Re: [Vo]:Website on LENR Fuel Preparation

[Jack Cole]

Mr. Basgall has responded to the questions below with the
following
:

RobL: I dont’ know for sure that the gold or the triangle shaped wire would
make any difference at all in the LENR reactions.

After reading the Celani experiments using the ISOTAN wire from the
mechanical view I felt he was on a path to commercialization by the logic
using the ISOTAN wire.

The process to create the fissures or cracks in the wire he disclosed was
causing the wire to become more brittle. Subsequent that the Storms video
came out and he described his process in an understandable way in my
opinion. He described the cracks and fissures and I have seen those before
after using nickel and chrome powder in a special torch to fix damaged
hydraulic rods.

Since many claims of photon exchanges in the LENR process I thought of how
reflective gold was and when I checked it out the melting point was just a
few degrees under the nickel and it is soft compared to most metals. When
the hot metal droplets hit the cold nickel only a small point will stick to
the base wire and when the rollers smash those little cold balls of soft
metal the fissures are formed on the outside of the base wire allowing it
to keep it’s tensil strength. The triangle shape was the simplest way to
grip the wire without damaging the outer fissure flakes. That shape can be
gripped easily as it is rotated to form sharp spiral edges which dipoles
like to exert fields from.

In the Celani experiments I saw that the wires had insulation and were lose
so I knew for a commercial product there could be no lose wires so to speak
I designed a way to hold the wires at a specific tension apart from one
another using eight fuel rods. Thus also eliminating the possibility of
cell contamination due to fiber insulation.

Also using macro scale logic the Storm predictions, the Celani experiments
and the others working with LENR explain many delta exchanges for the
electron capture. Many statements of resonance so I figured no limitations
let’s acoustically vibrate the wire and possibly a resonance will stimulate
an event LENR.

This is highly speculative however we are attempting to make something like
the physicist theory, a base to start standardization through using
commercially available fuel wire. So if we have known facts like Storms and
Celani offer, and those known facts are reduced to a standard mechanical
form so everyone can use, then we have something to compare.

Thank you RobL for showing interest in the LENR fuel and keep picking
things apart because that’s the only way we can help LENR develop, “things
are logically deduced by knowing what doesn’t work as well as establishing
the cause that makes it work”.

Round wire is more difficult to focus angles at projected targets. The
hydrogen finds the fissures, while loading and unloading and I deduced it
may stimulate a LENR reaction to hold the wires taught and vibrating.






Robert Lynn wrote:

OK, I'll bite Why gold coated and why does it need to be of triangular
form?  Basically why would that make any positive difference?

Adding gold coating is the antithesis of trying to find a cheap fuel, and
Celani has been doing fine using round wires - also seems that round that
would give more opportunity for consistent processing and for the hydrogen
to get in around the wires.

On top of which I don't think that you want large thick bundles of fuel in
a reactor if there is a positive temperature coefficient to the reaction.
 Want thin layers with good cooling everywhere to prevent run-way hot spots
from forming, or perhaps powder in a fluidised bed where the powder rapidly
convects.

Doesn't really seem to be adding much to the public knowledge base (unless
I missed something).

[Vo]:Universal LENR Reactor

[Jack Cole]

Hawaiian inventor, Dale Basgall, has finished up his work on the design of
the Universal LENR Reactor.  He has designed this reactor to
potentially serve multiple purposes (e.g., a teaching tool for studying
thermodynamic processes, a way to heat water for tea and so forth, and
fundamentally as a test-bed for studying LENR).  I think this is also a
clever approach to obtaining a patent.  He has put together as many
components as possible into the system (sonic resonance, electrostatic
discharge, thermal regulation, and other components that have been reported
as assisting in the LENR reaction).  The best part is, that the design is
meant to utilize nearly all off-the-shelf parts (other than the reactor
core base plate, which requires machining to build).

One of the notions behind this effort is to design a reactor that involves
standard systems of control and measurement to facilitate LENR experiments
and thus to assist in theory development and testing.

Here is Mr. Basgall's latest work on the reactor:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/09/26/universal-lenr-reactor-auto-pilot-system/

Here are all my related posts on his work:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/category/universal-lenr-reactor/

Best regards,
Jack

[Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Hi All,

I've been lurking and reading about Chuck's nickel/boron electrolysis
experiments, and decided to try to do a replication.  I had purchased some
thin thoriated tungsten welding electrodes recently to see if I could
replicate some of the effects seen with the Athanor reactor and thought I'd
try to put the two together.

So yesterday, I took 3 nickles and drilled 1/16" holes through them and
attached them to one of the thoriated tungsten electrodes.  I set this up
as the cathode (-) and used another thoriated tungsten electrode without
nickels for the anode.  I ran this all night and did not see any heat
production and the eletrolysis was very slow (gas bubbles seen only rarely).

This morning, I modified the setup.  I took a 1 1/2" piece of a thoriated
tungsten electrode and put the nickels on it and submerged it in the
solution of distilled water and borax.  For the anode, I used a makeshift
electrode that I had made for a previous experiment (nickel shavings
soldered to a piece of solid copper wire).  This change resulted in
vigorous electrolysis.

I am using a 12V DC 1 amp transformer for power.

At 7am when the experiment started, the air temperature was 55 degrees and
the water in my cell was 55 degrees.  At 9 am, air temp was still 55
degrees, and the water temp in the cell was 110 degrees F.

The top of the glass jar is open to the air, so there is significant heat
loss there.  Whether this is LENR or not, I don't know, but is certainly
interesting and different from anything I've seen before with electrolysis.

What I plan to do next is to setup a parallel control cell with all the
same components utilizing table salt / distilled water as the electrolyte
and to compare.

Any thoughts, questions, or ideas on what to try next would be welcome.  If
there is interest, I'll update the group on my progress.

Warm Regards,

Jack

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jed, glad to do it.

Small update:

7 am Temp 55F Start
9 am Temp 110F
10 am  Temp 129F
11:20 am Temp 146F

Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am.

I'll keep running until the temp levels off.  At that point, I'll work on
setting up a control cell.  The water has turned brown, so I presume
something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the
exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode).



On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Thanks for doing this!
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

It was 5 oz of water.  I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F.
On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, "Arnaud Kodeck"  wrote:

> **
> Find here some simple calorimetry calculations :
>
> Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J =>
> 44677 cal
>
> To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water.
> (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible)
>
> Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released
> will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water.
>
> If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
> energy source (chemical or other).
>
>  --
> *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
>
>  Very interesting, indeed.  How much water are you using? If everything
> were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over
> 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of
> water 120 F.
> Best regards, kend
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jed, glad to do it.
>>
>> Small update:
>>
>> 7 am Temp 55F Start
>> 9 am Temp 110F
>> 10 am  Temp 129F
>> 11:20 am Temp 146F
>>
>> Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am.
>>
>> I'll keep running until the temp levels off.  At that point, I'll work on
>> setting up a control cell.  The water has turned brown, so I presume
>> something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the
>> exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

So that's 141.7g of water.  It was an open container so heat freely
dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into
electrolysis in addition to heating.  So, based on Arnaud's calculations,
we can't rule out purely electrical heating.  I'll report on the next
experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels
and no thoriated tungsten.  I have two identical cells that I have filled
with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same
supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with
pennies/copper).

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> It was 5 oz of water.  I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F.
> On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, "Arnaud Kodeck"  wrote:
>
>> **
>> Find here some simple calorimetry calculations :
>>
>> Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J
>> => 44677 cal
>>
>> To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water.
>> (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible)
>>
>> Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released
>> will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water.
>>
>> If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
>> energy source (chemical or other).
>>
>>  --
>> *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
>>
>>  Very interesting, indeed.  How much water are you using? If everything
>> were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over
>> 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of
>> water 120 F.
>> Best regards, kend
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jed, glad to do it.
>>>
>>> Small update:
>>>
>>> 7 am Temp 55F Start
>>> 9 am Temp 110F
>>> 10 am  Temp 129F
>>> 11:20 am Temp 146F
>>>
>>> Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am.
>>>
>>> I'll keep running until the temp levels off.  At that point, I'll work
>>> on setting up a control cell.  The water has turned brown, so I presume
>>> something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the
>>> exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>>
>>>> - Jed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Sadly more than an hour into a controlled experiment, pennies are outdoing
the nickel (100.7F vs. 92.1F).  So for now, this looks to be a failure to
replicate on two fronts (copper not resulting in heating and superiority of
nickel).  I'll report again if I find something different.

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  DC electrolysis is inefficient at raising the temperature of an
> electrolyte for two obvious reasons. Water-splitting itself uses up much of
> the current, and when the split gases are not recombined, then that energy
> is completely lost; plus the split gases, apart from the energy used to
> split them - can also carry away an additional amount of the heat as
> saturated mist, which actually cools the electrolyte. 
>
> ** **
>
> You were less than 50% efficient in heating the water with DC. If there
> was any slight gain from Ni-H or boron, it would have been completely
> missed in the inefficiency.
>
> ** **
>
> If your main goal is to raise the heat of the electrolyte – then DC is not
> the way to go - use AC and use wider separation of electrodes - limit
> bubble formation as much as possible – thus to maximize the Ohmic heat
> retained in the electrolyte. That way, if there is any excess heat from an
> anomalous source - you will at least have a chance that it can be seen.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> It was 5 oz of water.  I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> "Arnaud Kodeck" wrote:
>
>   
>
> If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
> energy source (chemical or other). 
>
> ** **
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Hi Chuck,

My experiment has ended for today with my power supply blowing out.  I
think my last test was not a good test of the nickel vs copper.  I was
using what looks like a chrome plated alligator type clip as the anode in
both.  I can see where that could have been a problem as well as I don't
know what it was plated with.  Also, I think it's not a good idea to use
the same power supply for two cells as it seems more current may flow one
direction than the other?  I didn't use any W in the copper cathode cell
(only in the one with the nickels).

Now here's the really curious thing.  In the copper cell, the 10 ml of
borax is gone.  I tried to mix it in at the beginning, but it just settled
back to the bottom.  Some kind of chemistry was taking place.  Perhaps
producing boric acid?  Some of it also appears to have collected in/on the
anode.

I'm using two small measuring glasses (150 ml capacity filled to 110 ml).
 Before the power supply blew after 3 1/2 hrs the copper cell hit 129.7F
and the nickel cell was at 79.1.  The nickel cell peaked out at 92.1 after
1 hour and slowly dropped.  I think it was a current flow problem as those
results for the nickel cell were not consistent with my first run.

Also, for anyone trying to replicate should head the following.  If you use
a cooking thermometer, do not leave it in the cell while you are running
the experiment.  I did this with my first one, and it permanently altered
the readout making it 20F too high because of some deposit on the metal
that could not be removed.

Jack



On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Jack,
>
> Congratulations,  your report is exactly in lines with what I saw with
> Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments.   That was typically 100ml of H2O and a
> 3gm Na2B4O7 solution.  Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in a
> constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would
> get hot.  (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution).
> Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did,
> running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has
> hit equilibrium.   The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as
> long as the water is replenished.  Eventually you may need to add a little
> more electrolyte.
>
> I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides
> forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis.   What is unusual
> about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical
> wire,
> heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is
> proportional to I^2 R.  So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small
> diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes.  Here
> you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire
> is smaller than the metal.  It just such a large are
> for resistive heating.
>
> I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more.  What is
> your counter electrode material.  Tungsten?   It maybe, W is also one of
> those interesting H absorbing materials.  W was always on the todo
> list though.   Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get.
> Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight.
>  A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> So that's 141.7g of water.  It was an open container so heat freely
>> dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into
>> electrolysis in addition to heating.  So, based on Arnaud's calculations,
>> we can't rule out purely electrical heating.  I'll report on the next
>> experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels
>> and no thoriated tungsten.  I have two identical cells that I have filled
>> with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same
>> supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with
>> pennies/copper).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> It was 5 oz of water.  I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F.
>>> On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, "Arnaud Kodeck" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>> Find here some simple calorimetry calculations :
>>>>
>>>> Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J
>>>> => 44677 cal
>>>>
>>>> To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of
>>>> water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible)
>>>>
>>>> Assuming no loss of heat by dis

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Voltage only at the start.  There would really need to be a lot of
measurements to make a good comparison beyond what I measured (just
temperature).

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Did you measure current or voltage at any time?
> Jeff
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>> My experiment has ended for today with my power supply blowing out.  I
>> think my last test was not a good test of the nickel vs copper.  I was
>> using what looks like a chrome plated alligator type clip as the anode in
>> both.  I can see where that could have been a problem as well as I don't
>> know what it was plated with.  Also, I think it's not a good idea to use
>> the same power supply for two cells as it seems more current may flow one
>> direction than the other?  I didn't use any W in the copper cathode cell
>> (only in the one with the nickels).
>>
>> Now here's the really curious thing.  In the copper cell, the 10 ml of
>> borax is gone.  I tried to mix it in at the beginning, but it just settled
>> back to the bottom.  Some kind of chemistry was taking place.  Perhaps
>> producing boric acid?  Some of it also appears to have collected in/on the
>> anode.
>>
>> I'm using two small measuring glasses (150 ml capacity filled to 110 ml).
>>  Before the power supply blew after 3 1/2 hrs the copper cell hit 129.7F
>> and the nickel cell was at 79.1.  The nickel cell peaked out at 92.1 after
>> 1 hour and slowly dropped.  I think it was a current flow problem as those
>> results for the nickel cell were not consistent with my first run.
>>
>> Also, for anyone trying to replicate should head the following.  If you
>> use a cooking thermometer, do not leave it in the cell while you are
>> running the experiment.  I did this with my first one, and it permanently
>> altered the readout making it 20F too high because of some deposit on the
>> metal that could not be removed.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Jack,
>>>
>>> Congratulations,  your report is exactly in lines with what I saw
>>> with Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments.   That was typically 100ml of H2O
>>> and a 3gm Na2B4O7 solution.  Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in
>>> a constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would
>>> get hot.  (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution).
>>> Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did,
>>> running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has
>>> hit equilibrium.   The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as
>>> long as the water is replenished.  Eventually you may need to add a little
>>> more electrolyte.
>>>
>>> I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides
>>> forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis.   What is unusual
>>> about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical
>>> wire,
>>> heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is
>>> proportional to I^2 R.  So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small
>>> diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes.  Here
>>> you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire
>>> is smaller than the metal.  It just such a large are
>>> for resistive heating.
>>>
>>> I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more.  What
>>> is your counter electrode material.  Tungsten?   It maybe, W is also one of
>>> those interesting H absorbing materials.  W was always on the todo
>>> list though.   Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get.
>>>   Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight.
>>>  A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>
>>>> So that's 141.7g of water.  It was an open container so heat freely
>>>> dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into
>>>> electrolysis in addition to heating.  So, based on Arnaud's calculations,
>>>> we can't rule out purely electrical heating.  I'll report on the next
>>>> experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels
>>>

Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate

[Jack Cole]

I had a lot of heat, whether it is "anomalous" or not, I don't know. I
think it is somehow resistance heating through the borax or chemistry with
creating boric acid.  Just a speculation.  I had heat >130F (I say it this
way because my thermometer was electroplated or something causing it to
register 20F too high.  It read 158 or so at the max).  To get more heat,
you need an anode with as much surface area as your nickel.  I used 12V at
1 amp.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Paul Stout  wrote:

> I have increased the current in my setup to 200 milliamps.  It has been
> running at that current level for more than 12 hours now and no anomalous
> heat has shown up yet.
> -
> Has anybody been able to replicate Chuck Sites results?  I have not seen
> any claims to that yet.
> -
> Paul
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate

[Jack Cole]

It seems like from the experiments I've run that if you want heat, put
enough borax in so that it settles to the bottom.  Then put your electrodes
down into the borax powder in the bottom.  Eventually, the borax powder
disappears leaving yellowish nearly transparent crystals on the electrodes
and in the bottom of the cell.  It is easy to get 120+F temps with an air
temperature of 60F using 12V @ 1amp.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Paul Stout  wrote:

>  My anode is a motor brush so its surface area is larger than that of the
> nickel coin.
> I have increased the current to 400 milliamps.  With the active and
> control beakers in series, the power supply is at 30 volts to drive that
> current.
> -
> I was hoping to avoid the higher currents, which could mask any anomalous
> heat being generated.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2012 1:57 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
>
> I had a lot of heat, whether it is "anomalous" or not, I don't know. I
> think it is somehow resistance heating through the borax or chemistry with
> creating boric acid.  Just a speculation.  I had heat >130F (I say it this
> way because my thermometer was electroplated or something causing it to
> register 20F too high.  It read 158 or so at the max).  To get more heat,
> you need an anode with as much surface area as your nickel.  I used 12V at
> 1 amp.
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Paul Stout  wrote:
>
>> I have increased the current in my setup to 200 milliamps.  It has been
>> running at that current level for more than 12 hours now and no anomalous
>> heat has shown up yet.
>> -
>> Has anybody been able to replicate Chuck Sites results?  I have not seen
>> any claims to that yet.
>> -
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate

[Jack Cole]

I think I have pretty high heat loss as it is open to the air.  Here are
some pretty conservative calculations assuming no heat loss and complete
conversion of electrical input to heat.  Please check my math / conversions
to see if I am doing this correctly.

1 BTU is the amount of heat needed to raise 1 lb of water 1 degree F.

A power supply at 12 V and 1 amp gives 12 wh.

1 BTU = .293 wh (see wikipedia BTU)

A temperature change of 60F for 3.718 oz requires the following BTUs.

3.178 oz / 16 oz = .199

60 * .199 = 11.92 BTUs required to change the temp 60F assuming no heat
loss.

Running 3 hours gives a total input of 36 wh.  So convert 36 wh to BTU.

36 * .293 = 10.5 BTUs total input

I calculate COP by BTUs required to raise the temp 60F / input BTU.

COP = 11.92 / 10.5 = 1.135

Have I done the correct process with these calculations?

