of the atomic hydrogen getting desorbed from the metals used during the unloading steps. It would survive longer at a low pressure.

        • Ecco

          It does seem that temperatures suddenly increase when hydrogen is almost completely vented off, at least according to pressure readings, which might come from a pressure transducer not suitable for correctly measuring a vacuum.

          I previously wrote that it’s hard to tell because we don’t actually know what’s going on and what he might be changing (for example on the IR temperature probe); I did not put too much thought on the data.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Assuming LuFong’s quick and dirty equation for COP is correct (I have no idea if it is) the COP over the course of the experiment would look like this:

    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/51/cop/

    • Ged

      Really looks like the high temperature cyclings did break something in the fuel, and hobbled it.

      • Ecco

        I don’t think this is a good assumption.

        The temperature differential might have varied both ways over time, but reactor temperatures only increased all around. See this comparison using bits of a graph I previously made:

        http://i.imgur.com/c4uR5HB.png

        Five days ago at 900W the average IR temperature of the split sections in the Optris camera was >50 °C lower for both the Null and the Active side.

        • Matt Sevrens

          What’s the implication of this?

          • Ecco

            Artifact, or the excess heat not coming from what was previously assumed.

            • Ged

              Or the heat just spreading better than anticipated (breakdown of the alumina felt between the two for instance). There is still a difference between sides much above the calibration, too. Gotta consider all the evidence.

              • US_Citizen71

                It should also be considered that the temperature was taken above the boiling point of Lithium many times. Lithium vapor may have condensed on the cooler null side and during cooling cycles as well.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hmmm – are you seeing the calibrations when you do this?

          By that, I mean, for the DEVICE in options are you able to see the calibration data… if not perhaps it is embedded in the RAVI.

          Can you let me know the two files in question and I can load them in to check this end.

          • Ecco

            The files:

            1) Part 10 – 23:00
            2) Part 24 – 07:30

            The process:

            1) Load one of the video with split sections (e.g. Part 24)
            2) Menu > Tools > Layout > Insert a name
            3) Menu > Tools > Layout > Save layout
            4) Load one of the videos with single sections (e.g. Part 10)
            5) Menu > Tools > Layout > Select the previously saved layout name
            6) Menu > Tools > Layout > Load layout

            Under “Tools > Configuration > Device” I can’t see anything related to calibrations. If you meant “temperature ranges” or “optics”, they’re grayed out; I’m assuming they can’t be selected when there is no Optris camera connected. However, if I enable the status bar (View > View bars > Status Bar) I see on the bottom:

            1) Part 10 – 23:00
            Temperature range=200-1500°C, epsilon=0.950, ambient=29.2°C

            2) Part 24 – 07:30
            Temperature range=200-1500°C, epsilon=0.950, ambient=28.2°C

        • Ged

          Well then, I stand corrected. Excess heat is more heat out than power in, ultimately. So, the heat spread by convection, or perhaps the reactants did.

        • Obvious

          That’s a big jump.
          The 600W area is similar.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Ged

      Does the manual say anything about if bubbles up by the label count or not? As there is one way up in that region too (it’s been there for awhile though).

      • Bob Greenyer

        No – you cannot count them also

        • Ged

          Figured as much. Thank you for clarifying!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yesterday it was at 80W, today 55W – I am moving to 65W in the current step… tomorrow I will try some low temp up/down cycles.

            • Ged

              That is, more heat per input power? And cycling could prove very interesting. Perhaps the neutron a are generated when the fuel enters an active state… So many potentials, need more data :D.

    • Axil Axil

      What causes all those small bubbles in the high energy neutron detector?

      • Bob Greenyer

        It just comes like that, that is in its ‘ready to detect” state- if you look at the live stream now – you can see what a proper bubble looks like. Each detector type has a different formulation to only detect certain types of neutrons and nothing else, that is what has made them industry standard.

        • Anon2012_2014

          Bob, the one on the right is the high energy neutron detector with thousands of little bubbles.

          the on on the left is the thermal neutron detector (says “mrem(2.7”) with what looks to me to be two bubbles, one on the top center right, and one on the middle left of the test tube???

          Thanks

          • Bob Greenyer

            In the low temp test (to try to confirm if low temps would generate Thermal Neutrons) we saw 3 bubbles over the period, at least one themal appearance event was identified on the live stream by a watcher.

