[Vo]:Re: The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Probably at that temperature the hydrogen will leak very fast through the cell even if it is sealed properly Peter v Noorden From: Bob Higgins Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
It's very difficult to make this type of seal. When the cement is wet, the hydrogen easily passes through. I use a dangerous gas detector as I heat it up, but as yet, have not achieved a seal in experiments I've tried. A lot of the cement requires heating to fully cure, but heating causes hydrogen release. Your hydrogen escapes before the seal is made. Maybe Parkhomov figured out how to do it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Why don't just ask Parkhomov? 2014-12-31 9:23 GMT-02:00 Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com: It's very difficult to make this type of seal. When the cement is wet, the hydrogen easily passes through. I use a dangerous gas detector as I heat it up, but as yet, have not achieved a seal in experiments I've tried. A lot of the cement requires heating to fully cure, but heating causes hydrogen release. Your hydrogen escapes before the seal is made. Maybe Parkhomov figured out how to do it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Yes! On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: You mean, achieved a device to bring on global cooling?? On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote: It could have been worse, we could have lost heat from the universe On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cbsit...@gmail.com'); wrote: As best as I could tell, it looks like this was a dud. Heat in = Heat out. It was frustrating to see. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Is it possible--safe-- to cure the glue under a H2 atmosphere and pressure to allow the sealing to occur with adequate H2? If O2 is necessary for curing, maybe a different high temperature cement would work. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
CB Sites wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. My take on it was that the MFMP dogbone may suffer from a bad design choice, more so than from a leak. The design choice was to use kanthal resistance wire. Kanthal is composed of iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) wire alloys in various proportions. There is NO nickel in Kanthal. Parkhomov use nichrome resistance wire. Typically 80% of nichrome can be nickel. Inconel used by Rossi is also high in nickel. If nickel is active in this reactor, then the wire itself can contain many times more net nickel than the actual fuel - which is less than a gram. If there is 100 grams of nichrome wire in the design, then there can be 80 grams of nickel but of course it is not in contact with H2 at first. Hydrogen will diffuse slowly through sintered alumina as it is 7-9% porosity - but it will diffuse. It will diffuse at high temperature more rapidly. As noted in earlier posts H2 will not diffuse through fused alumina, which has no porosity but the tube is not fused. Thus the characteristic time delay for excess hear - as H2 is slowly diffusing over hours until it makes contact with the nickel in the wire – and this happens EXACTLY where we expect that SPP will be forming – the interface of the wire and the dielectric. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I think the heater is a heater; and Kanthal as the heater wire has nothing to do with it. We now believe that Rossi may have used a SiC heater element and that also has no Ni. I also don't believe that the H2 just comes out through the 99.8% high purity alumina reactor tube. The tubes MFMP bought were formed with one end closed, so a seal was needed only on one end. This was the first time to try to glue the tube shut. Most ceramic adhesives have a multi-stage cure. It begins with a chemical or room temperature organic cure. As it heats, a glass-melt phase forms and furthers the bond. Finally at highest temperature, ceramic crystal growth occurs and adds more to the bond. The glue used was not meant for forming a seal - it was meant for mechanical bonding and filling only. For this MFMP trial, only a room temperature cure was used. By the time the H2 began to get released, the glass phase had probably not formed. Parkhomov speculated that the pressure may reach 100 bar, and at this pressure, it surely would have leaked out of the seal if the glass phase had not formed. We do intend to ask Parkhomov what adhesive he used and what process he used to insure it was sealed before the high pressure formed. With this long alumina test tube (closed one end), it is possible to heat one end hot to form the seal while the small charge of fuel is kept cool in a water bath at the other end. This may be the next trial at sealing. Bob Higgins On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The design choice was to use kanthal resistance wire. Kanthal is composed of iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) wire alloys in various proportions. There is NO nickel in Kanthal. Parkhomov use nichrome resistance wire. Typically 80% of nichrome can be nickel. Inconel used by Rossi is also high in nickel. If nickel is active in this reactor, then the wire itself can contain many times more net nickel than the actual fuel - which is less than a gram. If there is 100 grams of nichrome wire in the design, then there can be 80 grams of nickel but of course it is not in contact with H2 at first. Hydrogen will diffuse slowly through sintered alumina as it is 7-9% porosity - but it will diffuse. It will diffuse at high temperature more rapidly. As noted in earlier posts H2 will not diffuse through fused alumina, which has no porosity but the tube is not fused. Thus the characteristic time delay for excess hear - as H2 is slowly diffusing over hours until it makes contact with the nickel in the wire – and this happens EXACTLY where we expect that SPP will be forming – the interface of the wire and the dielectric. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Bob-- Seal under inert gas pressure--100 bar if necessary. That should keep the H2 in with only diffusion gradient acting to let the H2 out. Add some H2 to the inert gas so that there is no H2 concentration gradient. This would be safer than a pure H2 atmosphere. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. I think the heater is a heater; and Kanthal as the heater wire has nothing to do with it. We now believe that Rossi may have used a SiC heater element and that also has no Ni. I also don't believe that the H2 just comes out through the 99.8% high purity alumina reactor tube. The tubes MFMP bought were formed with one end closed, so a seal was needed only on one end. This was the first time to try to glue the tube shut. Most ceramic adhesives have a multi-stage cure. It begins with a chemical or room temperature organic cure. As it heats, a glass-melt phase forms and furthers the bond. Finally at highest temperature, ceramic crystal growth occurs and adds more to the bond. The glue used was not meant for forming a seal - it was meant for mechanical bonding and filling only. For this MFMP trial, only a room temperature cure was used. By the time the H2 began to get released, the glass phase had probably not formed. Parkhomov speculated that the pressure may reach 100 bar, and at this pressure, it surely would have leaked out of the seal if the glass phase had not formed. We do intend to ask Parkhomov what adhesive he used and what process he used to insure it was sealed before the high pressure formed. With this long alumina test tube (closed one end), it is possible to heat one end hot to form the seal while the small charge of fuel is kept cool in a water bath at the other end. This may be the next trial at sealing. Bob Higgins On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The design choice was to use kanthal resistance wire. Kanthal is composed of iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) wire alloys in various proportions. There is NO nickel in Kanthal. Parkhomov use nichrome resistance wire. Typically 80% of nichrome can be nickel. Inconel used by Rossi is also high in nickel. If nickel is active in this reactor, then the wire itself can contain many times more net nickel than the actual fuel - which is less than a gram. If there is 100 grams of nichrome wire in the design, then there can be 80 grams of nickel but of course it is not in contact with H2 at first. Hydrogen will diffuse slowly through sintered alumina as it is 7-9% porosity - but it will diffuse. It will diffuse at high temperature more rapidly. As noted in earlier posts H2 will not diffuse through fused alumina, which has no porosity but the tube is not fused. Thus the characteristic time delay for excess hear - as H2 is slowly diffusing over hours until it makes contact with the nickel in the wire – and this happens EXACTLY where we expect that SPP will be forming – the interface of the wire and the dielectric. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Didn't Rossi's dogbone have some sort of coating on the outside? It may have acted as a high temperature hermetic seal. I would think any porosity would allow Li and H2 to get out. Does Li form a diatomic gas at high temperature? Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. I think the heater is a heater; and Kanthal as the heater wire has nothing to do with it. We now believe that Rossi may have used a SiC heater element and that also has no Ni. I also don't believe that the H2 just comes out through the 99.8% high purity alumina reactor tube. The tubes MFMP bought were formed with one end closed, so a seal was needed only on one end. This was the first time to try to glue the tube shut. Most ceramic adhesives have a multi-stage cure. It begins with a chemical or room temperature organic cure. As it heats, a glass-melt phase forms and furthers the bond. Finally at highest temperature, ceramic crystal growth occurs and adds more to the bond. The glue used was not meant for forming a seal - it was meant for mechanical bonding and filling only. For this MFMP trial, only a room temperature cure was used. By the time the H2 began to get released, the glass phase had probably not formed. Parkhomov speculated that the pressure may reach 100 bar, and at this pressure, it surely would have leaked out of the seal if the glass phase had not formed. We do intend to ask Parkhomov what adhesive he used and what process he used to insure it was sealed before the high pressure formed. With this long alumina test tube (closed one end), it is possible to heat one end hot to form the seal while the small charge of fuel is kept cool in a water bath at the other end. This may be the next trial at sealing. Bob Higgins On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The design choice was to use kanthal resistance wire. Kanthal is composed of iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) wire alloys in various proportions. There is NO nickel in Kanthal. Parkhomov use nichrome resistance wire. Typically 80% of nichrome can be nickel. Inconel used by Rossi is also high in nickel. If nickel is active in this reactor, then the wire itself can contain many times more net nickel than the actual fuel - which is less than a gram. If there is 100 grams of nichrome wire in the design, then there can be 80 grams of nickel but of course it is not in contact with H2 at first. Hydrogen will diffuse slowly through sintered alumina as it is 7-9% porosity - but it will diffuse. It will diffuse at high temperature more rapidly. As noted in earlier posts H2 will not diffuse through fused alumina, which has no porosity but the tube is not fused. Thus the characteristic time delay for excess hear - as H2 is slowly diffusing over hours until it makes contact with the nickel in the wire – and this happens EXACTLY where we expect that SPP will be forming – the interface of the wire and the dielectric. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