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The temperature the bath reaches depends upon the input power you deliver
> to the system as well as any excess heat that may be generated by the
> electrodes and the ability of your system to trap heat.  If you are
> delivering 12 watts to your device and getting a temperature rise of 60 F
> from ambient then you must have relatively low heat loss unless of course
> you are seeing lots of heat being generated.
>
>  The maximum temperature seen thus far with my present experimental setup
> was 130 F with an ambient of 74 F.  I had 28.7 watts of drive at that time.
>  I am using a large electrolyte bath that is open to the air and one
> benefit is that I can dissipate a large amount of power before my
> electrolyte reaches boiling.  This allows me to increase the current
> density significantly.  It is currently within the bounds of the successful
> level for the palladium deuterium systems.
>
>  Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Cole 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 10:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
>
>  It seems like from the experiments I've run that if you want heat, put
> enough borax in so that it settles to the bottom.  Then put your electrodes
> down into the borax powder in the bottom.  Eventually, the borax powder
> disappears leaving yellowish nearly transparent crystals on the electrodes
> and in the bottom of the cell.  It is easy to get 120+F temps with an air
> temperature of 60F using 12V @ 1amp.
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Paul Stout  wrote:
>
>>  My anode is a motor brush so its surface area is larger than that of
>> the nickel coin.
>> I have increased the current to 400 milliamps.  With the active and
>> control beakers in series, the power supply is at 30 volts to drive that
>> current.
>> -
>> I was hoping to avoid the higher currents, which could mask any anomalous
>> heat being generated.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2012 1:57 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
>>
>> I had a lot of heat, whether it is "anomalous" or not, I don't know. I
>> think it is somehow resistance heating through the borax or chemistry with
>> creating boric acid.  Just a speculation.  I had heat >130F (I say it this
>> way because my thermometer was electroplated or something causing it to
>> register 20F too high.  It read 158 or so at the max).  To get more heat,
>> you need an anode with as much surface area as your nickel.  I used 12V at
>> 1 amp.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Paul Stout  wrote:
>>
>>> I have increased the current in my setup to 200 milliamps.  It has been
>>> running at that current level for more than 12 hours now and no anomalous
>>> heat has shown up yet.
>>> -
>>> Has anybody been able to replicate Chuck Sites results?  I have not seen
>>> any claims to that yet.
>>> -
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate

[Jack Cole]

You are correct Ken.  That is where I went wrong.  I knew something didn't
seem correct.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM, ken deboer  wrote:

> Jack,
> I think you went the wrong way with the total BTU inputted.  should be 36
> wh X ~3 btu/w  = ~100 btu.
> ken
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> I think I have pretty high heat loss as it is open to the air.  Here are
>> some pretty conservative calculations assuming no heat loss and complete
>> conversion of electrical input to heat.  Please check my math / conversions
>> to see if I am doing this correctly.
>>
>> 1 BTU is the amount of heat needed to raise 1 lb of water 1 degree F.
>>
>> A power supply at 12 V and 1 amp gives 12 wh.
>>
>> 1 BTU = .293 wh (see wikipedia BTU)
>>
>> A temperature change of 60F for 3.718 oz requires the following BTUs.
>>
>> 3.178 oz / 16 oz = .199
>>
>> 60 * .199 = 11.92 BTUs required to change the temp 60F assuming no heat
>> loss.
>>
>> Running 3 hours gives a total input of 36 wh.  So convert 36 wh to BTU.
>>
>> 36 * .293 = 10.5 BTUs total input
>>
>> I calculate COP by BTUs required to raise the temp 60F / input BTU.
>>
>> COP = 11.92 / 10.5 = 1.135
>>
>> Have I done the correct process with these calculations?
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Thanks for all of the ideas Chuck.  I will be out of town for a few days,
but will give this method a try when I get back.  I just got to thinking if
I clean the nickels using a torch, it might seal up the tiny cracks in the
metal through melting.  I can try it both ways.  I have set up a styrofoam
minnow bucket in which I will submerge a sealed cell for the electrolysis.
 I can then measure the temperature change in the surrounding water and get
a more precise measure of energy output.

I also plan to drill more holes through the nickels, and add additional
thoriated tungsten rods through these holes.  I'm also set up to be able to
take voltage and current measurements in addition to temperature.

I'm also working on setting up a control system with an Android smartphone
to provide pulsed DC power.  If I get some good results with manual
measurements, I hope to be able to use the same setup for automated data
logging.

Take care,
Jack

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Hi Jack,
>
> It's funny you said if this is resistive heating, then it highly
> efficient.  I had a similar thoughts back in the day.
>
> Let me share some thoughts on the electrolysis of cupronickel in sodium
> carbonate.
>
> Sodium carbonate does make a for a good electrolyte in Hydrogen loading
> experiments where the goal is to embed as much hydrogen as possible in the
> cathode. It is gentle to the anode and does not attack metal, but allows
> for good conductivity through the cell. If your goal is to understand
> hydrogen embedded into the cupronickel via electrolysis, I think Sodium
> Carbonate would be an excellent choice for the electrolyte.  Chemically
> Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) Na2[(CO)3] is similar in structure to
> Sodium Borate (borax)  Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O and both are ionic compounds.
>
> Experiments like Rossi's and Calianti's use nano scale cupronickel powders
> in a hydrogen gas loading experiment. This implies, that nano scale
> features can bind and hold hydrogen in geometric arrangements that are not
> typically found in nature. So initially we want something that will etch
> the surface of the Cupronickel an make it nano porous.  Two possible
> methods can be used here, electro-etching or chemical etching. Chemical
> etching would be the simplest method for creating the nano scale pore
> features. If the etching can get the surface from shiny to mat, that should
> have created enough porosity to effect the possible loading. Rinse and
> clean the metal well after etching.
>
> The process of electro-etching maybe the technique to us her as well.
> Electro-etching, the cupronickel would be attached to the positive side of
> the power supply, and etched using. One could use borax as an electrolyte
> in the beginning, and place the cupronickel on anode (+) side, etch the
> features, and then after a wash and rinse, use that nickel as the cathode
> (-) in an the Sodium Carbonate standard electrolysis. Anyway, the idea with
> sodium carbonate is to really load as much hyrdogen into the metal as
> possible.
>
> Under DC electrolysis, a large portion of the energy will expended in the
> separation of H2O into H gas and O gas. I think a better approach to a
> Rossi or Calieanti system would be to use AC electrolysis once a high-level
> of loading is achieved. So after running the system in DC-mode to load the
> nano features with H, switching to AC should move the H into an out of the
> nano features. If there is a tenancy for H to overcome the Coulomb barrier,
> in the AC environment, the changing polarity might give an extra push.
> Everyone seems to believe loading is a factor in successful excess heat.
>  Given how large a nickel is, I would not be surprised at the system taking
> a long amount of time for DC electrolysis gas loading.  Then switching to
> AC to initiate a Rossi, Caliani type H gas motion into and out of the metal
> nano etched surface structure.
>
> So the experiment protocol I would try would look something like this:
>
> Step 1) Etch the nickel. Either use a chemical etching or electro-etching
> or sand blast it. For chemical etching, PCB etching solution may work, just
> don't over do it. Also clean the nickel afterwards in water, ultra-sonic
> jewelry cleaner may be a useful step.
> Step 2) DC Electrolysis of Water and Sodium Carbonate, this is to load the
> metal.   This may need to run several days,  the Nickel should be on the
> negative terminal (cathode (-)).   The anode could be graphite.  Graphite
> shouldn't oxidize under the gas bubbling and is neutral to Na+ ions.
>  (Note: an issue is the possible formation NaOH Sodium Hydroxide a strong
> base).  Jack Cole is using thoriated tungsten rods,  which is an
> interesting material.  It should be resi

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jeff.  That is encouraging that the heating has been shown to have a
real effect on the production of excess heat (at least with palladium and
titanium cathodes).  One problem for me with those experiments is that the
excess heat was in relationship to a control cell rather than excess heat
with regard to input power.  It doesn't rule out the possibility that the
treatment of the electrodes makes them a more efficient heating element.
 It is encouraging that heating would appear to enhance the NAE (pores) and
there was a possibility that transmutation had taken place after
electrolysis.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Here is an unrelated paper from ICCF that includes processing the
> electrode material with heat:
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all of the ideas Chuck.  I will be out of town for a few days,
>> but will give this method a try when I get back.  I just got to thinking if
>> I clean the nickels using a torch, it might seal up the tiny cracks in the
>> metal through melting.  I can try it both ways.  I have set up a styrofoam
>> minnow bucket in which I will submerge a sealed cell for the electrolysis.
>>  I can then measure the temperature change in the surrounding water and get
>> a more precise measure of energy output.
>>
>> I also plan to drill more holes through the nickels, and add additional
>> thoriated tungsten rods through these holes.  I'm also set up to be able to
>> take voltage and current measurements in addition to temperature.
>>
>> I'm also working on setting up a control system with an Android
>> smartphone to provide pulsed DC power.  If I get some good results with
>> manual measurements, I hope to be able to use the same setup for automated
>> data logging.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Jack
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jack,
>>>
>>> It's funny you said if this is resistive heating, then it highly
>>> efficient.  I had a similar thoughts back in the day.
>>>
>>> Let me share some thoughts on the electrolysis of cupronickel in sodium
>>> carbonate.
>>>
>>> Sodium carbonate does make a for a good electrolyte in Hydrogen loading
>>> experiments where the goal is to embed as much hydrogen as possible in the
>>> cathode. It is gentle to the anode and does not attack metal, but allows
>>> for good conductivity through the cell. If your goal is to understand
>>> hydrogen embedded into the cupronickel via electrolysis, I think Sodium
>>> Carbonate would be an excellent choice for the electrolyte.  Chemically
>>> Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) Na2[(CO)3] is similar in structure to
>>> Sodium Borate (borax)  Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O and both are ionic compounds.
>>>
>>> Experiments like Rossi's and Calianti's use nano scale cupronickel
>>> powders in a hydrogen gas loading experiment. This implies, that nano scale
>>> features can bind and hold hydrogen in geometric arrangements that are not
>>> typically found in nature. So initially we want something that will etch
>>> the surface of the Cupronickel an make it nano porous.  Two possible
>>> methods can be used here, electro-etching or chemical etching. Chemical
>>> etching would be the simplest method for creating the nano scale pore
>>> features. If the etching can get the surface from shiny to mat, that should
>>> have created enough porosity to effect the possible loading. Rinse and
>>> clean the metal well after etching.
>>>
>>> The process of electro-etching maybe the technique to us her as well.
>>> Electro-etching, the cupronickel would be attached to the positive side of
>>> the power supply, and etched using. One could use borax as an electrolyte
>>> in the beginning, and place the cupronickel on anode (+) side, etch the
>>> features, and then after a wash and rinse, use that nickel as the cathode
>>> (-) in an the Sodium Carbonate standard electrolysis. Anyway, the idea with
>>> sodium carbonate is to really load as much hyrdogen into the metal as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Under DC electrolysis, a large portion of the energy will expended in
>>> the separation of H2O into H gas and O gas. I think a better approach to a
>>> Rossi or Calieanti system would be to use AC electrolysis once a high-level
>>> of loading is achieved. So after running the system 

Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment

[Jack Cole]

I think I'll try both ways (AC and DC) to compare.

I've been thinking about other materials too (such as tungsten/nickel wool
or foam).

See here:
http://www.americanelements.com/tungsten-nickel-wool.html

Here is some interesting info from the site on metal foam.

*A metallic foam or ceramic foam* is a cellular structure consisting of a
> solid metal  or 
> ceramic 
> material
> containing a large volume fraction of gas-filled pores. The pores can be
> sealed, closed-cell foam, or they can form an interconnected network,
> open-cell foam. The defining characteristic of these 
> foams is
> a very high porosity, typically 75-95% of the volume consisting of void
> spaces. The strength of foamed material possesses a power law relationship
> to its density, for example a 20% dense material is more than twice as
> strong as a 10% dense material. Metallic foams typically retain some
> physical properties of their base material. Foam made from non-flammable
> metal  will remain
> non-flammable and the foam is generally recyclable back to its base
> material. Coefficient of thermal expansion will also remain similar while
> thermal conductivity is likely to be reduced.
> *Open-Cell Metal Foams.* Open celled 
> metal foams
> are usually replicas using open-celled polyurethane foams as a skeleton.
> These foams have found a wide variety of applications in heat exchangers,
> energy absorption, flow diffusion and lightweight optics. Extremely
> fine-scale open-cell foams are used as high-temperature filters in the
> chemical industry. Metallic foams used in compact heat exchangers increase
> the heat transfer at the cost of an additional pressure drop. However,
> their use permits the physical size of a heat exchanger to be reduced
> substantially, and therefore also the fabrication costs.
> *Closed-Cell Metal Foams.*Closed-cell 
> metal foams
> have been developed since the 1950s, but although prototypes were
> available, commercial production was started only in the 1990s.
> Close-celled metal  foams
> are commonly made by injecting a gas or mixing a foaming agent into molten
> metal . The material is
> then stabilized using a high temperature foaming agent (usually nano- or
> micrometer sized solid particles). The size of the pores, or cells, is
> usually 1 to 8 mm. Closed-cell 
> metal foams
> are primarily used as an impact-absorbing material. Unlike many polymer
> foams,metal  foams remain
> deformed after impact and can therefore only be used once. They are light,
> typically 10-25% of the density of the 
> metal they
> are made of, which is usually 
> aluminum,
> and stiff. Closed-cell foams retain the fire resistant and recycling
> capability of other metallic foams but add an ability to float in water.


Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be
intriguing?



On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Teslaalset wrote:

> I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with
> contantan coins.
>
> This is actually an interesting topic.
> Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of
> the coin will oxidize.
> Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting
> effect on the oxidized alloy:
> - first the oxidized 'most noble' metal will be reduced by combining
> hydrogen en metal oxide, forming the original metal and H2O.
> This will create local holes in the coin's surface where 'most noble'
> metal clusters are present.
> - second: the oxidized 'least noble' metal will not as easy be
> re-combined to metal and water because this oxide has a stronger O-M
> bond and won't re-combine with H2 as easy as the 'most noble' metal in
> the alloy.
> - repeating this cycle of revering polarity will creat tiny craters in
> the surface of the coin's surface, leaving the most noble metal
> (Nickel in this case) able to absorb Hydrogen in the coin-cathode
> mode. This method could create the NAE's Edmund Storms is referring
> to.
>
> This proces of oxidation of alloys and selective oxide removal is part
> of a Dutch patent published in 1997 (NL1001123C2) which is cited in
> Francesco Celani's patent published in Feb. 2012 (WO2011016014A2)
> describing improving hydrogen absorbtion of Nickel nano structures.
> Remember Celani is the one that demo'ed the Constantan setup.so,
> could this be his pre-treatment method of his Constantan wire?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

Hi Dave,

I will be interested to know your results.  This evening, I started an
experiment using my repeatedly-treated nickels (8) on a small thoriated
tungsten rod.  I'm using a penny connected to a chrome plated alligator
clip for my anode (+).  My last few runs seemed to show excess heat, but
like you, I'm hesitant to make that claim without better measures and
further experimenting.  I was estimating heat loss by taking heat
measurements of the bath after removing the electrodes to get the rate that
the temperature of the bath was dropping.

My current setup involves submerging the electrolytic cell in 1 gallon of
water in a styrofoam minnow bucket.  I have another 1 gallon of water in an
identical minnow bucket to test temperature changes due to heat loss/gain
from the environment.  I will be taking measurements of voltage, current,
temp of the water bath surrounding the electrolytic cell, and control cell
for the next couple of hours.  Tomorrow, I'll run all day and see what it
can do over a longer period.  I'm using borax for the electrolyte, and
tracking the data in excel.  The nickels have been treated at low current
for 3 days as the cathode (after repeated heating with a torch and multiple
prior experiments with the same set of nickels/tungsten).

Monday, I should have a small submersible pump that I'll try in future
experiments to keep the water surrounding the cell circulating.

Jack

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I have completed my electrolysis experiment using a standard issue nickel
> with a second one at the positive electrode.  My electrolyte is sodium
> carbonate (Arm & Hammer washing soda) which does not foul up the positive
> electrode as much as borax.  For a short time it looked as though I was
> observing excess heat after my test nickel had been loaded with hydrogen
> for 40 plus hours.  I performed a control and calibration run which seemed
> to indicate that I could not prove any excess heating.
>
>  My test fixture does not appear to be capable of precise temperature
> measurement since it does not have a good stirring process and the control
> of the electrolyte level is difficult to maintain.  A positive result would
> be too important of a determination for me to announce without better proof.
>
>  For these reasons I decided to try another experiment.   First, I took
> the 40 plus hour nickel and heated it to red heat with a gas torch.  The
> nickel rapidly cooled off once the torch was removed so it was apparent
> that a lot of excess heat was not being generated as a result of elevated
> temperature.  No flames appeared that could suggest that hydrogen was being
> released so I decided to begin another procedure.
>
>  I took the test nickel and heated it to a red hot state and immediately
> dropped it into a water bath.  This was repeated a total of 5 times in an
> effort to generate surface cracks due to the stress of rapid cooling.  The
> main observation I noticed was that an oxide had formed upon the surface
> which could not be removed by wiping.  One side seemed to have a thick
> brown oxide while the other exhibited less.  I am not able to test for the
> actual materials present, but that does not prevent me from proceeded with
> my electrolysis of the nickel.
>
>  The heat treated nickel is now undergoing electrolysis along with one
> that is not so treated acting as the positive supply electrode.
>
>  My first observations are that the brown oxide deposits have flaked off
> to a degree, but not completely.  This material is floating upon the bath
> and I also found that the resistance associated with this coating does not
> appear too large to prevent me from driving the current to 1 or 2 amps as
> desired.  I was surprised that it did not exhibit much if any additional
> resistance as compared to the original sample.
>
>  I did note that green flakes of material have shown up in the
> electrolyte that I have not seen before when using sodium carbonate.  This
> is an interesting consequence of the heat treating as far as can be
> determined.
>
>  The experiment has now been running for around 6 hours and the bath
> temperature has been recorded as well as the input power applied at several
> times.  I have been registering the results within an Excel file and chart
> in an effort to reveal anything of interest.  I have collected a fair
> amount of data associated with the other experimental procedure using a
> untreated set of nickels that is also charted.
>
>  I will continue to run the experiment looking for any unusual behavior
> or heating.
>
>  Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess heat.  The
current dropped throughout the run.  The COP values start at .43 and trail
off to .12 at the end.  Back to the drawing board.