            The fast neutron detector shows thousands of little bubbles anyhow – if you want to see a real fast neutron detection bubble appear, we caught one of those on camera also!

            https://youtu.be/1L-Oet3zPJc?t=1h5m

        • Anon2012_2014

          Also looks like there was a spike in both low energy protons and high energy protons due to a solar storm on the 18th through the 20th, more or less. Could these neutrons be associated with that event??

          • Bob Greenyer

            Longer and more experiments will show for sure, but me 356 had already seen neutrons in same kind of detectors but was not monitoring so could not say at what point in the experiment. Whilst correlation is not necessarily causation (and that goes for solar flares) we did not see any thermal neutrons in the preceding week when we went over the full range of temperatures in calibration with just Nickel in the cell. During that time we saw 1-2 fast neutrons per day, perhaps there were solar flares during those days that only produced fast neutrons and left the other ones out. We did not see any thermal neutrons at high temperatures – just at low temperatures and so after the main replication and some other tests, We did a period of low temperatures and again we saw thermal neutrons again. More testing by more people is needed. We did not see thermal neutrons until H2, Li and LiAlH4 was added.

  • Mats002

    No beer! First food and a full night sleep. You guys must be exhausted – boy what a marathon – well done, thanks!

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have just eaten – I am going to investigate the park up the road, try and remind myself what the outside world looks like.

  • Argon

    Bob, thank you for dedication and big big effort on digging the the truth for humanity.

    My question. Have you ever considered to use spark plug or similar setup as trigger for reaction. Sparks contains lots of frequencies and generates pretty strong fields (ever heard bike sparks from FM radio in all frequencies if faulty plug lead on bike ).

    Additionally, if spark could be caused inside reactor, it would contain UV frequencies even generating ozone (O2) so pretty many flies with one spark.
    After ‘spying’ Rossis competitor (Br…) site and videos, they also really seem have used normal electrical ‘dot welding’ station in their first generation demo and latest demo sounded and looked like normal electric welding also.

    Just a thought.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes, we built the ‘sparky’ cell in Minnesota and Stoyan Sarg built a Tesla type HV generator for us – spark gap and all, currently they are awaiting resurrection because they only had a quick experiment .. it was all before much of our current knowledge and experience was accrued, we had not visited Piantelli etc, etc – but it takes quite a bit of money to run things even when people are volunteering!

      We have discussed it over this week and we would like to put it back in play when we can.

      • psi2u2

        You guys need and deserve a big grant from somebody.

  • WayneM

    After reading much of this, i can’t decide if it clear or not.

    Did the “signal” get replicated?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well, we learned a lot!

      – by following the recipe, we appear to have witnessed excess heat evidence of a similar scale
      – The temperature data is more compelling with the Optris in play and the backside test
      – We saw small number of thermal neutrons only after adding Li and LiAlH4 to the mix, and only during periods of lower temperature
      – We seem to have shown the temperature above which the system either fails – OR – needs ‘re-invigorating’ somehow, this perhaps sets an upper band for this fuel mix.
      – We seem to have shown the temperature around which evidence of excess heat appears.
      – We need more analysis of the spectrum, but what we have not seen is a short time frame x-ray emission, we did think it may have been over a long time frame since the ‘Signal’ bled from trace 7 to 8 in GS 5.2 and this supports Edmund Storms report from 2012 that says that the soft x-rays, when created, have a half life of 109 minutes. Groups of 10min traces need to be analysed to see if there is something of this length

      In short, given the analysis done thus far, we have repeatedly seen evidence of radiation (Neutrons) at low temperatures and excess heat.

      • Ged

        Beautiful summary. Thank you, Bob.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I’m in awe of you guys for the dedication and time you all put in there. Really great experiment!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks, I got 1 h 10mins last night… looking for a snooze after a bite to eat

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            That’s though… You know, if I ever meet you, the beer’s on me 😉

            • Bob Greenyer

              cool, mmm beer…

              Where do you prefer it, on the head?

      • psi2u2

        Sounds like a good combination to me. Not that I know anything, but if I did, it would.

        Its just the having three different signals, even if they are at a low frequency, altogether, well the whole of the evidence becomes more than the sum of its parts, seems to me.