From: Bob Higgins * * I think the heater is a heater; and Kanthal as the heater wire has nothing to do with it. We now believe that Rossi may have used a SiC heater element and that also has no Ni. The SiC is nonsense. You have no basis for the belief that kanthal has nothing to do with it, and in fact the evidence may now indicate that kanthal is the major problem. To the extent that SPP is an important factor, then nickel contact with hydrogen in the presence of SPP could be the critical factor. * * I also don't believe that the H2 just comes out through the 99.8% high purity alumina reactor tube. Then you are mistaken. The purity is immaterial – the porosity is everything. Of course, if MFMP used a fused tube then that is another design flaw. * * The tubes MFMP bought were formed with one end closed, so a seal was needed only on one end. That was a good choice, but the evidence now, based on a history of Ni-H reactions going back to Thermacore in 1993 - is that high nickel content is required. Bob, you are to be greatly commended for a great effort here but please do not let your ego get in the way, if you are the one who made the choice for kanthal. Everything we know about this type of reaction indicates that nickel is active – and the sub-gram of nickel inside is simply insufficient for proper reactivity. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: It could have been worse, we could have lost heat from the universe This worried James Joule. Harry On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: As best as I could tell, it looks like this was a dud. Heat in = Heat out. It was frustrating to see. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
See inline below ... On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Ø I think the heater is a heater; and Kanthal as the heater wire has nothing to do with it. We now believe that Rossi may have used a SiC heater element and that also has no Ni. The SiC is nonsense. You have no basis for the belief that kanthal has nothing to do with it, and in fact the evidence may now indicate that kanthal is the major problem. To the extent that SPP is an important factor, then nickel contact with hydrogen in the presence of SPP could be the critical factor. Jones, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you are wrong. The only possibility for the wire to be involved would mean that there is proton conduction through the alumina tube and that somehow any conducted H doesn't all combine with the readily available oxygen existing at the wire. At that temperature, the wire and the silicates in the alumina cement are constantly releasing oxygen and then chemically re-combining with it in a cycle. The small amount of conducted H2 would instantly burn before it could provide any useful LENR effects at the wire. From Bob Grenyer's excellent research in heater technologies for the market that Rossi is trying to serve with his hotCat, and from the sequencing of the power carefully in the heat-up portion of the cycle in the Lugano test, and from the temperatures that the hotCat operated at in the Lugano test, either moly silicide or SiC were the likely heating elements being used. Nichrome is too low temperature. Inconel is too low temperature as a heating element but could have been part of the heater leads. Rossi stated a negative temperature coefficient for the heater and it fits with the other evidence for the heater type (neither nichrome or inconel have significant resistance variation with temperature). Where is your evidence that Rossi used a nickel alloy heater wire? Ø I also don't believe that the H2 just comes out through the 99.8% high purity alumina reactor tube. Then you are mistaken. The purity is immaterial – the porosity is everything. Of course, if MFMP used a fused tube then that is another design flaw. The tube MFMP used is a high purity, high (near theoretical) density alumina tube. Alumina is polycrystalline sapphire. Sapphire is not a proton conductor, so the sapphire crystallites don't conduct. Proton conduction in alumina comes via the grain boundaries and the glassy impurities found in the grain boundaries, usually silicates. So the tube MFMP used would have the smallest proton conduction of any available alumina - save sapphire. Parkhomov used an alumina tube of unspecified purity. Parkhomov believed that the reaction was taking place inside the tube, not at the heater. This is somewhat supported in his experiment by the fact that LENR continued in self-sustaining mode for 8 minutes after the heater had burned out. During that time, the conditions at the wire changed significantly, yet the LENR persisted. Even a high alumina cement coating that is used to coat over the heater coil is only about 85% alumina and the rest is various other metal oxide