Thanks for your write-up Jeff.  I have definitely seen significant heating
in my experiments using a higher current level than you are using, but does
not approach unity based on my last experiment.

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> A couple of us tried electrolysis with nickels in Borax today. No excess
> heat was observed. There are details here:
>
> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-heating-observed-while-electrolyzing.html
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> You might try to erode the copper extrusions that erupt from the center
>> of the coin.
>>
>> These copper eruptions have been produced by repeated heating. Remove
>> this copper by etching the heat treated nickel in acid.
>> This etching should produce the micro holes that we are interested in.
>>
>>
>> Cheers:   Axil
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jack,
>>>
>>>  I am likewise interested in your results.  The circulation pump might
>>> be an idea that I should incorporate since I am very carefully placing my
>>> temperature probe at the same location for readings.  On occasions I get
>>> data that seems out of place by a couple of degrees C which might be due to
>>> the lack of mixing.  Most of the time my data falls within a degree of the
>>> trend line using Excel.
>>>
>>>  Today, I can definitely tell that I am not getting excess heat from my
>>> heat treated nickel.  I substitute a fresh one as a control with the same
>>> current and placement.  Today, the data from both samples are very close
>>> together within 1 watt out of 20 watts of heating.  In my control run, the
>>> untreated nickel actually displays the slightly higher reading.
>>>
>>>  My experimental setup consists of a medium sized salad container from
>>> Kroger food market surrounded by Styrofoam bottom and walls with the top
>>> open.  The electrolyte is maintained at approximately one half the height
>>> of my sample nickels.  I use small alligator clips and leads to connect to
>>> the supply which is a laboratory quality one that can output up to 60 volts
>>> DC if required.  The sodium carbonate electrolyte typically allows me to
>>> drive 2 amps of current into the device with a voltage drop of 10 to 11
>>> volts.  My electrolyte bath is operating at 45 C at that current level.
>>>
>>>  I generally make a calibration run by varying the current from 1 amp
>>> to 2.5 amps and accurately measuring the supply voltage.  This gives me a
>>> range of temperatures versus power input points that form a curve.  I can
>>> detect whether or not a point is out of line fairly easily by its deviation
>>> from the curve.  When the calibration is acting up, I make several
>>> additional test runs of an hour each to determine the most likely value.
>>>
>>>  I allow the setup to run for approximately 1 hour for each point to
>>> ensure that the system has stabilized.
>>>
>>>  My plans are to continue to test the heat treated sample for a number
>>> of additional hours before I try an alternate technique to modify the
>>> surface of this nickel or others.  One interesting observation is that my
>>> torched and quenched nickel now looks very much like a copper penny in
>>> appearance.  The surface coloration can not be wiped off with vigorous
>>> rubbing of a paper towel.  The raised letters have a shiny copper look that
>>> does not exhibit any of the standard nickel shine.  You would think that
>>> this is a large sized weathered penny by appearance although the normal
>>> nickel features are intact.
>>>
>>>  As always, my test nickel is connected with leads to the negative
>>> terminal of the supply.  A second nickel acts as my positive supply
>>> electrode.  This is the configuration that should expose the test nickel to
>>> hydrogen by electrolysis.
>>>
>>>  Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jack Cole 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 8:52 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
>>>
>>>  Hi Dave,
>>>
>>>  I will be interested to know your results.  This evening, I started an
>>> ex

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

Better results today, but still under-unity.  I replaced the anode with 4
stainless steel washers soldered directly to the wire.  Starting temp of
the surrounding bath was 69.4F and last measure was 85.2F (for 1 gallon of
water + 5 oz in the electrolytic cell). Average ambient temp 70.2F. Average
input voltage is 12.1 and current is .69.  Average COP .66 (low=.52
high=.80).  Of course there is energy loss with power going into the
electrolysis, which has not been included in the calculations.  I'll keep
it running and see how hot it can get or if anything changes.

Jack

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess heat.  The
> current dropped throughout the run.  The COP values start at .43 and trail
> off to .12 at the end.  Back to the drawing board.
>
> Thanks for your write-up Jeff.  I have definitely seen significant heating
> in my experiments using a higher current level than you are using, but does
> not approach unity based on my last experiment.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>> A couple of us tried electrolysis with nickels in Borax today. No excess
>> heat was observed. There are details here:
>>
>> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-heating-observed-while-electrolyzing.html
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> You might try to erode the copper extrusions that erupt from the center
>>> of the coin.
>>>
>>> These copper eruptions have been produced by repeated heating. Remove
>>> this copper by etching the heat treated nickel in acid.
>>> This etching should produce the micro holes that we are interested in.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers:   Axil
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jack,
>>>>
>>>>  I am likewise interested in your results.  The circulation pump might
>>>> be an idea that I should incorporate since I am very carefully placing my
>>>> temperature probe at the same location for readings.  On occasions I get
>>>> data that seems out of place by a couple of degrees C which might be due to
>>>> the lack of mixing.  Most of the time my data falls within a degree of the
>>>> trend line using Excel.
>>>>
>>>>  Today, I can definitely tell that I am not getting excess heat from
>>>> my heat treated nickel.  I substitute a fresh one as a control with the
>>>> same current and placement.  Today, the data from both samples are very
>>>> close together within 1 watt out of 20 watts of heating.  In my control
>>>> run, the untreated nickel actually displays the slightly higher reading.
>>>>
>>>>  My experimental setup consists of a medium sized salad container from
>>>> Kroger food market surrounded by Styrofoam bottom and walls with the top
>>>> open.  The electrolyte is maintained at approximately one half the height
>>>> of my sample nickels.  I use small alligator clips and leads to connect to
>>>> the supply which is a laboratory quality one that can output up to 60 volts
>>>> DC if required.  The sodium carbonate electrolyte typically allows me to
>>>> drive 2 amps of current into the device with a voltage drop of 10 to 11
>>>> volts.  My electrolyte bath is operating at 45 C at that current level.
>>>>
>>>>  I generally make a calibration run by varying the current from 1 amp
>>>> to 2.5 amps and accurately measuring the supply voltage.  This gives me a
>>>> range of temperatures versus power input points that form a curve.  I can
>>>> detect whether or not a point is out of line fairly easily by its deviation
>>>> from the curve.  When the calibration is acting up, I make several
>>>> additional test runs of an hour each to determine the most likely value.
>>>>
>>>>  I allow the setup to run for approximately 1 hour for each point to
>>>> ensure that the system has stabilized.
>>>>
>>>>  My plans are to continue to test the heat treated sample for a number
>>>> of additional hours before I try an alternate technique to modify the
>>>> surface of this nickel or others.  One interesting observation is that my
>>>> torched and quenched nickel now looks very much like a copper penny in
>>>> appearance.  The surface coloration can not be wiped off with vigorous
>>>> rubbing of a paper towel.  The raised letters have a shiny copper l

[Vo]:Building the Universal LENR Reactor

[Jack Cole]

Dale Basgall, an inventor from Hawaii, has started the process of building
the Universal LENR Reactor that he and his team have designed.  I have
written a post which includes his presentation on building the reactor core.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/14/building-universal-lenr-reactor/

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

After stopping the experiment and watching the temp drop, I see I was
losing more heat than I thought.  Taking this into account there appear to
have been times over 100% efficiency (not including losses of energy to
electrolysis).  I saw a drop in temp of 2.5F in 60 mins after removing
power.  The temp of the 1 gallon of water dropped 16.9F in 7 hrs.

So I have an average of 2.4F temp loss per hour.  To be conservative, I
factor 2F of heat loss into my formula, and exclude earlier values in the
run where the ambient temp and bath temp differ by less than 10F.

Here are my COP calculations with those assumptions.

 Time COP  14:56:00 1.43  15:19:00 1.3  15:36:00 1.12  15:51:00 1.2
17:03:00 1.2  17:50:00 1.12  18:52:00 0.98  19:51:00 0.93  20:09:00 0.95

Here is how I calculate COP (sorry I use English units, I'll convert to
metric in subsequent experiments).

Input power.

W = ((Amperage at Time 1 + Amperage at Time 2) / 2) * ((Voltage at Time 1 +
Voltage at Time 2) / 2) * (Minutes in interval / 60)

Then convert to BTU.

Input BTU = W / .293 (converting watts to BTU)

Output Power.

Output BTU = (Temp at time 2 - temp at time 1 + (2 * (minutes in interval /
60))) * (134.25/16)

Note - 134.25 is the weight of water in the surrounding bath and
electrolytic cell in ounces and the 2 refers to heat loss per hour.

COP = Output BTU / Input BTU

Please let me know if you see any errors in my formulas or logic.  Even if
I presume a heat loss of 1.5F per hour, four of the values in the above
table still give over-unity COP.

What I don't like about what I did above is needing to calculate in heat
loss.  I suppose I can wrap the styrofoam bucket in insulation
(Rossi-style).

Jack


On Oct 14, 2012 4:21 PM, "Jack Cole"  wrote:

> Better results today, but still under-unity.  I replaced the anode with 4
> stainless steel washers soldered directly to the wire.  Starting temp of
> the surrounding bath was 69.4F and last measure was 85.2F (for 1 gallon of
> water + 5 oz in the electrolytic cell). Average ambient temp 70.2F. Average
> input voltage is 12.1 and current is .69.  Average COP .66 (low=.52
> high=.80).  Of course there is energy loss with power going into the
> electrolysis, which has not been included in the calculations.  I'll keep
> it running and see how hot it can get or if anything changes.
>
> Jack
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess heat.  The
>> current dropped throughout the run.  The COP values start at .43 and trail
>> off to .12 at the end.  Back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Thanks for your write-up Jeff.  I have definitely seen significant
>> heating in my experiments using a higher current level than you are using,
>> but does not approach unity based on my last experiment.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of us tried electrolysis with nickels in Borax today. No excess
>>> heat was observed. There are details here:
>>>
>>> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-heating-observed-while-electrolyzing.html
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might try to erode the copper extrusions that erupt from the center
>>>> of the coin.
>>>>
>>>> These copper eruptions have been produced by repeated heating. Remove
>>>> this copper by etching the heat treated nickel in acid.
>>>> This etching should produce the micro holes that we are interested in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers:   Axil
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jack,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am likewise interested in your results.  The circulation pump
>>>>> might be an idea that I should incorporate since I am very carefully
>>>>> placing my temperature probe at the same location for readings.  On
>>>>> occasions I get data that seems out of place by a couple of degrees C 
>>>>> which
>>>>> might be due to the lack of mixing.  Most of the time my data falls within
>>>>> a degree of the trend line using Excel.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Today, I can definitely tell that I am not getting excess heat from
>>>>> my heat treated nickel.  I substitute a fresh one as a control with the
>>>>> same current and placement.  Today, the data from both samples are very
>>>>> close together within 1 watt out of 20 watts of heating.  In my control
>>>>> run, the untreated nickel actuall

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

Thanks for the clarification.  My intention there was to calculate
watt-hours and to convert that to BTU in the next step.  Is this good
enough to get a rough estimate?

I know it would be much better to have a data logger and do the
measurements more frequently.  I might do that at some point, but I am
mainly interested in seeing if my results warrant the additional investment
of time and money.

Thanks again for your comments and I also wonder if you would think these
results merit further experimentation.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 06:28 AM 10/15/2012, Jack Cole wrote:
>
>  Input power.
>>
>> W = ((Amperage at Time 1 + Amperage at Time 2) / 2) * ((Voltage at Time 1
>> + Voltage at Time 2) / 2) * (Minutes in interval / 60)
>>
>
> You are going to go nuts if you don't keep your units straight, and don't
> keep in mind the difference between power and energy.
>
> The forumula you give calculates average power for an interval (Time2 -
> Time1), then multiplies it by the time in hours, presumable to get
> watt-hours, not watts. Watt-hours are a measure of energy.
>
> That's not generally correct, because the energy is the integral of the
> power over time, not the product of the average energy and the time.
>
> If the current has no significant AC component, and you measure voltage
> and current frequently, you can sum the product in a spreadsheet. Otherwise
> it gets really complicated.
>
> In a standard CF experiment, the voltage/current measurements might be
> once per minute. Or in more sophisticated experiments, the measurements
> might be more frequent than that.
>

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

t;
> There are still lots of problems, but this approach can get you close.
>
> Trying to calculate the heat loss from a cell is quite difficult; one is
> dealing with radiative loss, which is at the fourth power of the
> temperature difference, as well as conductive and convection losses.
>
> There is also the issue of energy carried away by the generated gases. If
> you are using DC power input, you might assume that all the generated
> hydrogen and oxygen are unrecombined. Most of it will be.
>
> A sign that you've done everything correctly would be a COP of 1.0 at
> steady-state. More accurately, the integral of the output energy should
> equal the integral of the input energy.
>
>
>
>
> At 06:28 AM 10/15/2012, Jack Cole wrote:
>
>  After stopping the experiment and watching the temp drop, I see I was
>> losing more heat than I thought.  Taking this into account there appear to
>> have been times over 100% efficiency (not including losses of energy to
>> electrolysis).  I saw a drop in temp of 2.5F in 60 mins after removing
>> power.  The temp of the 1 gallon of water dropped 16.9F in 7 hrs.
>>
>> So I have an average of 2.4F temp loss per hour.  To be conservative, I
>> factor 2F of heat loss into my formula, and exclude earlier values in the
>> run where the ambient temp and bath temp differ by less than 10F.
>>
>> Here are my COP calculations with those assumptions.
>>
>> Time COP
>> 14:56:00 1.43
>> 15:19:00 1.3
>> 15:36:00 1.12
>> 15:51:00 1.2
>> 17:03:00 1.2
>> 17:50:00 1.12
>> 18:52:00 0.98
>> 19:51:00 0.93
>> 20:09:00 0.95
>>
>> Here is how I calculate COP (sorry I use English units, I'll convert to
>> metric in subsequent experiments).
>>
>> Input power.
>>
>> W = ((Amperage at Time 1 + Amperage at Time 2) / 2) * ((Voltage at Time 1
>> + Voltage at Time 2) / 2) * (Minutes in interval / 60)
>>
>> Then convert to BTU.
>>
>> Input BTU = W / .293 (converting watts to BTU)
>>
>> Output Power.
>>
>> Output BTU = (Temp at time 2 - temp at time 1 + (2 * (minutes in interval
>> / 60))) * (134.25/16)
>>
>> Note - 134.25 is the weight of water in the surrounding bath and
>> electrolytic cell in ounces and the 2 refers to heat loss per hour.
>>
>> COP = Output BTU / Input BTU
>>
>> Please let me know if you see any errors in my formulas or logic.  Even
>> if I presume a heat loss of 1.5F per hour, four of the values in the above
>> table still give over-unity COP.
>>
>> What I don't like about what I did above is needing to calculate in heat
>> loss.  I suppose I can wrap the styrofoam bucket in insulation
>> (Rossi-style).
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2012 4:21 PM, "Jack Cole" <<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>jco**
>> l...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Better results today, but still under-unity.  I replaced the anode with 4
>> stainless steel washers soldered directly to the wire.  Starting temp of
>> the surrounding bath was 69.4F and last measure was 85.2F (for 1 gallon of
>> water + 5 oz in the electrolytic cell). Average ambient temp 70.2F. Average
>> input voltage is 12.1 and current is .69.  Average COP .66 (low=.52
>> high=.80).  Of course there is energy loss with power going into the
>> electrolysis, which has not been included in the calculations.  I'll keep
>> it running and see how hot it can get or if anything changes.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jack Cole <<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>jco
>> **l...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess heat.  The
>> current dropped throughout the run.  The COP values start at .43 and trail
>> off to .12 at the end.  Back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Thanks for your write-up Jeff.  I have definitely seen significant
>> heating in my experiments using a higher current level than you are using,
>> but does not approach unity based on my last experiment.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Universal LENR Reactor - Fuel Rods

[Jack Cole]

See here:

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/21/universal-lenr-reactor-fuel-rods/

Re: [Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation

[Jack Cole]

Jeff, thanks for this.  I had considered something like this with a
microcontroller that I have which will generate square waves of 3.3V up to
120Khz.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: My circuit contains no remedy for
the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According to
the text of the patent application, this is a "show stopper" that would
need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for
experimentation.

What do you mean by lack of symmetry about the ground?

I want to try to build this, and your work is helpful in deconstructing how
to do it.

Thanks,
Jack



On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin
> patent application, and published them on our blog:
>
>
> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html
>
> In the posting I acknowledge Abd directly and the rest of vortex. Thanks
> again for helping get over a couple of spots I couldn't scratch my head
> hard enough to get past on my own.
>
> Jeff
>
>

[Vo]:Hope for Borax?

[Jack Cole]

In the following video, Melvin Miles states the following about boron
(starting at around 15 mins):

"If you run it with boron, you already have boron on the surface.  You have
this B2O3 on the surface.  It gets oxidized on the surface, so you already
have the blocking oxide right at the beginning of the experiment.  And so
we saw excess heat with palladium boron in the first 57 hours.  We could
see the excess heat effect started off--not after a week or two weeks.
 It's within the first period of electrolysis.  First two days, we started
seeing excess heat."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ZM2z_fVcE

I can tell you that crystals form on the electrodes and in the bottom of
the cell in electrolysis with borax.  They are pretty hard, requiring me to
break up the crystals in the bottom of the jar to clean them out with a
screw driver.

Jack

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

Dear Dave,

You wrote:
Chuck, have you given consideration to some process that might treat the
CuB2O3 or NiB2O3 differently so that the copper might be taken away from
the nickel surface selectively?  It might be possible to selectively erode
the copper leaving NAE in large quantities.

I think you can get this with the oxidization process with using a nickel
as the anode with DC for a couple of hours to form the green oxidized
copper.  The green oxidized copper can then be burned off with a torch.

My approach has been to first use the nicked as an anode for 1 to 2 hours.
 Burn off the oxidized copper with a torch.  Then slow treat with hydrogen
as the cathode and low current DC for a few days.  Then switch to AC.

With respect to the B2O3, I've found that most of this will burn off.  But
I have some that simply melted into a transparent clear blob adhering to
some of the surfaces of the nickels.