        Do you agree?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest stream – Low temperature bubble cam watch

    http://youtu.be/C39M7GPcqRQ

    • Ged

      Yet another new bubble (not counting the one at the very bottom). We may be able to estimate a neutron rate if this keeps up for a few more.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Ged,

        You get the award for chief bubble watcher, I might take the temperature lower to the point we fist saw bubbles appear in the initial run up after adding Li + LiAlH4.

        • Ged

          I think that would be a good idea. It may be a narrow temperature range where this reaction mode takes place that allows neutrons to escape.

          Seems at the higher temperatures, the mode changes and different sorts of radiation are produced but neutrons don’t seem to make it out enough to see in the current set up. But I don’t think we yet know where the upper or lower temperature thresholds are for this activity.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A good summary.

      • Bob Greenyer

        9 seconds after this point in the video stream, a neutron is detected in the upper right portion of the thermal neutron detector.

        https://youtu.be/FJHy_PXjL3s?t=1h32m18s

        • Ged

          It’s gorgeous. Such a surprising number of neutrons; potent evidence. Now to figure out what parameters are triggering their release (and what parameters inhibit) and what it means for the mechanism. That should lead to designing superior reactors/fuel mixtures.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Stoyan Sarg predicted slow neutrons from Ni + 7Li + H2 a long time ago, and re-asserted that before the recent GS 5.3 experiment

            Stoyan Sargs plenary presentation at the NanoWorld conference, 4-6 Apr, 2016, before the start of *GlowStick* 5.3 in which we apparently observed thermal neutrons on multiple occasions, only in lower temperature ranges.

            http://goo.gl/GpWKe7

  • Bob Greenyer

    Testing stimulation with very low 1uC Cs137 check source.

    Cs137 Translator Video

    https://goo.gl/heetsN

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Impressive! What did your instruments say?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well the NaI sees that it is Cs137. The Geiger counters increase. The x-ray probe and CdTe doesn’t see much, but then it is not in line and they are not able to see much above 120keV

        As for heat… not a lot of difference, as predicted with such a small source at a distance – but worth doing the test just to know.

  • Obvious

    The outside TC just did a 5 °C drop. about 11:10 pacific time.
    16:09 time stamp

  • Bob Greenyer

    Top positional reference and shot of backside IR reflector arrangement.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the relative position to the cell – the image is nearly horizontal.

  • Bob Greenyer

    After a Long Cool period, we re-heat and see another Thermal Neutron…

    • Matt Sevrens

      Are thermal neutrons dangerous?

      • Obvious

        depends on your lifestyle …?
        Yeah, they’re bad.

      • Ecco

        Slower neutrons are more likely to interact with matter than faster ones.

    • Ged

      Now that is something fantastic to see.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest stream – Active and null backside differential check test starting

    • Obvious

      The mirror view is cool.

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is not ideal, but best we could do for a quick test to attempt to support or refute the data over the last week. Unfortunately we seam to have foo-bared the Nickel to a degree (if you believe their is excess) – but this is data that helps discussion.

        • Obvious

          Any chance of aligning the Optris lens parallel to the mirror, after the planned run, but before shutting down, and doing a few temp steps?
          And measuring the angle relative to the lens now? It will help us argue less endlessly about normal versus oblique IR reflectance and stuff. (Just for us geeks).

          • Bob Greenyer

            We might arrange the camera to see the other side more

            • Obvious

              I am just wondering how much the mirror (stainless steel?) angle affects the IR temp.
              Like if tilting it back and forth a bit, if there is a sweet spot where it is hottest in the reflection.
              Not something to fiddle with mid-experiment, clearly.

        • Ged

          Ironically, the nickel getting messed up would be supporting evidence of what was seen before it was degraded. There is definitely some difference, but it does look to be quite a bit weaker than before.

  • Ged

    Looks like a new stream is up!

    http://youtu.be/I7z8_Lt3Uhk

  • Slad

    Assuming the coils are producing the same amount of heat, a 37C surface temperature difference at 1022C (null side) gives a calculated COP of 1.11

    http://www.thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/convect/natural/horiz-cylinder/horiz-cylinder.htm

    • Matt Sevrens

      How exactly is the COP calculated using that link? What values did you use for everything?

      • Slad

        e = 0.45
        L = 0.2
        D = 0.019
        Tc = 1060 or 1022

        All the other values are left alone.

        q is the heat flux (“power”) required to maintain a cylindrical surface at Tc

        The ratio of q (active) / q (null) is the COP

        • Matt Sevrens

          Why an emissivity of 0.45? They’ve been using 0.95 in the Optris software settings.