glasses depending on the manufacturer's formulation. The result is not dense and will breathe air at a non-negligible rate providing O2 at the wire. Ø The tubes MFMP bought were formed with one end closed, so a seal was needed only on one end. That was a good choice, but the evidence now, based on a history of Ni-H reactions going back to Thermacore in 1993 - is that high nickel content is required. The fuel is 90% Ni according to the Parkhomov experiment. That was also the ratio in the fuel for the MFMP initial test. Bob, you are to be greatly commended for a great effort here but please do not let your ego get in the way, if you are the one who made the choice for kanthal. It is not an ego thing, my ego is not in the way. With the technology developed for making the dogbones, there is nothing to prevent Ryan from winding one with nichrome wire and one with inconel. At this point, none of the MFMP contributors believe that the wire type is a factor in success or failure. If we are unsuccessful in replication, having determined that we don't have a leak, we could still try changing the wire; it is just not in the current priority based on the group opinion. Everything we know about this type of reaction indicates that nickel is active – and the sub-gram of nickel inside is simply insufficient for proper reactivity. This is an unsupported supposition on your part. I agree that 0.9g of Ni sounds like a small amount, but if it were 9g of Ni, that would be only 1 order of magnitude different power density (and you wouldn't be making that argument if it were 9g) and the variation that is seen in Ni-H LENR power density reports varies by many orders of magnitude. I am not ready to believe that the 0.9g is too little
[Vo]:HAPPY NEW LENR+ YEAR!
My dear Blog friends! Thank you for your existence and attention- you are now my great Family. Let's happily work together in the coming year; I hope it will be a year of great and good changes and amazing progress for LENR and specifically the LENR+ energy sources. The same message with more words in: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/2015-will-be-first-lenr-year.html HAPPY NEW YEAR! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
Why smart people defend bad ideas http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/ excerpt: The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking. Just because everyone in the room is smart doesn’t mean that collectively they will arrive at smart ideas. The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods). That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring. Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself. If the group, as a collective, is only capable of approving B level work, it doesn’t matter how many A level ideas you bring to it. Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul. A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs. Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. It’s the only way to guarantee that the best ideas from your smartest people will be received openly by the people around them. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. Be in the moment and be open to it. Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us. If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. I would also believe that convection currents would be more effective in open air rather than confined to a constant 100 degree temperature enclosure. I am assuming that there is little direct conduction between the active device and the metal container in Parkhomov's experiment. Are you aware of any attempt to conduct heat directly away? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 10:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
From: Bob Higgins * JB: Then you are mistaken. The purity is immaterial – the porosity is everything. Of course, if MFMP used a fused tube then that is another design flaw. * BH: The tube MFMP used is a high purity, high (near theoretical) density alumina tube Well, there you have it ! You have made clear that there a second part of the problem – and another intrinsic design flaw. There is no scientific reason to make these kinds of major changes in a successful experiment, and then to defend them to the point of irrationality, when the positive results did not happen. The tubes of Rossi and Parkhomov are sintered alumina. Sintered alumina has just enough porosity -- 7-8% to allow proton diffusion. The experimenters may not have chosen porous tubes for that exact reason, but that doesn’t matter in the end. Why they chose sintered alumina is not important - since it works. Nor does it matter where --- in the reactor --- the experimenter “thought” the reaction was occurring, unless there is proof that the experimenter really understands what is going on. No one understands this reaction, as best I can tell – so in any replication, the main thing that can be done is to duplicate. The MFMP did not duplicate. It does little to try to defend these changes “logically”, since the end result was a null experiment. Maybe the next run will be positive, but as of now, it appears that the changes which are at variance to the successful runs - are the crux of the problem. In both the successful experiments, there was porous alumina together with nickel-based resistance wire. In the unsuccessful MFMP reaction the was non-porous alumina and there was no nickel in the resistance wire. It does not take a genius to understand that these two differences could be responsible for the lack of success since we have 20 years of papers to use to help in an analysis. We know the gainful Ni-H reaction is proved – going back to Thermacore, and that it requires hydrogen in contact with nickel – lots of nickel. For the Thermacore gas phase experiment, they used hundreds of feet of nickel capillary tube to get 50 excess watts. It is incomprehensible to think that far less nickel will give far more excess heat, simply by raising the temperature. Bottom line: the sub-gram of nickel fuel is NOT sufficient in my opinion, and based on past experiments which did produce gain. And yes – this is my opinion and you can and will ignore it. But I would be remiss in not putting it forward and trying to emphasize how much stronger the scientific logic is - than to say basically “we made major changes, got null results, but the changes we made are defensible.” Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