Take care,
Jack

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Thanks Chuck, the experimentation has been going on now for a couple of
> days and I did notice unusual behavior that I was not expecting.  I
> performed a small experiment using AC with new nickels that had not been
> undergoing electrolysis at any time and saw that they did not show any of
> the green coating that was so evident with DC.  Instead, there was a jet
> black coating being formed upon the nickels.  Then, I applied DC to my cell
> and a green coating began to form over top of the previous black coating
> upon the nickel connected to the positive terminal.  I allowed this process
> to continue for a few hours and then scraped off the net coating to get a
> orange copperish looking finish where the old coatings were.  This finish
> has a rough appearance.
>
>  So far the bottom line is that AC drive behaves far differently than DC
> drive in this system.  I can definitely see boiling electrolyte
> temperatures between the two nickels with AC drive while far fewer bubbles
> of gas are released by the active mechanisms as compared to DC drive.  With
> AC, the effective resistance of the combination remains much lower than
> with DC current.  The high resistance appears to correspond with the
> deposition of the green coating that follows DC current flow.
>
>  My present transformer will not allow me to achieve the 100-140 volt
> drive levels so that would have to be achieved by some other means.  I have
> a few ideas regarding the use of an adjustable transformer, but that would
> be difficult to handle.  I do not feel comfortable with direct connection
> by metallic path to the AC mains.  It would be too easy to become
> electrocuted with one careless maneuver.
>
>  My AC RMS voltage is 21 volts for these tests so the resistance must
> remain less than 10 ohms between the terminals if I am to drive the system
> with 2 amps of current.  I am able to achieve this goal without too much
> difficulty when the green coating is absent.  I need to perform more
> experimentation with this combination.
>
>  The salts you suspect are interesting.  Do you suspect that the normal
> oxides of the nickel and copper are suppressed?  Also, I am not aware of
> any visual change to the surface of the nickel if hydrogen has entered.
>  Would anyone expect a color change or other indication when this happens?
>
>  I would love to see the glow that Horace mentions and perhaps that day
> will come when I figure a good way to drive the cell in a safe manner.  It
> is apparent that I will need to pre-charge the nickels before applying the
> full voltage unless I want to melt my experiment.  If I used my typical
> resistance of 10 ohms and set the input AC to 100 volts RMS, I would
> generate 1000 watts of power at a current of 10 amps.
>
>  I wonder if the sparks I saw with the sodium carbonate were somehow
> related to the glow mentioned by Horace.  My results were correlated with
> the open circuit voltage rising toward 50 volts as it attempted to maintain
> the current at a constant level.  The sparks suggest to me some form of
> burning mechanism and I got a large dose of the vapor by accident once when
> watching the phenomena too closely.  It was a strong odor that I hope is
> not carcinogenic.  The smoke I breathed was definitely not water vapor.
>
>  Chuck, have you given consideration to some process that might treat the
> CuB2O3 or NiB2O3 differently so that the copper might be taken away from
> the nickel surface selectively?  It might be possible to selectively erode
> the copper leaving NAE in large quantities.
>
>  Dave
>
>  P.S. AC in my posting is standard line frequency in the US which is 60
> hertz.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Sites 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 12:02 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
>
>  Good Luck with the new experiments David.  I think you will see some
> interesting effects.   Regarding the sparks and light flashes, I ran across
> a paper that describes an  spark effec

Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments

[Jack Cole]

Personally, I find George Miley's work to be among the most convincing.  My
understanding is that he does not apply electrical heating.  He also
calculates the max energy output from chemical reactions.  In this paper,
he described a run producing excess energy production of 6x chemical input.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miley-Use-Of-DH-Clusters-ICCF17-pp.pdf

He has also described a COP of 70 for over 4 hours.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/09/21/george-miley-working-3kw-30kw-lenr-designs/



On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>  At 11:36 AM 10/21/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>  I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people
> have already looked at ...
>
> \

Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started

[Jack Cole]

You should be able to find it at most grocery stores.  You can get a couple
of gallons inexpensively.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>
>  I have been using regular tap water.  Your question makes me reconsider
> the alternatives.  Where can I find a source for distilled water that is
> readily available?
>
>  I assumed that the large quantity of Borax or other electrolyte would
> dominate the reaction and the water at my location is of excellent quality
> and exhibits an extremely large impedance until the powders are added.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 1:43 am
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
>
>  Dave,
> Sorry if I missed it, but are you using tap water, or distilled/deionized
> water?
> -mark
>
>  *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:57 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
>
> That appears like a pretty good process for the nickel.  Jack, I will
> follow your procedure  after I complete a couple of experiments.
>
>  I tried something interesting today that I plan to investigate further.
>  I acted like a manual switch for a couple of nickels where I reversed the
> DC current periodically to see how the coatings behaved.   I let current
> flow until the resistance reached about 50 ohms in one direction and then
> reversed the current until the same value was seen in the other direction.
>  This procedure was carried out for about 5 cycles.  Initially, a green
> coating was deposited upon the positively connected nickel which was then
> flaked off by the reverse current.  A significant amount of green material
> was deposited within my electrolyte due to the cyclic coating and flaking.
>
>  The AC was then applied and I noticed that very little gas was escaping
> from the electrodes even though a current of 1 to 2 amps was flowing.  The
> resistance remained low during the AC testing which is in process as I
> write.  The electrolyte evaporated twice to a level that had to be
> replenish as typical.
>
>  This post is a quick update.
>
>  Dave
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Sites 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 11:33 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
>  Jack,  that is just about right.
>  On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
>  You wrote:
>  Chuck, have you given consideration to some process that might treat the
> CuB2O3 or NiB2O3 differently so that the copper might be taken away from
> the nickel surface selectively?  It might be possible to selectively erode
> the copper leaving NAE in large quantities.
>
>   I think you can get this with the oxidization process with using a
> nickel as the anode with DC for a couple of hours to form the green
> oxidized copper.  The green oxidized copper can then be burned off with a
> torch.
>
>  My approach has been to first use the nicked as an anode for 1 to 2
> hours.  Burn off the oxidized copper with a torch.  Then slow treat with
> hydrogen as the cathode and low current DC for a few days.  Then switch to
> AC.
>
>  With respect to the B2O3, I've found that most of this will burn off.
>  But I have some that simply melted into a transparent clear blob adhering
> to some of the surfaces of the nickels.
>
>  Take care,
>  Jack
>
>  On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
> Thanks Chuck, the experimentation has been going on now for a couple of
> days and I did notice unusual behavior that I was not expecting.  I
> performed a small experiment using AC with new nickels that had not been
> undergoing electrolysis at any time and saw that they did not show any of
> the green coating that was so evident with DC.  Instead, there was a jet
> black coating being formed upon the nickels.  Then, I applied DC to my cell
> and a green coating began to form over top of the previous black coating
> upon the nickel connected to the positive terminal.  I allowed this process
> to continue for a few hours and then scraped off the net coating to get a
> orange copperish looking finish where the old coatings were.  This finish
> has a rough appearance.
>
>  So far the bottom line is that AC drive behaves far differently than DC
> drive in this system.  I can definitely see boiling electrolyte
> temperatures between the two nickels with AC drive while far fewer bubbles
> of gas are released by the active mechanisms as compared to DC drive.  With
> AC, the effective resistance of the combination remains much lower than
> with DC current.  The high resistan

Re: [Vo]:New Article from Mark Gibbs : "Cold Fusion a year later"

[Jack Cole]

The link to the NRL article doesn't work.

Thanks,
Jack

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> More blather, confusion and insults from Gibbs. He cites a paper from that
> nitwit know-it-all Shanahan, the universal expert who thinks he knows more
> about tritium than the PPPL, more about calorimetry than Storms, Duncan or
> McKubre, and -- in short -- more about anything then everyone else combined.
>
> He cites this paper from Shanahan:
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/edit
>
> My responses, posted at NewWorkWorld, are below.
>
> - Jed
>
> Gibbs writes: "That really underlines what the difference is between cold
> fusion fan boys and completely believe in its existence, and those who
> remain skeptical and demand proof in the form of useful technology, by
> which I mean a technology that delivers real, valuable commercial results."
>
> Useful technology is not and never has been a valid scientific criterion
> to prove the existence of an effect. There are countless scientific effects
> and phenomena that have no practical use, yet which everyone agrees exist.
> Examples include high temperature superconductivity and supernova
> explosions. Many effects, such as electricity, had no practical use for
> decades after they were discovered. Nuclear fission was discovered in the
> 1890s but it had no practical use until 1945. Semiconductor research began
> in the 1920s but did not produce any useful results until 1949.
>
> Gibbs' arguments make no sense. Furthermore, he calls distinguished
> scientists "fanboys" which is an outrageous insult.
>
>
>
> Shanahan's conclusions are completely unjustified. He thinks that his
> opinion -- mere opinion -- automatically overrules rigorously peer-reviewed
> experimental results published in major journals. Results obtained by
> hundreds of distinguished experts from Los Alamos, BARC, the Princeton
> Plasma Fusion Lab and other world-class labs. Despite his ego, Shanahan
> does not know better than these people. The "reasons" given in his paper
> would never pass peer-review.
>
> Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major
> laboratories. Here is the latest irrefutable result, from the Naval
> Research Laboratory:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/D...
>
> Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical Experiments
>
> Conclusions:
>
> * Large excess power (≥ 1kJ) events generated in 5% of Pd90Rh10 cathodes
>
> * Failed to disprove these results --> excess heat results observed at NRL
> are real!
>
> Cells produced 40 times more output than input, and the heat far exceeded
> the limits of chemistry.
>
> Gibbs' demand that researchers produce practical devices is unfair and
> unrealistic given the lack of funding and the academic politics.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter

[Jack Cole]

Hi Jeff,

Good work!  You could also consider this (
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9028) for use with your A/D converter.
 I'm using something like this with an IOIO board connected to an Android
device.  This will give you both current and voltage.

Take care,
Jack

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Hi all, I built this USB-connected ammeter so we could log current flow
> accurately and rapidly while doing electrolysis and also electroplating.
>
> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pretty-good-data-logging-ammeter.html
>
> Jeff
>
>

[Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is controlled
with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I am
switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.

What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
of time.

http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE

Regards,
Jack

[Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

[Jack Cole]

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/30/mark-prelas-neutron-mu/

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Chuck.  It's a fun hobby.

I don't program in Java having done so much in visual basic over the years.
 Fortunately, I found a language for Android that is very much like VB
called 
Basic4Android<https://www.plimus.com/jsp/redirect.jsp?contractId=1715566&referrer=1047706>.
 It has a library for the IOIO board.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Thanks for sharing the video Jack.   I really like how your controlling
> that with and Android and IOIO microcontroller.I'm a beginner Android
> developer and the little IOIO PIC device is really cool.That is a great
> way of doing a duty cycle on the AC/DC.
> Here is a nice discussion on the IOIO (yo-yo) board for others that might
> be interested.
>
>
> http://androidcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/ioio-board-for-android-control-io.html
>
> Best Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
>> controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
>> am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
>> mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
>> electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
>> on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
>> thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
>> anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
>> what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.
>>
>> What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
>> alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
>> of time.
>>
>> http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jack
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

Chuck,

I blew my wall wort power supplies.  The IOIO board current for USB
charging was set to low causing my phone to lose a connection with the
board.  This then caused the AC and DC supplies to short together.  Which
is not that big of a deal as I still have some that I haven't burned up
yet.  Really, I need to get some good power supplies with protection
against things like that.  The AC ones burn out pretty easily, so it is
definitely better to pulse them on and off to give them time to cool.

Anyway, I took that opportunity to relocate everything to my basement as
the temperature variations in the garage add a complicating layer to all
the measurements.  At the same time, I got my temp sensors in from Atlas
Scientific.  I then hooked them up to the IOIO board and did the
programming to measure the voltages and convert to temperature.  They are
working well.  Just last night, I got everything set up again.  I need to
do a little more programming to save the recorded temperature values to a
file.

If I can get an AC power supply that will hold up, I'll do a several day
automated run.

1. Run on DC only and see the max temp achieved.
2. Run on AC only and see the max temp achieved.
3. Run AC/DC switching and see the max temp achieved.

I think in theory #3 should produce a max temp somewhere in between 1 and
2.  If it's greater than 1 and 2, that would be very interesting.  I'll
make another video once I start running again.

Jack


On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Thanks Jack for the find.  Good info.  I love the idea of doing a CF
> experiment via an Android phone app.  Just add a couple of thermistors and
> a hacked together current and voltage multi-meter function and you will
> have all necessary measurements for calorimetry data collection.   How is
> the experiment going by the way?  For the DC/AC do charge  the nickel with
> H.  So, on the DC cycle, you will want to nickel to  be Cathod (-) this
> time.
> The idea with the AC, is you want as much hydrogen stuffed into the
> niickel lattice as you can get initially.  Once the surface lattice is
> loaded several atoms deep, switch the current to AC.
>
> Summery;  start high-current DC with Nickel as the Cathode (-) to infuse H
> into the Nickel lattice.  Then apply AC to alternate the electro-motive
> forces on the H in the lattice.  If you using two nickels in the AC/DC
> experiment, then the nickel on the (-) cathode should get hot during the AC
> cycle.   The purpose of the AC is to create an EMF that will vibrate the H
> such that fusion probability increases.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Chuck.  It's a fun hobby.
>>
>> I don't program in Java having done so much in visual basic over the
>> years.  Fortunately, I found a language for Android that is very much like
>> VB called 
>> Basic4Android<https://www.plimus.com/jsp/redirect.jsp?contractId=1715566&referrer=1047706>.
>>  It has a library for the IOIO board.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the video Jack.   I really like how your controlling
>>> that with and Android and IOIO microcontroller.I'm a beginner Android
>>> developer and the little IOIO PIC device is really cool.That is a great
>>> way of doing a duty cycle on the AC/DC.
>>> Here is a nice discussion on the IOIO (yo-yo) board for others that
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://androidcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/ioio-board-for-android-control-io.html
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
>>>> controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
>>>> am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
>>>> mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
>>>> electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
>>>> on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
>>>> thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
>>>> anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
>>>> what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
>>>> alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
>>>> of time.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jack
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

There are some interesting pieces of equipment on this website that may be
useful in experimenting.

http://www.amazing1.com/hv-hf-power-supplies.htm

In particular, I'm thinking the high frequency AC would be useful in
inducing high surface current flow in the electrodes (i.e., Robert Godes
method).


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> I blew my wall wort power supplies.  The IOIO board current for USB
> charging was set to low causing my phone to lose a connection with the
> board.  This then caused the AC and DC supplies to short together.  Which
> is not that big of a deal as I still have some that I haven't burned up
> yet.  Really, I need to get some good power supplies with protection
> against things like that.  The AC ones burn out pretty easily, so it is
> definitely better to pulse them on and off to give them time to cool.
>
> Anyway, I took that opportunity to relocate everything to my basement as
> the temperature variations in the garage add a complicating layer to all
> the measurements.  At the same time, I got my temp sensors in from Atlas
> Scientific.  I then hooked them up to the IOIO board and did the
> programming to measure the voltages and convert to temperature.  They are
> working well.  Just last night, I got everything set up again.  I need to
> do a little more programming to save the recorded temperature values to a
> file.
>
> If I can get an AC power supply that will hold up, I'll do a several day
> automated run.
>
> 1. Run on DC only and see the max temp achieved.
> 2. Run on AC only and see the max temp achieved.
> 3. Run AC/DC switching and see the max temp achieved.
>
> I think in theory #3 should produce a max temp somewhere in between 1 and
> 2.  If it's greater than 1 and 2, that would be very interesting.  I'll
> make another video once I start running again.
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jack for the find.  Good info.  I love the idea of doing a CF
>> experiment via an Android phone app.  Just add a couple of thermistors and
>> a hacked together current and voltage multi-meter function and you will
>> have all necessary measurements for calorimetry data collection.   How is
>> the experiment going by the way?  For the DC/AC do charge  the nickel with
>> H.  So, on the DC cycle, you will want to nickel to  be Cathod (-) this
>> time.
>> The idea with the AC, is you want as much hydrogen stuffed into the
>> niickel lattice as you can get initially.  Once the surface lattice is
>> loaded several atoms deep, switch the current to AC.
>>
>> Summery;  start high-current DC with Nickel as the Cathode (-) to infuse
>> H into the Nickel lattice.  Then apply AC to alternate the electro-motive
>> forces on the H in the lattice.  If you using two nickels in the AC/DC
>> experiment, then the nickel on the (-) cathode should get hot during the AC
>> cycle.   The purpose of the AC is to create an EMF that will vibrate the H
>> such that fusion probability increases.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Chuck.  It's a fun hobby.
>>>
>>> I don't program in Java having done so much in visual basic over the
>>> years.  Fortunately, I found a language for Android that is very much like
>>> VB called 
>>> Basic4Android<https://www.plimus.com/jsp/redirect.jsp?contractId=1715566&referrer=1047706>.
>>>  It has a library for the IOIO board.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Chuck Sites wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing the video Jack.   I really like how your controlling
>>>> that with and Android and IOIO microcontroller.I'm a beginner Android
>>>> developer and the little IOIO PIC device is really cool.That is a great
>>>> way of doing a duty cycle on the AC/DC.
>>>> Here is a nice discussion on the IOIO (yo-yo) board for others that
>>>> might be interested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://androidcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/ioio-board-for-android-control-io.html
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
>>>>> controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
>>>>> am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon 
>>>

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

Started a new run this evening.  I finished the coding for a fully
automated experimental series, and I'm running a trial run to make sure
everything is working correctly.

For the trial run, here is my procedure:

Run a 3 minute baseline with no power to collect temp data.
Run a 5 minute run with 12V 400 mAmp.
Let cell cool to within 5 degrees F of ambient.
Run another 5 minutes with 12V 400 mAmp.
Let cell cool to within 5 of ambient.
Run 5 minutes @ 24VDC and 800 mAmp.
Let cell cool to within 5 of ambient.
Run 5 minutes with alternating between 24VDC 800 mAmp 8 seconds and
24VDC/12VDC rapid alternating pulses for 2 seconds (120-150 pulses per
second)
Continue recording data while cools to within 5 of ambient.