          • Slad

            The Optris works on a narrow band of IR frequencies, for alumina this band emissivity is about 0.95

            • Matt Sevrens

              I’m not sure I understand. Shouldn’t the emissivity used to calculate the temperatures match the emissivity used to calculate the COP?

              • Slad

                The alumina emits radiation over a range of frequencies, this whole range has an average emissivity of 0.45 (at 1000C).

                The optris only sees a narrow slice of these frequencies, which fall in an area of the emmissivity curve where the values average to 0.95

                • Obvious

                  What was the actual power in at the peak? It would be interesting to see if the ε’s can be tightened up or if the other losses are big in comparison to the ideal case.

                • Slad

                  As far as I can tell, each half of the reactor was receiving about 500W.

                  By setting e=0.2 and Tc=1022 the calculator outputs an approximatley ‘correct’ answer

                  Re-evaluating this way gives an excess of 50W and hence a COP of 1.1

                • Obvious

                  I am having trouble finding the timestamp for the area of the largest ΔT. There is a lot of data….

                • Matt Sevrens

                  I didn’t know how to sync the Optris data to any particular time stamp. The time scale is just seconds since the beginning of file 9.

                • Matt Sevrens

                  Where are you getting 500W?

                  This original graph from Ecco shows an input power of 1030W when the temp diff was 37.

                  http://i.imgur.com/mS07Hwa.png
                  https://plot.ly/30/~msevrens/

                • Slad

                  1030W divided by 2…

                  500W per side

                • Matt Sevrens

                  Ah

                • Obvious

                  So, (correct me if I mess this up) looking at the 0.5% difference in V between sides, the high V side has higher R, which has lower current and therefore lower Joule heating. This is the null side.
                  So we divide 1030 W by 2, and get 515 W.
                  Multiply 1030 W by 0.5% and get 5.15 W (I’ll round to 5 W)
                  Subtract 5 W from the null side, and add it to the hot side, so:
                  null side 510 W, hot side 520 W. Not enough to move the T very much, but affects the calculated COP.

                • Slad

                  In your method I think the 0.5% also has to be divided by 2, hence about 512W and 517W

                  Which… if the voodoo e=0.2 method is a realistic correction and the excess heat is about 45W, gives a COP of 1.09

                • Obvious

                  I’m not following you on that.
                  As I understood it, one side had 0.5% more voltage than the other. Since the Joule heat changes with ΔI^2, it may actually be higher for W on the hotter side rather than lower.

                • Slad

                  The current is constant so the power to each side is inversely proportional to V.

                  If V changes by 0.5%, the difference in joule heating between the two coils can only differ by 515W * 0.005 = 2.5W

                • Obvious

                  It is more complex than it seems, once the ΔT gets significant. The hotter side will increase resistance naturally as a result of the temperature-related coefficient of resistance of the heater wire.
                  It seems so simple until the details start getting picked away at.

                • Slad

                  True, but I think if you analysed the temperature vs resistance of the kanthal wire, a 37C difference would only equate to a tiny/negligible difference in joule heating.

                • Obvious

                  About 1% change in R over 100°C

                • Slad

                  Based on that, I reckon that any more detailed analysis would show at least COP=1.09

                • Obvious

                  I doubt it.

                • Slad

                  The active side has a 0.5% lower resistance at low temperatures, but this would be cancelled out by the approx. 0.4% increase in resistance at the elevated temperature… The joule heating to each core would be essentially the same.

                • Obvious

                  I think it is surprisingly more complicated than that.
                  I would like to see it work, but I don’t think the GS5.3 does excess definitively.

                • Slad

                  Well, It’s all about the radiation really, innit?

                  Sounds like you are volunteering for the math being done properly… 🙂

                • Obvious

                  No. Not right now anyways.
                  I am focused on getting my lab space re-organized and fireproofed, so the math part of brain just isn’t fully in the moment right now.

                  I would like to go over the GS5.2-3 null and active charge details a bit. There is something going on there, but probably not nuclear.

                  I will be doing some tests with supposedly inactive charges for thermal effects once I get organized. I have some stainless tubes, black rods, etc., to insert and just haven’t gotten around to doing anything with them. I nearly set the bench on fire last time, and severely cracked the heat shields, so that needs to be really spiffed up before I start up again.