See inline below ... On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Ø JB: Then you are mistaken. The purity is immaterial – the porosity is everything. Of course, if MFMP used a fused tube then that is another design flaw. Ø BH: The tube MFMP used is a high purity, high (near theoretical) density alumina tube Well, there you have it ! You have made clear that there a second part of the problem – and another intrinsic design flaw. There is no scientific reason to make these kinds of major changes in a successful experiment, and then to defend them to the point of irrationality, when the positive results did not happen. The tubes of Rossi and Parkhomov are sintered alumina. Sintered alumina has just enough porosity -- 7-8% to allow proton diffusion. The experimenters may not have chosen porous tubes for that exact reason, but that doesn’t matter in the end. Why they chose sintered alumina is not important - since it works. BH: Jones, I don't know what you are talking about here fused tube. Alumina IS a sintered ceramic product. CoorsTek is the major supplier of such alumina forms - they have been around forever in this market. The choice is AD998 (99.8% alumina) or mullite ( http://css.coorstek.com/scripts/css512.wsc/op/op_indexB2C.html ). I have heard of fused quartz, but never fused alumina. We are likely using the same alumina as Rossi and Parkhomov. Alumina ceramics, in general, come in different grades varying from 96% to 99.8% but the tubes are not available in 96%, probably because it is too mechanically fragile. Mullite is only 2/3 alumina and the rest silica. The only real choice is the AD998 material. None of these substrates are porous. The space between the sapphire (crystalline Al2O3) is silicates (glass). Proton conduction, when it occurs does not occur through a pore, but rather through a silicate/sapphire boundary. Nor does it matter where --- in the reactor --- the experimenter “thought” the reaction was occurring, unless there is proof that the experimenter really understands what is going on. No one understands this reaction, as best I can tell – so in any replication, the main thing that can be done is to duplicate. The MFMP did not duplicate. BH: You must realize that insufficient details were published in the Lugano report for replication. The best the MFMP could do was to back-engineer on the basis of what was described and by doing some forensic research (Greenyer). In the case of Parkhomov, there are more details for replication, but no specification for the alumina, or how its seals were created. The MFMP was at a point with dogbone development where they could choose to test it with Parkhomov's fuel. That is being pursued now. Further replication of Parkhomov may occur, but MFMP could not begin that replication until his report; and new materials must be ordered. MFMP is in contact with Parkhomov and will be able to find out additional details. It does little to try to defend these changes “logically”, since the end result was a null experiment. Maybe the next run will be positive, but as of now, it appears that the changes which are at variance to the successful runs - are the crux of the problem. BH: There is no such evidence at all at this point as to why the first run failed. Based on what was done, the most likely cause of failure was failure of the seal, which is being investigated now. We don't give up that easily and won't draw a conclusion until we have ascertained all the facts we can gather. In both the successful experiments, there was porous alumina BH: You have absolutely no basis for saying this. Based on available alumina tube materials, there is no porous alumina. together with nickel-based resistance wire. BH: There is contra-evidence of Ni based resistance wire in the Lugano hotCat. In the unsuccessful MFMP reaction the was non-porous alumina and there was no nickel in the resistance wire. It does not take a genius to understand that these two differences could be responsible for the lack of success since we have 20 years of papers to use to help in an analysis. We know the gainful Ni-H reaction is proved – going back to Thermacore, and that it requires hydrogen in contact with nickel – lots of nickel. BH: There are many configurations of Ni-H LENR. The hotCat technology is different; its closest technology is the original eCat. For the Thermacore gas phase experiment, they used hundreds of feet of nickel capillary tube to get 50 excess watts. It is incomprehensible to think that far less nickel will give far more excess heat, simply by raising the temperature. Bottom line: the sub-gram of nickel fuel is NOT sufficient in my opinion, and based on past experiments which did produce gain. BH: As I said, the reports of Ni-H LENR vary over several orders of magnitude in the specific energy density (per gram of Ni). And yes –