For now, I'm just testing everything out, and not really expecting any LENR
to be happening.  If the delta T for run 4 is statistically significantly
greater than run 3, we may suspect something interesting is happening.  I'm
sampling temp and amperage every 10 seconds.

I'll post a video update when I get time to upload.

Regards,
Jack


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> There are some interesting pieces of equipment on this website that may be
> useful in experimenting.
>
> http://www.amazing1.com/hv-hf-power-supplies.htm
>
> In particular, I'm thinking the high frequency AC would be useful in
> inducing high surface current flow in the electrodes (i.e., Robert Godes
> method).
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> I blew my wall wort power supplies.  The IOIO board current for USB
>> charging was set to low causing my phone to lose a connection with the
>> board.  This then caused the AC and DC supplies to short together.  Which
>> is not that big of a deal as I still have some that I haven't burned up
>> yet.  Really, I need to get some good power supplies with protection
>> against things like that.  The AC ones burn out pretty easily, so it is
>> definitely better to pulse them on and off to give them time to cool.
>>
>> Anyway, I took that opportunity to relocate everything to my basement as
>> the temperature variations in the garage add a complicating layer to all
>> the measurements.  At the same time, I got my temp sensors in from Atlas
>> Scientific.  I then hooked them up to the IOIO board and did the
>> programming to measure the voltages and convert to temperature.  They are
>> working well.  Just last night, I got everything set up again.  I need to
>> do a little more programming to save the recorded temperature values to a
>> file.
>>
>> If I can get an AC power supply that will hold up, I'll do a several day
>> automated run.
>>
>> 1. Run on DC only and see the max temp achieved.
>> 2. Run on AC only and see the max temp achieved.
>> 3. Run AC/DC switching and see the max temp achieved.
>>
>> I think in theory #3 should produce a max temp somewhere in between 1 and
>> 2.  If it's greater than 1 and 2, that would be very interesting.  I'll
>> make another video once I start running again.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jack for the find.  Good info.  I love the idea of doing a CF
>>> experiment via an Android phone app.  Just add a couple of thermistors and
>>> a hacked together current and voltage multi-meter function and you will
>>> have all necessary measurements for calorimetry data collection.   How is
>>> the experiment going by the way?  For the DC/AC do charge  the nickel with
>>> H.  So, on the DC cycle, you will want to nickel to  be Cathod (-) this
>>> time.
>>> The idea with the AC, is you want as much hydrogen stuffed into the
>>> niickel lattice as you can get initially.  Once the surface lattice is
>>> loaded several atoms deep, switch the current to AC.
>>>
>>> Summery;  start high-current DC with Nickel as the Cathode (-) to infuse
>>> H into the Nickel lattice.  Then apply AC to alternate the electro-motive
>>> forces on the H in the lattice.  If you using two nickels in the AC/DC
>>> experiment, then the nickel on the (-) cathode should get hot during the AC
>>> cycle.   The purpose of the AC is to create an EMF that will vibrate the H
>>> such that fusion probability increases.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Chuck.  It's a fun hobby.
>>>>
>>>> I don't program in Java having done so much in visual basic over the
>

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

I have not yet tried KOH.  Once I get all the kinks worked out of this,
there is no reason I couldn't run several simultaneous electrolytic cells
(recording data from all).


On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Have you tryed potassium hydroxide, the Blacklight Electrolyte?
>
> Axil.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
>> controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
>> am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
>> mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
>> electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
>> on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
>> thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
>> anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
>> what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.
>>
>> What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
>> alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
>> of time.
>>
>> http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jack
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

[Jack Cole]

I have no problem with sharing--there has been too little of that so far.
 I've been planning at some point to set up a site to detail the work so
others could do it if they would like.

With the app I have written, there would be no problem with having it
upload data to a server after the run is completed.  What I am testing is
having it automatically email the data to me as an attachment when it has
finished.  That way I know the experiment is complete, and I can take a
look at the data.

I would prefer to detail each piece of equipment involved and where to buy
it, as that is helpful to the hobbyist like me.

Jack


On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> If at some point you think you see something, are you interested in making
> your data series (for both good and unsuccessful runs) available?
>
> Doing would have the following tradeoffs:
>
> + you would be helping to advance hobbyist science
> - you would no longer have the inside scoop into whatever is happening,
> making it harder to get priority on any potentially (very) lucrative
> patents.
>
> This question is also for any other amateurs attempting data acquisition.
> We could set up a site of some kind to host the data files.
>
> Eric
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 3, 2012, at 4:22, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> > I have not yet tried KOH.  Once I get all the kinks worked out of this,
> there is no reason I couldn't run several simultaneous electrolytic cells
> (recording data from all).
>
>

[Vo]:New Experimental Series and Results

[Jack Cole]

Hi All,

I have conducted a series of experiments with my automated Android system.
 I have been working the last couple of days on this fairly constantly.

My intent is to develop a method for exploring variables in an Edisonian
manner to demonstrate anomalous heat without advanced calorimetry.

I have detailed my work here.
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/11/04/hobbyist-science-investigating-lenr-parameters/

I am specifically interested in any errors I have made in conclusions or
reasoning.  I am not looking for a method of demonstrating milliwatt
anomalous heat, only large effects.

I'll make raw data available to anyone interested.

Warm regards,
Jack

[Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Hi folks,

I have completed a long series of experiments utilizing borax, standard
nickels (combined with thoriated tungsten rods), and an automated Android
phone control system.  Although I developed some cool methods of running
experiments, I have to conclude that I found no anomalous heating.

Here is the final write-up and presentation.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/11/22/automated-android-electrolysis-system-experiments-1-25/

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Axil,

Yes, that is the plan.  I'm still trying to understand exactly what Godes
does.  It turns out to not be real easy to get a bipolar (AC) pulse at
~200V along with the loading DC.  High frequency/high voltage AC is the key
at a specific pulse width to get the conductor skin effect (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect).  You won't get that with DC
pulses.

Also, in this early test cell, it looks like he is using more than 2
electrodes in the cell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFrDlcnjth8

Jack

Jack


On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Jack,
>
> I suggest that you rerun your experiment with nanosecond duration pulsed
> direct current using capacitive discharge.
>
> You have not tested the hypothesis that high instantaneous pulse power
> output will trigger over unity power production as has been demonstrated
> by  Brillouin Energy.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers:   Axil
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I have completed a long series of experiments utilizing borax, standard
>> nickels (combined with thoriated tungsten rods), and an automated Android
>> phone control system.  Although I developed some cool methods of running
>> experiments, I have to conclude that I found no anomalous heating.
>>
>> Here is the final write-up and presentation.
>>
>>
>> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/11/22/automated-android-electrolysis-system-experiments-1-25/
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jack
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Jeff,

I don't think your scope would need that level of resolution.  Godes
describes using the following: A 100MHz Fluke 196C oscilloscope meter.

Anyway, there is not a lot of info on the net about using PWM to make
bipolar pulses.  Producing a DC pulse to those specs is not so difficult.
 A bipolar pulse seems to be a different story.

I have a 25mhz oscilloscope, so I'll try to see if it has the resolution
needed.  Supposedly, it will show down to 5 ns/div on the horizontal axis.
 I'll try to experiment to see if I can get a 100 ns DC pulse with PWM and
see how the scope does.

Here is the scope I have.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T6XNCA/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_SC_dp_1

Jack


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the
>> speed of sound in 
>> nickel
>> :
>>
>> 5630m/s
>>
>> and 430kHz:
>>
>> 5630m/s;430kHz?mm
>>
>> ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter
>> = 2.0838194 mm
>>
>> In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this
>>> possibility [electrode acoustics]. 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a
>>> bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a
>>> program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis
>>> software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The
>>> natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being
>>> around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher
>>> harmonics are barely above noise.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of
>>> magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode
>>> acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or
>>> otherwise worth pursuing.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* James Bowery 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> As I previously 
>>> advised
>>> :
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> "Look at the acoustics of the electrodes."
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at
>>> vortex-l, let me expand:
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable
>>> chance of bearing directly on the creation of the "nuclear active
>>> environment" hypothesized to exist.  I don't think I need to expland on
>>> list the possibilities here.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the "430kHz LENR
>>> signature" regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently
>>> reported as exhibiting the phenomena.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Need I say more?**
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

I see your point Jeff.

I did use the oscilloscope to figure out the minimum pulse width attainable
by the IOIO board I am using with my Android phone.  It will go down to 65
ns.

Arnaud (or anyone who can answer),

So if I understand correctly, you could use a PWM pulse with an H bridge to
get AC from a PWM signal?  I think I looked into this before, and the
problem would be that you wouldn't have the "dead space" in the current.
 Let's say you have a 100 ns + current and when this is switched off, the H
bridge allows the - current for the remainder of the duty cycle.  This gets
you closer, but is still not what is needed.  If I understand correctly,
you need a bipolar pulse (then no current in between the pulses).


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> You don't need a high speed scope if the circuit is working *correctly*.
> But if it's working correctly, you don't need to measure it at all.  ;-)
> The reason for a high speed scope is to observe the behavior when it's not
> working correctly. It's a high-power, high-speed AC circuit, so errors or
> bad construction practices may produces really weird results that simply
> won't be observable with a low-bandwidth instrument.
>
> I wouldn't read too much into the divisions on the scope. The probe and
> scope electronics will act as a low-pass filter, so you'll a smoothed and
> rounded representation of reality. It's not the frequency of the pulses
> that's the issue here, it's the harmonics that compose the rising and
> falling edges of the pulse.
>
> For AC pulses you can look at Arnaud's message. Godes didn't use this
> approach, I think - instead the clever use of T8 as both an inductor and as
> the primary of an isolation transformer; then by suitably referencing the
> secondary side, the core sees AC. I could be misreading the design,
> however. There are four MOSFETs in Godes design.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I don't think your scope would need that level of resolution.  Godes
>> describes using the following: A 100MHz Fluke 196C oscilloscope meter.
>>
>> Anyway, there is not a lot of info on the net about using PWM to make
>> bipolar pulses.  Producing a DC pulse to those specs is not so difficult.
>>  A bipolar pulse seems to be a different story.
>>
>> I have a 25mhz oscilloscope, so I'll try to see if it has the resolution
>> needed.  Supposedly, it will show down to 5 ns/div on the horizontal axis.
>>  I'll try to experiment to see if I can get a 100 ns DC pulse with PWM and
>> see how the scope does.
>>
>> Here is the scope I have.
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T6XNCA/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_SC_dp_1
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that
>>>> given the speed of sound in 
>>>> nickel<http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> 5630m/s
>>>>
>>>> and 430kHz:
>>>>
>>>> 5630m/s;430kHz?mm
>>>>
>>>> ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter
>>>> = 2.0838194 mm
>>>>
>>>> In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this
>>>>> possibility [electrode acoustics]. 
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of
>>>>> a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a
>>>>> program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis
>>>>> software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The
>>>>> natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being
>>>>> around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher
>>>>> harmonics are barely above noise.
>>>>&g

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

The closest I can get to figuring out how to do this would be the following:

3 power pulse modulators and a center tap transformer (see here:
http://www.rmcybernetics.com/tutorials/pwm-bipolar.htm).

The two PPMs and transformer that they describe gives you the HFAC.  The
third would give you the dead space (I think). See the description at the
bottom of the article.

Anyone see any problems with this, or is there a simpler way?  It is kind
of an expensive solution.


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> I see your point Jeff.
>
> I did use the oscilloscope to figure out the minimum pulse width
> attainable by the IOIO board I am using with my Android phone.  It will go
> down to 65 ns.
>
> Arnaud (or anyone who can answer),
>
> So if I understand correctly, you could use a PWM pulse with an H bridge
> to get AC from a PWM signal?  I think I looked into this before, and the
> problem would be that you wouldn't have the "dead space" in the current.
>  Let's say you have a 100 ns + current and when this is switched off, the H
> bridge allows the - current for the remainder of the duty cycle.  This gets
> you closer, but is still not what is needed.  If I understand correctly,
> you need a bipolar pulse (then no current in between the pulses).
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>> You don't need a high speed scope if the circuit is working *correctly*.
>> But if it's working correctly, you don't need to measure it at all.  ;-)
>> The reason for a high speed scope is to observe the behavior when it's not
>> working correctly. It's a high-power, high-speed AC circuit, so errors or
>> bad construction practices may produces really weird results that simply
>> won't be observable with a low-bandwidth instrument.
>>
>> I wouldn't read too much into the divisions on the scope. The probe and
>> scope electronics will act as a low-pass filter, so you'll a smoothed and
>> rounded representation of reality. It's not the frequency of the pulses
>> that's the issue here, it's the harmonics that compose the rising and
>> falling edges of the pulse.
>>
>> For AC pulses you can look at Arnaud's message. Godes didn't use this
>> approach, I think - instead the clever use of T8 as both an inductor and as
>> the primary of an isolation transformer; then by suitably referencing the
>> secondary side, the core sees AC. I could be misreading the design,
>> however. There are four MOSFETs in Godes design.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> I don't think your scope would need that level of resolution.  Godes
>>> describes using the following: A 100MHz Fluke 196C oscilloscope meter.
>>>
>>> Anyway, there is not a lot of info on the net about using PWM to make
>>> bipolar pulses.  Producing a DC pulse to those specs is not so difficult.
>>>  A bipolar pulse seems to be a different story.
>>>
>>> I have a 25mhz oscilloscope, so I'll try to see if it has the resolution
>>> needed.  Supposedly, it will show down to 5 ns/div on the horizontal axis.
>>>  I'll try to experiment to see if I can get a 100 ns DC pulse with PWM and
>>> see how the scope does.
>>>
>>> Here is the scope I have.
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T6XNCA/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_SC_dp_1
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that
>>>>> given the speed of sound in 
>>>>> nickel<http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/>
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> 5630m/s
>>>>>
>>>>> and 430kHz:
>>>>>
>>>>> 5630m/s;430kHz?mm
>>>>>
>>>>> ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter
>>>>> = 2.0838194 mm
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this
>>&

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Hi Frank,

No I haven't tried that.  It would be worth a try.  I'll see if I can get
some.

Jack


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:33 PM,  wrote:

> Have you tried boric acid, not Borax.
> The acid powder can can be found in the bug killer dept. of most hardware
> stores.
> I use it to treat lumber and keep out ants and termites.
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Arnaud,

Looks like 240V max and 4A max was used by Godes in phase 1.  The RMS
current is 12 mA.

More recently, looks like his circuit has capacity up to 35A (doesn't
specify the voltage) and a minimum pulse width of 250 ns.

I'd be happy just replicating the phase I for now.

Looks like those transistors could get in the range of ~313 ns pulse width
from looking at the data sheet @ 300V and 9.5A.

If I understand you correctly, are you saying you could use a second PWM
signal to turn all the gates off to get the dead time?

Thanks,
Jack

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

> e of the power part of the circuit?
>
> ** **
>
> Arnaud
>   ------
>
> *From:* Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com]
>
> 
>
> Arnaud (or anyone who can answer),
>
> ** **
>
> So if I understand correctly, you could use a PWM pulse with an H bridge
> to get AC from a PWM signal?  I think I looked into this before, and the
> problem would be that you wouldn't have the "dead space" in the current.
>  Let's say you have a 100 ns + current and when this is switched off, the H
> bridge allows the - current for the remainder of the duty cycle.  This gets
> you closer, but is still not what is needed.  If I understand correctly,
> you need a bipolar pulse (then no current in between the pulses).
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Thanks for explaining this Jeff.  Did you see that he is using 2 cathodes?
 What is the difference between the two?

Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> F626-12

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

Jeff,

Look at figure 9 on this page:  http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm

Two cathodes are shown.  It almost looks like the "2" cathodes are
connected together at the bottom.  Is he running the Q in a loop through
this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?

Here is some support for the idea.  In this paper (
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
 -- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, "High voltage, bipolar,
narrow
pulses were sent through the cathode and separately  pulse-width
modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and
cathode)."

So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading
pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode.

Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC
current (never goes to truly negative voltage)?

Thank you for the caution.  I will research and be careful with this.


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two
> cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is
> intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it
> somewhere as a "grid of nickel wires" (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive
> and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the
> secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled
> "15") is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends
> of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing.
> Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing
> it.  ;-)
>
> With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not
> critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same
> half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just
> produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio
> frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary
> and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the
> whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics
> as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the
> secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect
> there, etc.)
>
> I found this link:
> http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656
>
> which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.
>
> Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1
> voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your
> internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to
> take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about
> every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high
> powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards
> some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This
> isn't like working on digital electronics.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for explaining this Jeff.  Did you see that he is using 2
>> cathodes?  What is the difference between the two?
>>
>> Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
>> the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>>
>>> F626-12
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

[Jack Cole]

I've made a very interesting simulation circuit in LTSpice.  I started with
another template made by someone else outputting a simple DC pulse (using a
555 IC).  In the simulation, I get high frequency AC (one sweep from
positive to negative and back to zero then dead space).

Here is a single pulse from the sim:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/qpulse.png

Here is a more expanded view:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/qpulse2.png

Here is the LTSpice sim:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/555qpulse.asc

Anyway, don't know if this would work in reality, but looks interesting in
the simulation.


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Look at figure 9 on this page:  http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm
>
> Two cathodes are shown.  It almost looks like the "2" cathodes are
> connected together at the bottom.  Is he running the Q in a loop through
> this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?
>
> Here is some support for the idea.  In this paper (
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
>   -- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, "High voltage, bipolar, narrow
> pulses were sent through the cathode and separately  pulse-width
> modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and
> cathode)."
>
> So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading
> pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode.
>
> Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC
> current (never goes to truly negative voltage)?
>
> Thank you for the caution.  I will research and be careful with this.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>> If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two
>> cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is
>> intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it
>> somewhere as a "grid of nickel wires" (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive
>> and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the
>> secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled
>> "15") is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends
>> of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing.
>> Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing
>> it.  ;-)
>>
>> With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not
>> critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same
>> half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just
>> produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio
>> frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary
>> and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the
>> whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics
>> as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the
>> secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect
>> there, etc.)
>>
>> I found this link:
>> http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656
>>
>> which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.
>>
>> Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1
>> voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your
>> internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to
>> take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about
>> every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high
>> powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards
>> some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This
>> isn't like working on digital electronics.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for explaining this Jeff.  Did you see that he is using 2
>>> cathodes?  What is the difference between the two?
>>>
>>> Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
>>> the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> F626-12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The value of pulsing in bursts

[Jack Cole]

Dear Axil,

I think you are correct.  I would only add one thing and that is that the
loading current (DC) also appears to be necessary in electrolysis.