                • Ged

                  The calibrations, pre and post, control for a lot of this already. Given the energies and radiation types, it could only be nuclear, unless it is something quite exotic; or there is something really big missed in both pre and post calibrations. But I don’t see what could be the latter, particularly as now this has been a replication of a previous time, and the other GS’s don’t really show much of anything–where the big difference then and now is the pre-treatment of the fuel.

                  I guess we’ll all just have to keep looking.

                  But there is something I am confused on in this conversation. You were saying the null is getting less heat due to having a higher resistance (less joule heating), but then have been implying that the active being hotter would drive up its resistance and make it hotter? But that would be the opposite–if the active was hotter and that drove up the resistance (less joule heating) it would be getting less heat from the coils by the same logic that was applied to the null’s example. I mean, one of these statements must not be true as they currently read, anyways, or I am just being silly and confused and misread your later statements.

                • Slad

                  Sounds like fun! And I guess it’s a bit too early to be talking COP figures before the post calibration is finished… But… If the graphs from the Glowstick 5.3 are correct, and there’s no grievous errors in reactor heat-transfer design (I don’t see any), it’s already well outside of any “chemical” regions of a Ragone plot.

                • Ged

                  I must give them huge props for their continued verification tests on the current reactor (trying to see the backside and such). All this due diligence is increasing confidence, and if there is some weird error, they should definitely find it.

                • Obvious

                  I don’t think it is chemical, but I do suspect it is a radiance or heat capacity thing of some sort.

                • Slad

                  You can plot heat capacity on a Ragone plot 😉

      • LuFong

        Another quick and dirty way, assuming both reactors are nearly identical, makes use of the fact that P ~ T(kelvin)^4. This gives a COP of about 1.12 for the numbers given (1060C->1333.15K)^4/ (1022C->1295.15K)^4.

    • Mats002

      I think COP is higher than that because XH from Active side conduct and radiate over to the Null side so the Tdiff should be compared with the calibration run and that should make COP slightly higher.

      COP 1.1 is a conservative calculation and that is ok with me anyway. Next goal kick it up!

      • Slad

        The crosstalk between reactors at 1060 and 1022C is about 0.4W

        assuming A=0.000157m^2, k=4W/m°C and L=0.06m

      • Slad

        Are the two halves blocked off, or can gas flow between them? If no gas flow, the crosstalk can only be about 0.5W

      • Matt Sevrens

        There does seem to be some temperature bleed into the null reactor but it happens after the supposed peak temp diff.

  • Ged

    I think I am not making myself clear enough, and you are misunderstanding? You keep using absolutes, but you missed the point which your own example of combustion makes. I guess it is my fault for not directly debunking your earlier arguments, but being gentle. Also, I am well aware what a chain reaction is, donut airy to your presumptuousness.

    1. Can their be a chain reaction in LENR to some stimulation? Yes, or course. Contrary to your earlier reasoning, a true chain reaction can certainly happen and release both only modest energy and last briefly. You forgot that all reactions need favorable condutions, and even a critical fission reactor works by moderating the probability of a reaction to start the next one, so that energy release is slow and controlled. Just because it is a chain reaction does not mean infinite rate, nor unlimited production.

    If the probability rate at which an LENR reaction triggers the next one is low, then the energy release is slow (low power). If the reaction has limited reactants, it doesn’t last long. Better yet, if the reaction need reactants in particular concentrations and states, and the reaction affects those states, it is self limiting. If the reaction makes product’s poisoness to itself, it is self limiting. In such cases, the chain reaction occurs for a bit and ceases.

    Combustion is a perfect example. As the chain initiator, heat, grows and dispersed the reactants, the reaction dies despite there being fuel. If the reaction is contained so that doesn’t happen, the products of the chain reaction poison it and it dies, despite there still being fuel. Only by cycling out the products can a reaction be pulse sustained and you get an internal combustion engine. Even more interesting, the reactants have to be in the right state in a very narrow range of concentrations to allow for combustion. Combustion can be sustained for a long time only if the heat changes a larger body of reactants from unreactive state to reactive in the right concentration range, and the products are free to disperse (e.g. candle).

    See, nothing crazy with a chain reaction, nor does it mean it’ll go for long or produce high power. See also the hydrogen-bromide reaction, which while being a chain reaction also has a resulting inhibition reaction and termination.