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
Idiocy. Science is driven by experiment over argument. When you insist on contaminating every human ecology with every other human ecology you violate a central tenant of science: controlled experimentation. When failures occur under cirumstances of enforced contamination you are left with nothing but confusion. You learn nothing from your failures. Indeed, you learn nothing from your successes. The conceit that conversation or discourse or discussion can be the appeal of last resort in testing truth is something only humans who are deluded by words could conceive of. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:49 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Why smart people defend bad ideas http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/ excerpt: The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking. Just because everyone in the room is smart doesn’t mean that collectively they will arrive at smart ideas. The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods). That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring. Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself. If the group, as a collective, is only capable of approving B level work, it doesn’t matter how many A level ideas you bring to it. Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul. A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs. Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. It’s the only way to guarantee that the best ideas from your smartest people will be received openly by the people around them. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. Be in the moment and be open to it. Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us. If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
I think you mean to say science SHOULD BE driven by experiments over arguments. However if science were driven by experiments, this list would not need to exist. John On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:21 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Idiocy. Science is driven by experiment over argument. When you insist on contaminating every human ecology with every other human ecology you violate a central tenant of science: controlled experimentation. When failures occur under cirumstances of enforced contamination you are left with nothing but confusion. You learn nothing from your failures. Indeed, you learn nothing from your successes. The conceit that conversation or discourse or discussion can be the appeal of last resort in testing truth is something only humans who are deluded by words could conceive of. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:49 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Why smart people defend bad ideas http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/ excerpt: The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking. Just because everyone in the room is smart doesn’t mean that collectively they will arrive at smart ideas. The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods). That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring. Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself. If the group, as a collective, is only capable of approving B level work, it doesn’t matter how many A level ideas you bring to it. Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul. A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs. Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. It’s the only way to guarantee that the best ideas from your smartest people will be received openly by the people around them. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. Be in the moment and be open to it. Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us. If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: What puzzles me the most is why such a small amount of nickel is not completely vaporized by an emission of that much heat. Again, this suggests the possibility that the LENR output is low energy photons, which like a microwave oven, could heat the surroundings more than the source. Can you elaborate on the reason why vaporization of the nickel would be problematic? Does this concern go back to theoretical considerations about how a reaction would need to occur? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
SUSY (super symmetry) is not supported by experimentation but it is absolutely required to make the standard model work, and 10 billion dollars spent to find SUSY experimentally. How many smart people do particle physics? Is particle physics FUBAR?
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I guess the reason is that LENR has always been considered a condensed matter reaction, not a gas or liquid phase reaction. The alumina is still solid, even if the Ni is not. If we consider the Ni to be the LENR active material, I presumed it needed to be in some form of condensed state. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: What puzzles me the most is why such a small amount of nickel is not completely vaporized by an emission of that much heat. Again, this suggests the possibility that the LENR output is low energy photons, which like a microwave oven, could heat the surroundings more than the source. Can you elaborate on the reason why vaporization of the nickel would be problematic? Does this concern go back to theoretical considerations about how a reaction would need to occur? Eric
[Vo]:Does heat=collision=collapse of quantum wave function make sense?