I have been getting some interesting results using simultaneous DC and AC
currents with 4 electrodes in the cell with the DC cathode placed in
between the electrodes for AC current.  So far, I have seen excess heating
in 10/13 experimental runs, compared with 0/4 in control runs using
galvanized steel cathode.  I have some new equipment coming where I'm
hoping to tease apart  whether high voltage or high current pulses are more
important.  I should have data on 3 more experiments by the time I get home
from work today (it runs automatically and emails the results to me when it
finishes).

So, I'm getting some interesting results, but I'll keep trying to disprove
them.

Jack


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Try
>
> https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u
>
> Axil
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> From Axil:
>>
>> >We are seeing this in the Papp reaction were continuous high voltage spark
>> >discharge is ineffective in moving the piston but high power capacitive
>> >spark discharge moves the piston vigorously.
>>
>> Are you convinced that the increased piston reaction from the capacitive
>> discharge is not just due to the amount of energy difference between the
>> sources?  I tend to believe that the current flow generates the force.  The
>> current is much larger from the capacitor bank and the net energy is also
>> far higher.  My mental model is that the device acts in the manner of an
>> electric motor.
>>
>>  Has there been recent videos from the experimentation?  I lost my link.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The value of pulsing in bursts

[Jack Cole]

It has varied from 7 to 25%.  From looking at the control runs, it is up to
50% greater than would be expected (but I prefer the conservative
estimate). Now with 13/16 runs.  Also, I need to correct what I wrote
previously.  I should have written 0/8 control runs instead of 0/4.

I am getting a variac and some halogen light transformers (40khz), so that
should be interesting.

I need to run more control runs after I get the new equipment too.


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> So far, I have seen excess heating in 10/13 experimental runs, compared
>> with 0/4 in control runs using galvanized steel cathode.
>>
>
> How far above background?
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

[Jack Cole]

I ran a correlational analysis on the last 4 hours of data.  T ambient is
correlated -.79 with P_xs.  So, pxs rises when ambient drops (or vice
versa).  That may have to do with the spiking and dipping, but probably not
with the baseline level of Pxs.


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
> Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?
>>
>
> Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas
> loading. No electrolysis or input noise.
>
> We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif
>
> Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.
>
> Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading
> and de-loading of metals:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

At one time, I had high hopes for Godes.  The more I followed him, it
became more evident that he and everyone else were enamored with his skills
and credentials as an EE.  Neither he, nor others, are skeptical enough of
his results to figure out what he has done wrong.  It probably wouldn't be
that hard to disprove--simply measure input power at the wall before his
generation of high voltage / frequency AC waveform.  Both he and others
have assumed that he is such a good electrical engineer that he never could
have made a mistake at measuring that power.  In the meantime, millions of
dollars have potentially been wasted.  I remain happy to apologize and
stand corrected should Godes or Tanzella of SRI say, "Look here, we
measured input power at the wall."  He supposedly had this electrolysis
system years ago that could give you a COP of 2 years ago and could turn
LENR on at will.  But in all this time, input power at the wall has never
been reported.

Jack

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
>
> https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/
>
> I was disappointed in this presentation. I think it is misguided. Godes'
> business strategy makes no sense. He makes absurd assertions such as: he
> must produce a finished product, and he has to reach a manufacturing level
> where fewer than 1% of the production line output fails and must be
> scrapped. This is like the Wright brothers claiming they cannot sell
> airplanes until they perfect a retractable landing gear. He says he is
> having trouble getting funded. Assuming the reactors work as claimed, if he
> would put five of them in the right hands, the skies would open up and
> billions of dollars would fall into his lap. This would happen even if the
> excess heat is only 10%. It would happen even if 99% of the reactors fail.
> For some types of transistors in the 1950s the failure rate was above 90%.
> That did not slow down the development of transistors. It just meant they
> were expensive for a while. (Some of them cost ~$16 where a vacuum tube for
> the same purpose cost $0.25, but there was a niche market for them despite
> this.)
>
> The present practicality of this device, and the engineering details that
> must be ironed out before it can be mass produced, are completely
> irrelevant.
>
> I do not understand the physics discussed in this podcast. I have not
> looked closely at the calorimetry, so I cannot judge whether the claims
> have merit.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

There can be non-malicious reasons for not reporting that data as Jones
notes.  I would add self-deception to that list, which I think is likely in
this case.  Everyone close to the matter believes Godes couldn't have made
a mistake on the input power measurement.  While understandable, it is
likely the Achilles heal of the whole thing.

Ultimately, if you can't get more power out than you put in from the wall,
it is useless, and is most probably an error.  To prove it isn't, you have
to do a lot more convincing experiments than have been presented by Godes
et. al. so far.  You have to answer every skeptical question that is
reasonable with data and/or explanation.  They have not even come close to
doing this, but instead try to rely on the authority of the inventor /
tester.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other
> Dardik spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be
> extremely lossy, especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple
> signal generators, all of which carry their own losses.
>
> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>
> Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It
> does not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring
> the losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did
> not want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP
> is what funders want to see.
>
> There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be
> constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy
> localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently
> generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost
> no flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven
> by a DC source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to
> be much less - and that situation would then accurately reflect the true
> thermodynamic balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall
> power at the start for one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do
> this yet (or did he?) since perhaps he is not certain that he knows the
> most efficient waveform. He would not want to get locked in and perhaps he
> is still searching for more.
>
> Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in
> the report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most
> efficient superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be
> static as opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
>
> We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the
> similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of
> Missouri moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with
> Dardik long ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>
>
> To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
> accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
>
> You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
> not too high for a $20 meter.
>
> This one has good reviews:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

Yes, if they put the whole thing in a calorimeter, they could measure the
input power at the wall.  I could be convinced by that kind of a setup.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:18 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large
> calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
>
> Why not?
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
> 
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
>
> 
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make
> it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could
> be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's.
>
>

[Vo]:Physicists spot the signatures of nuclear fusion in a table-top device – Physics World

[Jack Cole]

https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-spot-the-signatures-of-nuclear-fusion-in-a-table-top-device/

[Vo]:CNBC: Brad Pitt and Laurene Powell Jobs are reportedly invested in a mysterious 'cold fusion' energy company

[Jack Cole]

CNBC: Brad Pitt and Laurene Powell Jobs are reportedly invested in a
mysterious 'cold fusion' energy company.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/brad-pitt-and-laurene-powell-jobs-are-reportedly-invested-in-a-mysterious-cold-fusion-energy-company.html

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

[Jack Cole]

It's not really clear to me whether he re-calibrated everything with the
new reactor.  In the first set of experiments (first paper), he had two
reactors and would switch between them.  The second set, he only shows a
50W calibration and 0W.  I graphed input power by reactor temp, and it
looks awfully uniform (and quite similar to a normal heating curve).  It
would be nice to have calibration data to add to the chart.

[image: image.png]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is some more info. from the invoice for the nickel meshes, from Inada
> Kanaami, Inc. It says:
>
> ニッケル200 綾織金網 0.055Ｘ180mesh 200X300 5枚
>
> Let me insert commas. That means:
>
> Nickel 200, twill wire mesh, 0.055 x 180 mesh, 200 x 300, 5 sheets
>
> Nickel-200 is 99.6% nickel. It is described here:
>
> https://www.magellanmetals.com/nickel-200
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

[Jack Cole]

>
> It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy
> to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think.


Not so.  I used the data from his active run to create that chart.

He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and
> seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of
> the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a
> long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime.
>
> He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a
> run.
>

He probably needs to include more data.  We're kind of left taking his word
for it.  It is such an amazing result that he should at least end with
another calibration.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> It's not really clear to me whether he re-calibrated everything with the
>> new reactor.
>>
>
> He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and
> seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of
> the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a
> long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime.
>
> He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a
> run.
>
>
>
>>   In the first set of experiments (first paper), he had two reactors and
>> would switch between them.
>>
>
> Still does.
>
>
>
>> The second set, he only shows a 50W calibration and 0W.  I graphed input
>> power by reactor temp, and it looks awfully uniform (and quite similar to a
>> normal heating curve).
>>
>
> It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy
> to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We've seen errors this big before.  Best to not get too excited until there
is a replication.  Based on history, every time there has been an amazing
result like this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake,
unreplicable, or fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).  I
hope I'm wrong, and the issue has been solved once and for all.  How many
times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his results to be
in error in the past?  This is not a criticism, but a call for tempered
expectations.

Jack

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:32 PM Dave Roberson  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Dave Roberson 
> *Sent: *Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
>
>
>
> Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a
> gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to
> believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my
> own question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone
> wanting to replicate the experiment.
>
>
>
> Dave
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:51 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We've seen errors this big before.
>>
>
> I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger:
> 1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any
> professional scientist who has published a paper which was later shown to
> have errors on this scale. Not in absolute power, or in the O/I ratio.
>
> If you disagree, which paper do you have in mind? Who made errors this big
> before?
>
>
Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected papers
conducted by academics), possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP),
Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even though
they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).  There were
other papers claiming replication of Rossi that could never be replicated.
It's not hard to get it wrong and in a big way.  The experimenter needs to
be his or her own biggest critic.  In particular, because he (MIzuno) has
the most intimate knowledge of his apparatus.


>
>> Best to not get too excited until there is a replication.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
>>   Based on history, every time there has been an amazing result like
>> this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake, unreplicable, or
>> fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).
>>
>
> I do not think so, as I said. Give some examples. Who made a huge mistake?
> What was not replicatable? The only fraudulent results in the history of
> the field were Defkalion and Rossi, as far as I know. There may be others
> that were fraud, but I thought they were mistakes that could not be
> replicated. However, all the results I know of that could not be replicated
> were very small. They were marginal. They look like mistakes.
>
> I have never heard of anyone claiming 40 to 250 W that turned out to be a
> mistake. Very few claims in cold fusion exceeded 10 or 20 W. As far as I
> know, the only reaction of ~20 W that could not be replicated is Dardik's
> heat after death:
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf
>
> The only major large claim, of ~100 W, was Fleischmann and Pons boil-off
> experiment. As far as I know, only one group tried to replicate, Lonchampt
> and Biberian. They succeeded. Lonchampt was a nuclear engineer, so he
> followed instructions, so it worked.
>
> There was a molten salt claim of over 100 W, but no one tried to replicate.
>
>
Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
which were later replicated, and even later debunked.   Piantelli has made
high output claims -- never replicated.  Nobody has replicated BEC's
electrolysis results.  You could argue that nobody has replicated his gas
loading experiments either (though there is some possible support through
testing).

>
> How many times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his
>> results to be in error in the past?
>>
>
> Never, as far as I know. All of his claims were either replicated, or no
> one tried to replicate. Mostly the latter. IH tried to replicate one claim
> but they never got started, as far as I know. There were problems with the
> equipment. This resembles the situation with the Google researchers in
> *Nature* for their Pd-D claims. It was not a replication because they
> never reached high loading. It was an attempt that failed for known
> reasons. (I cannot judge their Ni claims.)
>
>
Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).  Recall the
previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had been initially
replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at least to me).
What research of his do you feel is highly replicable?

Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf

Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by
micro-explosions.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf



>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
>> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>>
>
> Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never
> published. I meant published results in the scientific literature.
>
> He is and he did (more than once).  You can look it up.


>
>
>> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
> scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
> that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
> Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
> it "evidence."
>
>
>
It is evidence.  You may disagree with the meaning of that evidence.


> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
>> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>>
>
> Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw
> positive results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was
> no disproved by any means.
>
>
>
You have to read the paper.  It is pretty convincing.  There were several
replications before that (like 5+).


> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
>> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>>
>
> No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
> anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
> replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
> conditions. Not for lack of trying.
>
>
>
I don't know what kind of evidence you require to call something debunked,
but I think it is thoroughly debunked unless Mizuno has responded and
conducted follow-up experiments taking into account splashing out of the
electrolyte.

Here is what one attempted replicator said
<https://earthtech.org/cold-fusion/mizuno/incandescent-pt/>:

> Mizuno claims in his report2 that “the reaction is 100% reproducible.” A
> casual observer would certainly have to agree that we have replicated the
> basic phenomenon that Mizuno, et al were investigating. However, we see no
> sign of excess heat in our experiments. Our calorimetry has an overall
> accuracy of about 1% relative and this results in an excess heat detection
> limit of about 3% relative. Therefore we have not accidentally missed “high
> heat output of the order of several hundred watts…from input power of tens
> of watts”.


Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the paper
I linked <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in
the previous email, his work has been debunked.

The challenge presented by ejection of liquid water is indeed very serious
> becase the latent heat of evaporation is large. Mist ejection, at the rate
> of 50 milligrams per second, results in the overestimation of Pout by
> 2260*0.05 = 113 W. This, however, is only one possible explanation of
> discrepancies. Another might be associated with microexplosions we
> occasionally observed during plasma electrolysis, expecially at higher
> voltages (see Appendix 3). Such explosions are accompanied by loud popping
> noise and very intensive arcing. We suspect that escaping hydrogen and
> oxygen occasionally combine under the influence of arcing. That could be a
> possible non-nuclear source of excess heat repored by several researchers.


   Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>>
>
> Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
> probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
> reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.
>
>
He supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I think they
got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities without giving
them any clear protocol to follow.  Unless that can be produced, there is
no reason to assume he has anything (other than his word).  If I'm not
mistaken, CERN tried to replicate some of his work and failed.



>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>
>
> What is BEC?
>
> Brillouin Energy Corp.


>
> Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
>> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
>> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>>
>
> I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
> excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
were likely compromised.  This reminds me of the profs who refused to
address the results of MFMP and others who demonstrated the errors in
Lugano.  Why?  We don't know for certain the reasons for all of them, but
heard from some that they were satisfied with the results because they got
some colleagues to agree with them.  Ok.

I wanted this research to be true, but there's no evidence that it was.
Ugo Abundo kind of revived it and then it suffered the same problems as BEC
(decreasing COP) to the point that we hear nothing else from him.

My main point again was just caution and humility about Mizuno's current
results.  There is precedent for large errors.

Jack


On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
>> paper I linked
>> <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in the
>> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
>
>
>> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
>> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
>> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>>
>
> Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
> tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
> replication.
>
>
>
>>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
>> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
>> replicate some of his work and failed.
>>
>
> Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.
>
>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is BEC?
>>>
>>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>>
>
> Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
> knows.
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>>
>>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
>> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>>
>
> So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
> adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.
>
> You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
> replication is. No one can tell.
>
>
>
>> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>>
>
> I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
> read his papers and see they have not been replicated.
>
>
>
>>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>>
>
> Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
> sham" or:
>
> expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
> "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
> synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,
>
> I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.
>
>
>
>> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>> were likely compromised.
>>
>
> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

I'm not sure what work you are referring to:

This one had an open top and claimed excess heat.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf

Here's one where he had a top on it and showed mostly no excess heat, but
supposedly excess hydrogen.  The alleged episodes of excess heat are pretty
weak.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgenerationa.pdf

 Has a top on.  Doesn't even talk about excess heat, but instead focused on
excess hydrogen.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf

Looks like he had trouble replicating his own results.  Because he had a
top on the beaker?

Jack


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>>> were likely compromised.
>>>
>>
>> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
>> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
>> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno experiment replication at Hokkaido University of Science

[Jack Cole]

What do you make of the fact that the calibration runs were done after the
apparent excess heat runs (based on the dates on the charts)?  Would be
nice to have a full step-up and step-down calibration and raw data rather
than results.  It's hard to know what to make of the report without more
data.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic, and
> calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 -
> 12:
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf
>

[Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
methods.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense...
> but get real...
>
> Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that
> stigma and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little
> changes but the word salad.
>
> IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no
> substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is
> very hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has
> been for the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger
> dimensional frame of reference.
>
> I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole 
> wrote:
>
>
> They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
> methods.
>
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
>

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

By "our" last experiments I mean you and I.  The idea was mostly yours if I
recall correctly.  I don't have the site up anymore, but you can see it
here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20180613041630/http://lenr-coldfusion.com/

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Jack Cole wrote:
>
> It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
> with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.
>
>
> Jack
>
> Do you have an online citation for this work?
>

[Vo]:Popular Mechanics: Scientists Just Killed the EmDrive

[Jack Cole]

Popular Mechanics: Scientists Just Killed the EmDrive.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/

[Vo]:NASA’s New Shortcut to Fusion Power

[Jack Cole]

You could, at a minimum, say this approach was inspired by all the CF
research.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[Jack Cole]

James brings up important points with respect to hypnosis and the mind/body
relationship.  No treatment controls have been performed in many
studies--most often through the use of "wait list controls."  In other
words, one group is on a waiting list to begin the treatment, and this is
compared to the putative active treatment and placebo groups.

There can be little doubt in the reality of the placebo effect to bring
real physiological changes.  What is debatable is the extent of these
changes, and the conditions that can be affected.  Warts--caused by the HPV
virus have long been successfully treated utilizing hypnosis.  Hypnosis has
also shown benefit to other conditions such as migraine headaches,
psoriasis, and intestinal conditions.  The placebo effect is not magic, but
works by physiological mechanisms.  It is of particular importance in
studying medication for psychological disorders as one's expectancies can
have a profound impact on one's recovery.

Proper control conditions for examining the placebo effect are slightly
more complicated than using a no-treatment control.  One actually needs a
"placebo" medication that may produce some noticeable side effects because
of the research showing that patients are often able to identify if they
are in the placebo or active medication groups based on the presence of
absence of side effects.  This degree of control is rarely performed in
studies, but wait-list controls are not infrequent in psychopharmacology.

Most medical conditions have a psychological aspect to them -- if nothing
else in a person's perception of their condition.  If you are studying a
pain medication, it is important to have a properly designed placebo
control condition as pain perception occurs in the mind and is affected by
many psychological factors.