    2. Can the radioactivity spark a chain of reactions that greatly multiply it without re-initiating? Sure, absolutely. If the radioactivity activates an actual atomic or molecular catalyst which enhances the LENR reaction rate, we would see much higher power output. This is the same sort of process seen in the atmosphere where a photon of UV light activates chlorinated compounds (e.g. CFCs), which then catalyst the breakdown and energy release from ozone. Without the UV light, the catalyst would stay inactive and ozone breakdown (power release) would be much slower.

    In either case 1 or 2, orders of magnitude affect the probability, not the strength of the reaction increase. But probability plays a role in reaction rate, and thus power. But how big a role depends on mechanism, so you can’t claim 9 orders of magnitude is a problem without giving a yes tanky mechanism hypothesis. In super critical nuclear reactions, it takes a single stray neutron, so in that mechanism orders of magnitude mean nothing, as even one event is enough for full power output; while in a controlled nuclear reaction, the mechanism is different, and the rate of neutron production with their associated probabilities for further reactions controls power output.

    3. Can the radioactivity spark a chain of subsequent down stream reactions that are not a reoccurance of the original reaction, multiplying the original input? Absolutely. This is akin to #2 above, but without a catalyst, and with a series of different reaction that are enabled by the product of the initiating reaction. See radical chain reactions for examples of these. For instance, the production of 4-hydroxynonenal; once that sucker is accidentally made in your mitochondria, all sorts of resulting reactions fan kick off leading to destruction of proteins, membrane lipids, and DNA.

    So, the fact is your arguments of orders of magnitude for the source energy is a complete red herring and incorrect. Even for combustion, the source energy is unimportant so long as it is above the threshold of activation for whatever first reaction must occur to allow subsequent reactions that release energy stored in the system.

    And as we have seen, there are multiple ways subsequent reactions could occur following an initiator, from classical chain reactions with strict parameters like combustion has, to catalyst activation, to secondary reaction chains. Despite your straw man argument, none of this requires any weird explanations or implausibilities for LENR. But which if any or none of these might be true depends on what mechanism(s) you hypothesize are occurring and their parameters. So until you lay down that framework, your arguments are rather pointless (though you have implied mechanism parameters in the assumptions of your arguments).

    Best of all is empiricle dats of course! So, just gotta run tests to find out the truth :).

  • Bob Matulis

    Well done MFMP! It appears that excess heat is reliably being produced with this set up. (Two consecutive successful tests!) At what point will Calorimetry be pursued? I would love to see a Parkhamov style set up that would accurately and reliably measure the quantity of excess energy produced and determine a COP.

    • US_Citizen71

      I’ve been saying that since January.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Difficult to measure radiation and as tedious as looking at a *GlowStick* is for a few hundred hours, try looking at an old enamel pot for the same length of time!

        • US_Citizen71

          It won’t make good TV, but the data will be more accessible mentally to a wider range of people. I understand why you needed to do the replication first. : )

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I like Parkhomov’s water bucket method, but I think you would need a higher COP (let’s say, around 2) to get reliable results.

  • Charlie tapp

    Along with e dog I am kinda lost on what all is being tried out on free testing 2. I have checked all posts on every thread but not a lot of posts about it. Also wondering how long are you guys able to keep going and befor you destroy it do you have some kind of list you are going to try to stimulate from the viewers? If so I still want to see full power cycling every 2 seconds ( on off) if not I understand. Just curious what’s going on. Thanks for all your work.

  • Ged

    There are plenty of examples of limited chain reactions, in that sense, like photosynthesis, the respiratory chain or any other network of linked reactions. Since LENR has been proposed to use multiple reaction mechanisms within the overall reaction (proton fusion, isotope shifts), if the gammas enter at the top of the chain, they could certainly result in the rest of the chain going off, leading to much higher energy output (again, ala photosynthesis). It isn’t a true chain reaction like the sort that makes nuclear bombs, indeed, as each step in the chain is lower energy than the previous, until the final step is too low to result in any further reactions.
    Chemistry is repleat with such examples, and most proposals for LENR are also the same sort of linked (limited) chains of reactions moving down an energy gradient till ground (ala oxidative phosphorylation).

  • Matt Sevrens
    • Bob Greenyer

      Very nice indeed

    • Ged

      That is really nice, thank you again! Clearly nothing in the sub 400s, in agreement with hypotheses.