When thinking about the importance of cold in many Quantum Phenomena, I wondered if the reason has to do with heat being microscopic motion and collision of atoms, and shouldn't a collision collapse a wave function? And would collapsing wave functions be a bit of an issue when trying to establish a quantum effect? Maybe this is already known, or maybe it is incorrect, but I have never heard this before, nor could I find anything about it and I it seems quite reasonable. John
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. Room temperature air. Water transfers heat a lot better. I'll bet there is a larger temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the cylinder with water. Maybe this play some sort of role in the reaction? I have heard of a temperature difference playing a role. That is speculation on my part, as I said. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. Cooler but less effective in removing heat. Like an air cooled internal combustion engine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
From: Bob Higgins * CoorsTek is the major supplier of such alumina forms - they have been around forever in this market. The choice is AD998 (99.8% alumina) or mullite ( http://css.coorstek.com/scripts/css512.wsc/op/op_indexB2C.html ). Yes - CoorsTek is no doubt the major US supplier, but on the World market, they are one of many. Their prices are typically significantly higher than ceramics from Asia and 998 is a pricey specialty material. * Alumina ceramics, in general, come in different grades varying from 96% to 99.8% but the tubes are not available in 96%, Yes they are. They come in grades as low as 92% ... maybe not from CoorsTek but that is apparently as far as you have looked. Plus - 96% is porous. What makes you say it is not? * None of these substrates are porous. That may not be true for even the specialty material CoorsTek 998, but clearly 96% is porous and in fact anything less than 100% will be slightly porous by definition. If they do not supply 96%, then you really should look at what other suppliers have to offer. What I am calling porous alumina is sometimes sold by density… such as 3.65 g/cc. * In both the successful experiments, there was porous alumina BH: You have absolutely no basis for saying this. Based on available alumina tube materials, there is no porous alumina. I would be just as easy for me to say that all alumina is porous, since even from Coors, the 100% grade is not available and 998 is ever so slightly porous. Perhaps there is no 96% from CoorsTek, but have you actually looked at anything beyond the one supplier? In fact, I suspect that most alumina is porous, in the sense of having density around 3.65. The 998 you have is a specialty material which is not commonly called “sintered alumina” as was both successful experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
See inline below ... On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Ø None of these substrates are porous. That may not be true for even the specialty material CoorsTek 998, but clearly 96% is porous and in fact anything less than 100% will be slightly porous by definition. If they do not supply 96%, then you really should look at what other suppliers have to offer. What I am calling porous alumina is sometimes sold by density… such as 3.65 g/cc. BH: The fact that the alumina is not 100% theoretically dense does not mean that the remainder is air/porosity. The remainder is a much lighter weight silicate glass in the grain boundaries. The 96% grade has more silicates. Mullite is 1/3 silicates. Even mullite is not necessarily porous unless designed to be so. They can go back and etch out the silicates for specialty filters, but that is not what an as-fired ceramic tube would be. Residual proton conduction has to do with H-O reductions and exchanges in the grain boundary with metal/silicon oxide atoms. The bond for oxygen in sapphire is one of the best in all dielectrics - it really wants to hang onto its oxygen. That's why there is no proton conduction through sapphire. If there were really pores in the alumina, they wouldn't be proton conductor size - they would be gross leak size. At 100 bar, the H2 would be gone almost instantly.