To get more of a grasp on this area, it's useful to study
psychoneuroimmunology, which is a complex and fascinating field looking at
the interaction psychology, hormone systems, and the immune system.  There
is a substantial amount of research linking chronic stress to the
development of many physical conditions.

And James is also correct with the nocebo affect being attributed to
phenomena known as "voodoo death."  On a less dramatic issue is that
negative expectancies can lead to lack of benefit in a number of
treatments--particularly in psychopharmacology.

Best regards,
Jack



On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Its not that complicated.  Jed suggested the appropriate control for
> placebo:  No treatment at all.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> This is obviously a complex issue.
>> But I think that strong belief as with hypnosis and other suggestions
>> can't be discounted (faith healers).
>>
>> There are people who have apparently died from being made to think they
>> they were having blood drain from their bodies.
>> And if someone goes into surgery with a death wish of a negative
>> expectation the Nocebo effect is apparently very dangerous.
>>
>> At the extreme ends of mind body relationship, there are people that
>> insist that those with multiple personality disorder/disassociative
>> personality disorder can gain and lose medical conditions such as diabetes
>> and eye colour can change between the personalities.
>>
>> Blisters have apparently been raised by pencils that hypnotized subjects
>> have been told is hot.
>>
>> So let's say that the mind body connection is complex, but that a sugar
>> pill will not always deliver a powerful mind body effect, which is not to
>> say it can't if there is not enough belief.
>>
>> I also recall an experiment very  poorly recounted: rats being effected
>> by a 'ritual' where if a chemical was omitted the expected results
>> still occurred.
>> I don't recall the details but essentially this was somewhere between a
>> placebo effect on a mouse/rat a Pavlovian response.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> If the studies I read are correct, this indicates the disease they are
>>> trying to cure with this particular drug usually goes away on its own. The
>>> "placebo effect" is not getting stronger. They happen to be treating a
>>> disease in a group of people where nature usually does a better job than
>>> medical science does.
>>>
>>> There are several diseases and syndromes that used to be treated
>>> aggressively but nowadays are often left alone because they usually go away
>>> after a while, or they cause no serious harm. Then there are diseases where
>>> some doctors recommend treatment and others do not, such as childhood
>>> hemangioma.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jack Cole]

Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/

[Vo]:'Nocebo Effect' - Expectation Of Negative Effects Can Increase Likelihood Of Experiencing Symptoms

[Jack Cole]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260185.php

[Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Jack Cole]

Since either potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide react with aluminum to
produce hydrogen, I wonder if NiAl wire in electrolysis with KOH or NaOH
might prove interesting.  Any thoughts?

Perhaps even simpler would be adding this wire to a solution of KOH or NaOH
without electrolysis.  I don't know if the hydrogen produced would load
into the lattice.

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Jack Cole]

As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try:
 Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with
KOH.  It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode.
 I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil.  Seems like it
can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know
that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell.


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time...
> but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen!
> -m
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>
> Mark,
>
> A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for
> "free" energy.
>
> Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real
>
>
> http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht
> ml
>
> Is it only a matter of time... ?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
>
> Let's put some numbers to it...
>
> From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation:
>
> F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4)  (force per unit area, Casimir original
> derivation in 1948)
>
> F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um.
> Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom.
>
> -mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds
> here
> and helping to focus some of the discussions.  I have been too busy to
> participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too
> busy so as to avoid others!  ;-)  Most of the regular-posting Vorts are
> open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism.  We also are
> not
> concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' topics.
>
> I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very
> specific questions about the NAE; please look for it.  Now on to your
> question...
>
> RE: "I assume its "normal" EM radiation?"
> Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered
> normal EM radiation.
>
> I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the
> experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL).  The LANL Directory
> shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area,
> and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail?
>
> Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you want
> a
> more accurate explanation:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM
> "Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum
> Computing"
>
> http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf
> "Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details"
> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics)
>
> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf
> "Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials"
> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics)
>
> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf
> "... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause
> drag in a superfluid moving at any speed."
>
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>
> Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions.
> I'm
> sure all of these issues have been addressed.
>
> I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher
> frequency
> than is normally encountered.  When such radiation passes through a
> material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material,
> or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the
> material.  Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a
> fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction.  In other
> words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls
> of the gap.  The other photons pass right through the material without
> interacting or producing a force.
>
>   What produces the force?  The photons that are captured by the gap pass
> through the material without interacting until they reach the gap. Only at
> the gap is their presence felt by the material, but in the form of heat
> energy.  For a force to be felt by the material, the photons must interact
> and transfer momentum.  Does this mean all vacuum photons change direction
> when passing through a material and the gap simply removes a momentum
> vector
> such that a net

Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Jack Cole]

Very good.  Thanks Ed for the insight.


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Jack, you would have more success and not waste your time if you applied
> some basic chemistry.  More hydrogen does not result in more loading. Only
> the pressure and temperature determine the amount of loading. In addition,
> Constantan does not dissolve much H in any case.  Addition of aluminum will
> do nothing to the Constantan.  Cold fusion may be hard to understand but it
> does not mean the laws of chemistry have creased to function.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On May 18, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
>
> As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try:
>  Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with
> KOH.  It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode.
>  I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil.  Seems like it
> can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know
> that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell.
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time...
>> but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen!
>> -m
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for
>> "free" energy.
>>
>> Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real
>>
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht
>> ml
>>
>> Is it only a matter of time... ?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
>>
>> Let's put some numbers to it...
>>
>> From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation:
>>
>> F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4)  (force per unit area, Casimir original
>> derivation in 1948)
>>
>> F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um.
>> Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom.
>>
>> -mark
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds
>> here
>> and helping to focus some of the discussions.  I have been too busy to
>> participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately
>> too
>> busy so as to avoid others!  ;-)  Most of the regular-posting Vorts are
>> open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism.  We also are
>> not
>> concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying'
>> topics.
>>
>> I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very
>> specific questions about the NAE; please look for it.  Now on to your
>> question...
>>
>> RE: "I assume its "normal" EM radiation?"
>> Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered
>> normal EM radiation.
>>
>> I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the
>> experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL).  The LANL Directory
>> shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area,
>> and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail?
>>
>> Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you
>> want a
>> more accurate explanation:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM
>> "Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum
>> Computing"
>>
>> http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf
>> "Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details"
>> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics)
>>
>> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf
>> "Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials"
>> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics)
>>
>> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf
>> "... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause
>> drag in a superfluid moving at any speed."
>

[Vo]:Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist At the Same Time

[Jack Cole]

http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/DPOWdJL0eqo/story01.htm

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

[Jack Cole]

"b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat
control box back into the grid,"

Exactly my thoughts.  The trouble is even with a low-pass filter I think
you might see the waveform of the control on the scope if it is RF.  I've
certainly seen this with HFAC without the scope even being connected.
 Rossi would probably have to do an NDA to allow a scope when the control
is operating depending on what the control is actually doing.

Best regards,
Jack

[Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

Hi All,

I have a new post up where I explore the issue of the language used to
describe LENR.  I would be interested in the views of others here regarding
this matter as I always find your opinions of interest and valuable.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/06/03/language-upgrade-needed-lenr/

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

Hi Jed,

I agree that it doesn't matter to us who have looked into the research, but
do you think it would make a difference with the broader population of
scientists, general public, and the patent office?

Jack



On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to
> inventing a new name for it.
>
> It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
> words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
> disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
> the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.
>
> Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
> skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
> real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so *that's* what it
> shows on the computer screen."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

Good points Alain.  I suppose it may all become a mute point as more
positive results roll in, and if there is a running reactor that the public
can visit.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Last year the same question was 
> raised.
> My first longitudinal hair cutter opinion was to use LENR (beside being
> precise and popular, that term is easy to search in google).
> however after discussing with businessmen, they convince me that for my
> mum "cold fusion" was the best. I presented my position as such:
>
> "Here is my position on the naming.
> Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted
> term like LENR. Today here is my position.
>
> Some corporate serial innovator said me that
> *Cold Fusion*
> is the best name.
>
> Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t
> care…
>
> but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR  …
>
> it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous
>
> it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive
>
> the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor…
> it is a bit geek … not for my mum. :mrgreen:
> For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho
> :shock: … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: …
>
> so really COLD FUSION is the best name…
> the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy,
> inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of
> revenge on the men in power :twisted: …
>
> like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel
> reactor  8-) :twisted: …
> COOL! :mrgreen:"
>
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to
>> inventing a new name for it.
>>
>> It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
>> words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
>> disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
>> the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.
>>
>> Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
>> skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
>> real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so *that's* what it
>> shows on the computer screen."
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR

[Jack Cole]

Hi All,

I've been considering ideas for running LENR experiments in parallel.  I
know P&F and others have done some experiments like this in the past with
running multiple electrolytic cells simultaneously, so this is certainly an
option.  I'm wondering if there are any other thoughts on parallel
experimental methods to screen materials.  If we know that the effect
appears maybe 1/20 to 1/7 times can a pre-screening process be performed in
a relatively rapid manner to narrow down the material that works the best.

One idea I had was to take a quartz tube (e.g., Celani/MFMP original cell
design) with a heating element and loaded with hydrogen.  In the bottom of
the tube, have several types of materials (e.g., different nickel powder
mixtures/sizes etc..) discretely separated and monitored with an IR camera
similar to the setup for the E-cat test.  The image could be monitored to
determine which samples give off the most heat.

Since the reproducibility problem is in part a materials problem, then it
makes sense to me to develop a screening method to more quickly find
samples that work and discard those that don't.  A process using a method
to simultaneously screen many samples would seem to be the most efficient
way to empirically screen materials.

NASA's chip array design would have some promise in this area, but would
seem less practical, more expensive, and limited compared to other
possibilities (e.g., IR camera).

Any thoughts on this matter or other ideas on efficient materials screening
processes?

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Dennis,

I will read those papers and consider your ideas and methods.  Looks like
some good ideas there.  I have an electrochem method that is kind of
expensive on the supply and control side (multiple programmable power
supplies controlled by a computer - each delivering power to a single cell
and constantly adjusted input power to deliver the same power levels to
each cell regardless of resistance).

I'm also not just interested for my own experimentation, but feel that this
is a significant area of concern that may affect the general
reproducibility of the effect.  In your experience, when you screen out
materials that show an effect, can you reproduce the effect more often with
those materials?

Along similar lines, has anyone tried a large quantity of micro or nano
particle nickel (e.g., 10kg in a large chamber).  I realize that would
probably be dangerous (and wouldn't want to try it myself), but one would
think with that much material that somewhere within that massive surface
area would be the right conditions.

Best regards,
Jack



On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> For a simple electrochem sort see:
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDfactorsaff.pdf
> you can tell a lot by looking at the bubble patterns.  (fine good, coarse
> bad).
> Mike M and Fran T.  were able to test loading with a wire system moving a
> R tester along the wire to locate loaded areas.
>
> For co-deposit you can make a "cell farm" with multiple cells in the same
> water bath and compare temps and get relative numbers.  That is how I did
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDpracticalta.pdf
> see slide 11
>
> You can also plate Au onto thermistors and then co-dep and compare temps.
> it works well but the cost of thermistors limits the use for the self
> funded.
>
> Another "farm system" - is to run the cells in series (I1=I2) and put
> zeners in a tube and across the cell (to the keep the V's about equal-
> zeners you will need to think about that one- the electrodes dump some heat
> and the zeners dump the rest).
>
> I am still struggling in searches for powder based systems.  Their R is
> all over the map. (packing, oxidation levels, surface area.)
>
> However, one way I have been experimenting with is to pack a tube with
> several powders (various loading, additives.) then passing pulsed
> current through the stack.  I measure the temp of the outside of the tube.
> Using a Al2O3 ceramic tube.
> But it relies on the R through the various powders to be nearly the same.
> It is only good for large variations.
> I use a "dilute stack" with most of the stack unloaded C and then adding
> only a little of the (hopefully) various active materials along the tube.
>
> I doubt that this would be good for a spark like system, but I am doing a
> straight excitation of powder via currents.
>
> Good luck.
>
> D2
>
>
>
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:35:42 -0500
> From: jcol...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've been considering ideas for running LENR experiments in parallel.  I
> know P&F and others have done some experiments like this in the past with
> running multiple electrolytic cells simultaneously, so this is certainly an
> option.  I'm wondering if there are any other thoughts on parallel
> experimental methods to screen materials.  If we know that the effect
> appears maybe 1/20 to 1/7 times can a pre-screening process be performed in
> a relatively rapid manner to narrow down the material that works the best.
>
> One idea I had was to take a quartz tube (e.g., Celani/MFMP original cell
> design) with a heating element and loaded with hydrogen.  In the bottom of
> the tube, have several types of materials (e.g., different nickel powder
> mixtures/sizes etc..) discretely separated and monitored with an IR camera
> similar to the setup for the E-cat test.  The image could be monitored to
> determine which samples give off the most heat.
>
> Since the reproducibility problem is in part a materials problem, then it
> makes sense to me to develop a screening method to more quickly find
> samples that work and discard those that don't.  A process using a method
> to simultaneously screen many samples would seem to be the most efficient
> way to empirically screen materials.
>
> NASA's chip array design would have some promise in this area, but would
> seem less practical, more expensive, and limited compared to other
> possibilities (e.g., IR camera).
>
> Any thoughts on this matter or other ideas on efficient materials
> screening processes?
>
> Best regards,
> Jack
>

[Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Utilizing thermometry with electrolysis can generate an effect of apparent
excess heating starting after several days of running.  I found this to
particularly be the case using a stainless steel anode.  What I have
eventually figured out is that the stainless anode begins to dissolve and
iron oxide builds up in the cell causing the electrolyte to become
increasingly rust colored.  Over time, more of this builds as iron oxide
occupies a much greater volume than the stainless steel itself.  Even if
the electrolytic cell is replenished with water to the starting level, the
amount of water is greatly decreased by the increased volume of iron oxide.
 The heat capacity of iron oxide is much less than water (.69 J/gK vs. 4.18
J/gK).  Less energy is required to heat the iron oxide to a higher
temperature resulting in increased temperature in the cell despite constant
power input.  This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to
50% in several of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?

See this chart:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/falseahe.jpg

Note: the dips in the graph are from replenishing the electrolyte with
water.

In thinking this through and studying the matter, I also came across
something of interest regarding palladium and surface changes when used as
a cathode in electrolysis.

http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n389/html/en389a07.htm

--

I have a question related to the first matter and specific heat capacity.
 Would these principles translate to the possibility of creating a false
impression of excess heating in a case such as Rossi were he to use
different materials for the blank vs. active reactor?  Note: I don't
believe that this was done, but I'm just wondering about the possibility.

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jones.  I just ordered one of those anodes.  I am also going to
cross check with a graphite anode.  I was using standard nickels and a
thoriated tungsten rod all plated with an extra layer of nickel as a
cathode.  I also added a small amount of nickel sulfate to the electrolyte
after approximately 24 hours of run time.

For my analysis above, I'm simply looking at the relative volume occupied
by the iron oxide versus the water.  If you use the equations for
Q=mc(delta T), you can see that less energy is needed to cause the same
amount of temperature change in iron oxide versus water.  I do also think a
lot of the heat was coming from oxidization throughout the run (as noted
with the temperature checked on the anode vs. cathode with an IR
thermometer).


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to 50% in several
> of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?
>
> ** **
>
> Not so sure that this analysis is precise – but apparent gain could be due
> to iron as a consumable and must be eliminated. If iron is leaching, then
> gain would be due as much to oxidation as a change in heat capacity (a bit
> of both). 
>
> ** **
>
> There are ways to check. Simplest: you could use a nickel anode to
> cross-check… or plate the stainless or a copper anode with nickel or Pt or
> Pd. 
>
> ** **
>
> For an complementary anode - which may be as active as a nickel cathode -
> success has been seen with what is called MMO or “mixed metal oxide” coated
> titanium anodes … which are used in swimming pools and spa chlorinators and
> not too dear.
>
> ** **
>
> I see one on eBay now for 15 bucks.
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/MMO-coated-expanded-titanium-mesh-anode-2-by-6-/171058056592?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d3dacd90
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
 I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png

Best regards,
Jack




On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thanks Jones.  I just ordered one of those anodes.  I am also going to
> cross check with a graphite anode.  I was using standard nickels and a
> thoriated tungsten rod all plated with an extra layer of nickel as a
> cathode.  I also added a small amount of nickel sulfate to the electrolyte
> after approximately 24 hours of run time.
>
> For my analysis above, I'm simply looking at the relative volume occupied
> by the iron oxide versus the water.  If you use the equations for
> Q=mc(delta T), you can see that less energy is needed to cause the same
> amount of temperature change in iron oxide versus water.  I do also think a
> lot of the heat was coming from oxidization throughout the run (as noted
> with the temperature checked on the anode vs. cathode with an IR
> thermometer).
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to 50% in several
>> of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Not so sure that this analysis is precise – but apparent gain could be
>> due to iron as a consumable and must be eliminated. If iron is leaching,
>> then gain would be due as much to oxidation as a change in heat capacity (a
>> bit of both). 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There are ways to check. Simplest: you could use a nickel anode to
>> cross-check… or plate the stainless or a copper anode with nickel or Pt or
>> Pd. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For an complementary anode - which may be as active as a nickel cathode -
>> success has been seen with what is called MMO or “mixed metal oxide” coated
>> titanium anodes … which are used in swimming pools and spa chlorinators and
>> not too dear.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I see one on eBay now for 15 bucks.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/MMO-coated-expanded-titanium-mesh-anode-2-by-6-/171058056592?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d3dacd90
>> 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Mark, the programming is the same as I have been using.  The wiring is a
little different as I am running directly from the power supply with this
experiment instead of through the relay bank.  The electrodes are placed a
little higher than typical, so the temperature sensor is deeper in the cell
than the electrodes.  Usually, they are at approximately the same level in
the cell.  Still, I don't think any of this would account for that.

I can think of two possibilities: 1) a malfunction of the temperature
sensor, or 2) the magnetic stirrer could have stopped spinning at some
point and then restarted causing the warmer upper layers to mix with the
layers at the level of the sensor.  I have no way of knowing about #2 (it
was spinning when I checked it later and was to start out).