      • Mats002

        Do you mean the sub 400 Cs? And what is the hypothesis about that?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I do not know Ged’s hypothesis, but I would say if the difference rises with temperature and is not detectable at low temperatures it seems likely that radiative heat transfer differs on both sides.

          • Mats002

            OK and what could cause that if not LENR? Uneven amount of cement on top of the heater coils? Color shift in cement? What?

            • Andreas Moraitis

              As I wrote below, metallic condensate on the inner reactor walls which reflects the IR might be a candidate. Post-experiment calibration will clarify that.

              • Mats002

                Yes that’s a good one. I am out of suggestions now.

        • Ged

          Just that LENR in these “Hot-cat” setups doesn’t generally start till higher C than that. Nothing mysterious!

          • Mats002

            I thought maybe you refered to some theory or patent. So here we are with a replication of XH again. Hmmm.

        • Matt Sevrens

          From Parkhomov:

          “The system begins to produce anomalous heat at around 4-500C (as far as can be determined) but starts to ‘go critical’ and produce a more rapid thermal output at around 600/700C. then the thermal output takes off until you reach around 1000C. At this point the reaction may go ‘supercritical’ with a very rapid temperature rise until the fuel melts at around 1450+”

  • e-dog

    any chance of a summary? And where we are at now?
    In the mean time i will read the thread.
    Im guessing no signal … yet

  • Ged

    I guess we’ll see ;).

    If it stimulates the reaction noticeably, then a chain reaction it must be. Recall, a chain reaction does -not- mean a -self sustaining- chain reaction. In nuclear fission, a subcritical fission reactor uses non self-sustaining chain reactions to generate power in an inherently safer way than a controlled self-sustaining chain reaction. That is, if the chain reaction depends on the radiation from the cesium, then removing the cesium will cause it to peter out eventually. It would just be seen as a production enhancement, and then a return to normal non-enhanced production rates–exactly as the patent is saying the cesium could be used for.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Plots of temperature different and Null vs Active Optris data. Two sampling methods:

    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/6/null-vs-active/?share_key=UdtiyDcvYiYTOGBaSjuhk7
    https://plot.ly/~msevrens/7/avg-nlnr-vs-avg-alar/

    • Ged

      Beautiful, thank you so much.

      It’s good they tell the same story, though the new sectioning of left and right to avoid the cool spot caused by the TC’s cement lump is much less noisy. Both still show the slight temperature dependence. Also, that the max temperature cycles seemed to have killed it slowly. Break down of the active sites/geometries perhaps.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Really nice Matt – around 37ºC in when the core is at 1280ºC – that would be the highest differential yet.

      • Mats002

        Nice Matt!

        Now: how to rule out diff in power-in? Or any systematic error that explains this difference?

        Of course some new/extra stimulation that kicks up the new fire would be exciting but until that happens, what scenarios – no matter improbability – could be the cause for the diff in T behaviour?

        • Mats002

          Like if the wire on Active side have one more turn but same length from middle to power feed terminals. With a resistance meter it would show half ohm on each side but under load the extra turn will give higher inductance dissipating more EM radiation on that side. The more power in, the more the extra turn will impact the skew in T.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The resistance same before, likely afterwards, same length, turns. Voltage very similar in operation.

            I want to have a look at the other side using a mirror in the same frame, just to check.

  • Ged

    On the live stream, MFMP just tested the wire resistance between the two sides while the device was hot.

    dredlig posted the results in the Youtube chat: “From Bob: From Alan Goldwater ‘It’s 16.94 v on the active side and 17.02 v on the null side. The difference of .08 volts is just 0.5%. The test partly melted the plastic probe clip, so I won’t repeat it but I think this puts the question to rest.'”

    • Obvious

      That is pretty good.

      Tip: I made some test probe extensions from gas stove igniter electrodes, which have porcelain tube bodies and heat resistant extension leads, after melting several test leads.

    • Mats002

      I am sorry to be a picky follower especially as Alan burnt his fingers :/ but at the readings there where about 300 W of power in which gives just below 400 C and XH starts above 400 C. If change in resistance is the cause of diff in temp that could not be measured at less than about 500 W power in.

  • US_Citizen71

    For the next version of the GlowStick why not just have the thermal-couples pressed against the outside of the reactor? Put them on the end of an alumina rod with double holes for the wiring. Put a block of alumina underneath with a hole drilled for each rod. Drill a smaller hole through the bottom of each mounting hole to bring the wires out. Put a spring in the larger hole to push the rod up. The spring will hold the thermal-couple against the reactor body. Any thermal expansion will be taken up by the spring. If needed add a shield between the block and the reactor to prevent the springs from getting to warm to flex.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Matt Sevrens

    Reprocessed Optris data is here:

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3RxsouGjrzFREF1X2RzYTdEa1k&usp=sharing

    Includes both original Active and Null areas as well as the Active L / Active R and Null L / Null R defined later in the run.

    Looks like there’s still a temperature difference and it’s larger than what was seen in 5.2.

  • Bob Greenyer

    After we have done Ecco’s re-hydrogenating test we have another test planned in light of the new patent granted to Piantelli.

    Other than H- production at special Ni Nano-clusters, he is putting forward several other ways to create H-, the preferred embodiment is a Microwave generator, but since we don’t know the suitable frequency and it would take too long to design and build and even then it would change the way we could monitor the cell – we are going to do a quick test using one of the other suggested embodiments.

    We have a UV light we could dangle above it. but not sure that would penetrate the cell.

    We do not want anything that could activate the cell or contaminate the surroundings, so we are proposing our sealed Cs137 check source, the very same one used to calibrate all of the various radiation detectors employed in this experiment. We can wave it near the active cell for a period of time and see if there is subsequently enhanced heat output. The source is only 1uC so it is a long shot, but it is non-destructive and the energy of the gamma is sufficient to penetrate the cell and ionize the H2.

    From Piantelli patent.

    “For example, a step can be provided of prearranging near the active core a radioactive material such as 137Cs or 90Sr”

    • Sanjeev

      I suggest building a reactor with HV ionizer like a spark plug or electrodes. It seems this is an essential prerequisite. It also looks like that a catalyzer is nothing but a substance that can ionize the H2 (or at least break it into H atoms). Possibly the LAH or metallic Li can serve as sources of H-.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Li+H- (LiH) does, as I have said before

        • Sanjeev

          Why are we not seeing any significant excess heat then? What else is missing?
          Will increasing the fuel amount by 10x increase the signal (excess or radiation)?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our next test that is fully compliant with Rossi’s patent is use of enriched Ni – we will start with 62Ni.

            Also – as I have said recently, it is clear to me at least that the Li + Ni should be in one area and the LiAlH4 in another. H can travel between.

      • Axil Axil

        MEMP has not followed our suggestion to pre-process the the fuel with an arc from a rare earth doped electrode. This will fracture the nickel microparticle and sinter them. It will also add all sorts of rare earths to the surface of the nickel as seen in the Lugano test, and it will coat the nickel with lithium.

        MFMP must feel that suggestions about the LENR process are not a priority in their testing plans.

    • Ged

      Sounds like a cool idea. Goodluck!

      Edit: hands can take the highest yearly dose of radiation, but may be wise to wear a face shield/body apron and hold it with tongs to minimize exposure to the rest of the body. ALARA and all that ;).

    • Axil Axil

      This article can help

      http://www-old.ias.ac.in/jarch

      The Negative Ion of Hydrogen

      A. R. P. Rau

      Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University,

      Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-4001, USA.

      The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth’s ionosphere (Rau 1999).

      you can stimulate the H- by using the absorption frequency as found by using the light equations

      http://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/LightEquations2.html

    • fact police

      The source is only 1uC so it is a long shot,

      A very long shot. If every gamma ray from a 1 uCi source produced an H- ion, and every H- ion resulted in a heat producing LENR reaction releasing say 20 MeV thermal energy (a very high estimate), the total power would correspond to

      3.7E-10 * 1E-6 * 20E6 eV * (1.6E-19 J/eV) / s = 1.2E-7 W, or about 0.12 uW

      Taking account of the solid angle subtended by your reactor would reduce that by a few more orders of magnitude, and taking account of the very low cross-section for H- ionization, another few, to say nothing of the LENR probability itself.

      In the end, the expected power would be much less than a billionth of a watt. That’s not easy to detect.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – it is a long shot. Thankyou for adding the metrics!

        • Ged

          If it chain reacts while in the presence of the stimulant, then we may see something. I suppose that is what the patent is implying will happen; shall be interesting to see.