On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Is there anything different about this setup from prior ones?  Is the temp
> sensor is a different location, or attached differently?  Any code changes,
> etc... Think hard about even the smallest change from earlier tests.
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry
>
> In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:52:25 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
> during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or
> bubble
> formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?
>
> >Jones,
> >
> >Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the
> >stainless steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems
> intriguing.
> > I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.
> >
> >http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Jack
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Yes, I will do that after I finish running another experiment tonight.


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> See this chart:
>> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/falseahe.jpg
>>
>
> It would be nice to see a control run for comparison.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

I have collected more data in a new run that seems to explain things (see
chart below).  Something took place around 1000 seconds and corrected
around where the spike occurred (note that I removed some data from the
first part of Run 1 to line up the curves at the start of the runs).  The
most likely probability to my mind is that the magnetic stir bar must have
stopped spinning and restarted mixing the water layers again causing an
apparent spike in the temperature.  Jones suggested an experiment to
oscillate between the top and bottom of the spike range, which I have
started.  Just from the start of this new run, it is clear that the first
run was not tracking correctly from early on.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-16-13.png

I'll keep experimenting, and if I find anything of interest, will report
back.  Thank you for the comments and suggestions that helped figure this
out.




On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point Robin.
>
> There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
> recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
> Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
> we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.
>
> The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
> gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
> recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
> the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
> carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
> cooler than it otherwise would be.
>
> Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
> minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
> water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
> for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
> electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
> nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.
>
> A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
> low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
> hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
> manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
> electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.
>
> More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
> available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
> safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
> recombines the gas a few times per second.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to
> be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
> during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or
> bubble
> formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?
>
>
> >Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
> >steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
> > I've never seen it do that before. It occurred over 90 seconds.
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

I don't know if we have a real ratcheting effect or not.  I have it running
like a simple thermostat.  Turns the electrolysis on at a set temp and off
at a set temp.  With this method, you would only see ratcheting if there
was "heat after death."  The other possibility to see it would be a
decreasing amount of time that the electrolysis is turned on.  Another
possibility would be to compare to a control run.

I would need to switch over to a fixed duty cycle to demonstrate a
ratcheting effect more clearly.  I think another possibility to produce the
effect would be to run the electrolysis continuously while pulsing a joule
heater at a fixed duty cycle within the cell.  This would really be closer
to an electrolytic analogue of the E-cat, because of the continuous
presence of hydrogen.  If I'm not mistaken, P&F had some good results with
pulsing a joule heater.

Jack


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Excellent work Jack, since this latest graph is starting to looksuggestive
> for a real comparative thermal anomaly …
>
> ** **
>
> Let’s hope that this continues, since you are starting to see the thermal
> “ratcheting effect” which seems to be one the most reliable “tells” for
> gain in the Ni-H reaction – and you are seeing it in a situation
> (electrolysis) where minimal gain is expected under any circumstance
> (compared to a dedicated gas-phase reactor).
>
> ** **
>
> It is not clear if Run 2 is a real ratcheting or not, but it sure looks
> like it, so far. (I’m assuming that it is the lower duty regime?)
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> I have collected more data in a new run that seems to explain things (see
> chart below).  Something took place around 1000 seconds and corrected
> around where the spike occurred (note that I removed some data from the
> first part of Run 1 to line up the curves at the start of the runs).  The
> most likely probability to my mind is that the magnetic stir bar must have
> stopped spinning and restarted mixing the water layers again causing an
> apparent spike in the temperature.  Jones suggested an experiment to
> oscillate between the top and bottom of the spike range, which I have
> started.  Just from the start of this new run, it is clear that the first
> run was not tracking correctly from early on.
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-16-13.png
>
> ** **
>
> I'll keep experimenting, and if I find anything of interest, will report
> back.  Thank you for the comments and suggestions that helped figure this
> out.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones Beene  wrote: Good point Robin.
>
>
> There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
> recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
> Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
> we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.
>
> The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
> gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
> recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
> the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
> carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
> cooler than it otherwise would be.
>
> Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
> minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
> water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
> for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
> electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
> nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.
>
> A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
> low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
> hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
> manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
> electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.
>
> More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
> available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
> safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
> recombines the gas a few times per second.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to
> be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that so

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Jack Cole]

John,

This is easily disproved.  Look at the temperature output graph.  How does
you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips
as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with
the measured power on cycles.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/rossiinout.png

Best regards,
Jack



On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:21 AM, John Milstone wrote:

> Alan,
>
> Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely method of
> fraud: running full current through the supposedly "dead" 3rd phase wire?
>
> This would change the power input from an an average of 266 Watts (800
> Watts * 0.33) to 666 Watts (800 Watts * 0.33 + 400 Watts * 1.0).
>
> This would produce an apparent COP of 2.5 (avg 666 Watts vs avg 266
> Watts), which is just what the testers reported.
>
> John
>
>   --
>  *From:* Alan Fletcher 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test
>
> > From: "Andrew" 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM
> >
>
> > 2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up
> > to a small phase lag, with the pulses. This is expected behaviour.
>
> The general fluctuation is expected, but the SHAPE of the curve is
> consistent only with a TRIANGULAR 150-sec rise, 150-sec fall (or possibly
> sawtooth) wave.  It is NOT consistent with a DC offset applied either
> through the heater or the central reactor cylinder.
>
> (I have to check what a triangle applied to the heater would look like. I
> guess I should also try a 1/450 hz sine wave).
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

I've been conducting a new series of electrolysis experiments with Nitinol
(56% nickel/44% titanium).  I did a little video demonstrating nitinol's
effect of contracting when heated while running an electrolysis experiment.
 I'm using KOH as the electrolyte.

May be of interest to some here.  Seems to me that this alloy may be
promising for LENR.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/01/23/automated-android-electrolysis-system-nitinol-demonstration/

Best regards,
Jack

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

Might try again.  Seems to be working fine now.


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  I get an error message from that page
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> I've been conducting a new series of electrolysis experiments with Nitinol
> (56% nickel/44% titanium).  I did a little video demonstrating nitinol's
> effect of contracting when heated while running an electrolysis experiment.
>  I'm using KOH as the electrolyte.
>
> ** **
>
> May be of interest to some here.  Seems to me that this alloy may be
> promising for LENR.
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/01/23/automated-android-electrolysis-system-nitinol-demonstration/
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack
>

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

I'm still working the kinks out of the experimental procedures.  At first
glance, the behavior doesn't appear to be different than the nickel and
tungsten.

What I am working on now is a three electrode system.  One is made out of
nitinol, and I'm using this as a heating element only.  Another is made out
of nitinol of the same length as the one used for the heating element.  The
third is made from stainless steel.

With the Android control system, I am running DC electrolysis for 9 seconds
(16 watts) and then pulse 80-90 watts of 94khz AC (100 milliseconds)
through either the heating element or axially through the cathode.

What you end up with is a comparison of runs of pulsing the AC through the
cathode vs. pulsing it through the nitinol used as a heating element.  I
have to make a new cathode and heating element and start over making
certain the impendance is matched for both.  The idea is that you have one
nitinol wire loaded with hydrogen and one that is not loaded with hydrogen.
 I'm thinking the HFAC current may trigger LENR in the hydrogen loaded
cathode but not in the heating element.

I thought the nitinol is intriguing for the reasons you noted (titanium and
nickel being used in past experiments) and its shape changing when heated.
 I think the next thing to try will be a similar setup using a combination
of tungsten and nitinol paired together.  Then we'll be running with 3
materials that have shown results from other researchers.

Also, thank you for the thoughts on endotherm possibilities.  I'll keep
that in mind if I see something anomalous.

Jack


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>Jack,
>
> Nitinol is a interesting choice since both nickel and titanium are proton
> conductors with a history of positive results in LENR - and the wire is
> commonly available. Plus there is the strange “memory” effect (which could
> be utilized for audible resonance). 
>
> It appears from your other pages that you’ve done simple calorimetry to
> see if there is evidence of thermal gain using nickel, tungsten etc. Even
> though those results were apparently inconclusive, does Nitinol appear to
> give markedly different results from the others? 
>
> I said “different” instead of better - since it should be mentioned that
> in Ahern’s testing for EPRI there was another anomaly – cooling. IIRC it
> was an alloy of nickel and titanium (embedded in zirconia) which provided
> the appearance of endotherm – the mysterious disappearance of input energy.
> It might help to do an acid etch of the wire as the endotherm is associated
> with nano-porosity (and Casimir – which can be both an attractive force or
> repellent - depending on geometry changes)
>
> If you were seeking anomalous endotherm, which could be equally important
> (theoretically) to gainful exotherm, the experiment would probably need
> different parameters - such as lower voltage DC and surface treatment for
> nanostructure - but it could be worth the effort. 
>
> Adding energy to achieve a lower thermal state may seem to be
> counterproductive at first glance, but perhaps it is the one detail that
> will make everything understandable. 
>
> There was a bit of evidence that the quantumheat.org folks saw a bit of
> endotherm and were trying to explain it way – rather than to deal with it
> as part of the package of Ni-H oddities.
>
> Jones
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> I've been conducting a new series of electrolysis experiments with Nitinol
> (56% nickel/44% titanium).  I did a little video demonstrating nitinol's
> effect of contracting when heated while running an electrolysis experiment.
>  I'm using KOH as the electrolyte. 
>
> May be of interest to some here.  Seems to me that this alloy may be
> promising for LENR. 
>
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/01/23/automated-android-electrolysis-system-nitinol-demonstration/
> 
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

That should be easy enough to carry out.  I will order some constantan and
some more nitinol.

Are you thinking that the hydrogen loading may be unnecessary?


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Jack,
>
> ** **
>
> If anomalous cooling in Nitinol (putative) is of any interest - here is
> about the simplest experiment which can tell an experimenter something
> worth knowing. I’ve not done it, but it is now on my list.
>
> ** **
>
> It would be to compare the relative temperature rise using simple
> resistance heating of a known mass of electrolyte and identical watt-hours
> of input - using two wires of similar resistance, one of which is suspected
> to cool anomalously (Nitinol) and the other to heat anomalously (Constantan
> or Monel). 
>
> ** **
>
> No water-splitting or phase-change here to confuse things, just simple
> heating of the same mass of water in otherwise identical runs - and logging
> temperature rise over time with a precision thermometer - of each wire. My
> guess is that Nitinol will supply slightly less heat to the water than
> Constantan for the same electrical input. But this is based on Ahern’s
> results with specialty nano-powder, so the expectation may not apply. Both
> wires should be etched to provide Casimir porosity.
>
> ** **
>
> In checking just now - the electrical resistivity of Constantan and
> Nitinol are not the same, but close enough to get identical resistance in
> two sample test wires. IOW - by varying the length of wires (or gauge or
> both) one can get the same resistance. By using the same wetted surface
> area with wires of different lengths, fairly accurate comparative results
> should be possible even though there is slightly more constantan by length,
> since the wetted area is the same.
>
> ** **
>
> The results would not be a perfect indicator of an anomaly between the two
> types of nickel alloy - but could inspire enough confidence to move onto a
> more accurate (and expensive) technique.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> Jones,
>
> ** **
>
> I'm still working the kinks out of the experimental procedures.  At first
> glance, the behavior doesn't appear to be different than the nickel and
> tungsten.  
>
> ** **
>
> What I am working on now is a three electrode system.  One is made out of
> nitinol, and I'm using this as a heating element only.  Another is made out
> of nitinol of the same length as the one used for the heating element.  The
> third is made from stainless steel.
>
> ** **
>
> With the Android control system, I am running DC electrolysis for 9
> seconds (16 watts) and then pulse 80-90 watts of 94khz AC (100
> milliseconds) through either the heating element or axially through the
> cathode.
>
> ** **
>
> What you end up with is a comparison of runs of pulsing the AC through the
> cathode vs. pulsing it through the nitinol used as a heating element.  I
> have to make a new cathode and heating element and start over making
> certain the impendance is matched for both.  The idea is that you have one
> nitinol wire loaded with hydrogen and one that is not loaded with hydrogen.
>  I'm thinking the HFAC current may trigger LENR in the hydrogen loaded
> cathode but not in the heating element.
>
> ** **
>
> I thought the nitinol is intriguing for the reasons you noted (titanium
> and nickel being used in past experiments) and its shape changing when
> heated.  I think the next thing to try will be a similar setup using a
> combination of tungsten and nitinol paired together.  Then we'll be running
> with 3 materials that have shown results from other researchers.
>
> ** **
>
> Also, thank you for the thoughts on endotherm possibilities.  I'll keep
> that in mind if I see something anomalous.
>
> ** **
>
> Jack
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:*
> ***
>
> Jack,
>
> Nitinol is a interesting choice since both nickel and titanium are proton
> conductors with a history of positive results in LENR - and the wire is
> commonly available. Plus there is the strange “memory” effect (which could
> be utilized for audible resonance). 
>
> It appears from your other pages that you’ve done simple calorimetry to
> see if there is evidence of thermal gain using nickel, tungsten etc. Even
> though those results were apparently inconclusive, does Nitinol appear to
> give markedly different results from the others? 
>
> I said “different” instead of better - since it should be mentioned that
> in Ahern’s testing for EPRI there was another anomaly – cooling

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
idea for the acid?


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can
> possibly be accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low
> as to dissolve the wires… or preferably by preloading etched wires for a
> day under H2 pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which
> would be during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as
> cathodes. The last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> That should be easy enough to carry out.  I will order some constantan and
> some more nitinol.
>
>  
>
> Are you thinking that the hydrogen loading may be unnecessary?
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:*
> ***
>
> Jack, 
>
> If anomalous cooling in Nitinol (putative) is of any interest - here is
> about the simplest experiment which can tell an experimenter something
> worth knowing. I’ve not done it, but it is now on my list.
>
> It would be to compare the relative temperature rise using simple
> resistance heating of a known mass of electrolyte and identical watt-hours
> of input - using two wires of similar resistance, one of which is suspected
> to cool anomalously (Nitinol) and the other to heat anomalously (Constantan
> or Monel).  
>
> No water-splitting or phase-change here to confuse things, just simple
> heating of the same mass of water in otherwise identical runs - and logging
> temperature rise over time with a precision thermometer - of each wire. My
> guess is that Nitinol will supply slightly less heat to the water than
> Constantan for the same electrical input. But this is based on Ahern’s
> results with specialty nano-powder, so the expectation may not apply. Both
> wires should be etched to provide Casimir porosity.
>
> In checking just now - the electrical resistivity of Constantan and
> Nitinol are not the same, but close enough to get identical resistance in
> two sample test wires. IOW - by varying the length of wires (or gauge or
> both) one can get the same resistance. By using the same wetted surface
> area with wires of different lengths, fairly accurate comparative results
> should be possible even though there is slightly more constantan by length,
> since the wetted area is the same. 
>
> The results would not be a perfect indicator of an anomaly between the two
> types of nickel alloy - but could inspire enough confidence to move onto a
> more accurate (and expensive) technique.
>
> *From:* Jack Cole  
>
> Jones, 
>
> I'm still working the kinks out of the experimental procedures.  At first
> glance, the behavior doesn't appear to be different than the nickel and
> tungsten.   
>
> What I am working on now is a three electrode system.  One is made out of
> nitinol, and I'm using this as a heating element only.  Another is made out
> of nitinol of the same length as the one used for the heating element.  The
> third is made from stainless steel.
>
> With the Android control system, I am running DC electrolysis for 9
> seconds (16 watts) and then pulse 80-90 watts of 94khz AC (100
> milliseconds) through either the heating element or axially through the
> cathode. 
>
> What you end up with is a comparison of runs of pulsing the AC through the
> cathode vs. pulsing it through the nitinol used as a heating element.  I
> have to make a new cathode and heating element and start over making
> certain the impendance is matched for both.  The idea is that you have one
> nitinol wire loaded with hydrogen and one that is not loaded with hydrogen.
>  I'm thinking the HFAC current may trigger LENR in the hydrogen loaded
> cathode but not in the heating element. 
>
> I thought the nitinol is intriguing for the reasons you noted (titanium
> and nickel being used in past experiments) and its shape changing when
> heated.  I think the next thing to try will be a similar setup using a
> combination of tungsten and nitinol paired together.  Then we'll be running
> with 3 materials that have shown results from other researchers.
>
>  
>
> Also, thank you for the thoughts on endotherm possibilities.  I'll keep
> that in mind if I see something anomalous.
>
>  
>
> Jack
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:*
> ***
>
> Jack,
>
> Nitinol is a interesting choice since both nickel and titanium are prot

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

I am using a basic open electrolytic cell with with a temperature sensor in
the cell and one for ambient temperature.  Temperature and power input
levels are recorded every second.  I start with an elevated baseline
temperature in the cell above ambient and do several repeated runs allowing
it to cool to the elevated baseline in between runs (in a fully automated
and pre-programmed process).  Obviously this is not as sensitive as
advanced calorimetry, but it is also not without utility.


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> And the calorimetry?  How will you know if you have something?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Chuck,

It's encouraging to know we've had the same ideas!  You may not have had
the polarity wrong.  I've gone through two wires with it so far.  I've
thought maybe I was putting too much power through it, but it also may be
that the hydrogen loading is very rough on the wire.  After running ~5 hrs
the wire broke and you could touch it, and it would disintegrate.  I may
need to try thicker wire (using .009" currently).


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Hi Jack,
>
>Keep on experimenting!  Your following the same track that I did, and
> Nitinol was one thought I had.  The idea at the time was to load hydrogen
>  into nitinol, and then crank up the current to flex the metal lattice with
> the H embedded in  the crystal structure.   I think I had the polarity
> wrong as the nitinol dissolved in the solution.  Anyway, keep on
> experimenting.  You might be on to something.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> I've been conducting a new series of electrolysis experiments with
>> Nitinol (56% nickel/44% titanium).  I did a little video demonstrating
>> nitinol's effect of contracting when heated while running an electrolysis
>> experiment.  I'm using KOH as the electrolyte.
>>
>> May be of interest to some here.  Seems to me that this alloy may be
>> promising for LENR.
>>
>>
>> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/01/23/automated-android-electrolysis-system-nitinol-demonstration/
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jack
>>
>
>