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Dave and others-- The temperature gradient in the dog bone--center to outside-- should make a difference in the concentration of hydrogen and other volatile/mobile species like lithium. They would tend to condense in the outer parts of the dog bone. If Ni is volatile like Higgins thinks it may be, then its availability for reaction may be curtailed in a steep temperature gradient. Also if thermal agitation of the matrix is important at certain resonant frequencies, steep temperature gradients would tend to limit the volume of the matrix available for a reaction to be initiated. If there is such a entity as a thermal proton (like thermal neutrons in a fission reactor) then the temperature may be important in establishing the interaction cross section cross section of the proton with whatever it reacts. Rossi's negative temperature coeff. may reflect this effect of the changing frequency of the protons as a function of their temperature or kinetic energy. Li atoms may also be involved with changing frequencies as a function of the local temperature. (In the case of a neutron in a reactor, the kinetic energy of the neutron is what changes it interaction cross section with Uranium.) Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. I would also believe that convection currents would be more effective in open air rather than confined to a constant 100 degree temperature enclosure. I am assuming that there is little direct conduction between the active device and the metal container in Parkhomov's experiment. Are you aware of any attempt to conduct heat directly away? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 10:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
The dogbone is essentially a tube furnace. The fuel is placed in a separate alumina tube with one end molded closed and having a 4mm bore (like Lugano) that is sealed with an alumina plug. This tube with the fuel is called the reaction tube and is about 1/4 in diameter and 8 long. The reaction tube slides inside the dogbone tube furnace. There is no hydrogen diffusing to cooler regions. The whole reaction tube is about the same temperature through its radius. There are no steep temp gradients as far as the fuel is concerned. The reaction tube can be removed, replaced with a dummy, or replaced with another reaction tube with a different experimental fuel. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave and others-- The temperature gradient in the dog bone--center to outside-- should make a difference in the concentration of hydrogen and other volatile/mobile species like lithium. They would tend to condense in the outer parts of the dog bone. If Ni is volatile like Higgins thinks it may be, then its availability for reaction may be curtailed in a steep temperature gradient. Also if thermal agitation of the matrix is important at certain resonant frequencies, steep temperature gradients would tend to limit the volume of the matrix available for a reaction to be initiated. If there is such a entity as a thermal proton (like thermal neutrons in a fission reactor) then the temperature may be important in establishing the interaction cross section cross section of the proton with whatever it reacts. Rossi's negative temperature coeff. may reflect this effect of the changing frequency of the protons as a function of their temperature or kinetic energy. Li atoms may also be involved with changing frequencies as a function of the local temperature. (In the case of a neutron in a reactor, the kinetic energy of the neutron is what changes it interaction cross section with Uranium.) Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:09 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. I would also believe that convection currents would be more effective in open air rather than confined to a constant 100 degree temperature enclosure. I am assuming that there is little direct conduction between the active device and the metal container in Parkhomov's experiment. Are you aware of any attempt to conduct heat directly away? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 10:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I would agree with you completely if the cylinder were in direct contact with the water bath. But, it appears from the diagram that the water is located a distance from the cylinder and is not in direct contact. This configuration is a little like baking in an oven. The heat from the active device radiates, convects and undergoes a small amount of conduction as it finds its way to the surrounding water jacket. The water jacket can then radiate some energy back into the active cylinder to increase its temperature. Also, the elevated temperature air enclosed next to the device is trapped and heated as it attempts to convect heat away from the unit. The net effect of these two processes is to restrict the flow of heat originating within the cylinder. Increased thermal resistance at this point results in a greater thermal drop than would be seen had the device been able to operate into an open, low temperature environment. Perhaps it would be more apparent had another liquid been used besides water. The same thought experiment would seem true had we used a hypothetical liquid metal that boiled at 500 degrees C. How about one that boils at 1200 C? In either of these three cases I would expect the active device to get hotter than had it been subjected to open air cooling. The trend is the same. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. Room temperature air. Water transfers heat a lot better. I'll bet there is a larger temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the cylinder with water. Maybe this play some sort of role in the reaction? I have heard of a temperature difference playing a role. That is speculation on my part, as I said. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. Cooler but less effective in removing heat. Like an air cooled internal combustion engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
-- Forwarded message -- From: Randy Mills rmi...@blacklightpower.com [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride To: societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com ...I think that it is a mistake to use a hydrogen porous vessel for a hydrino reaction. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:48 AM, pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Probably at that temperature the hydrogen will leak very fast through the cell even if it is sealed properly Peter v Noorden *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:36 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
From: Bob Higgins Ø The fact that the alumina is not 100% theoretically dense does not mean that the remainder is air/porosity. The remainder is a much lighter weight silicate glass in the grain boundaries The density of silicates is slightly lower than alumina - 2.65 compared to 3.95 but actual voids in the subnanometer geometry are necessary to get the density down to the 3.65 range. When we are talking about hydrogen permeability – and especially at high temperature, almost any porosity will allow substantial amounts of H2 gas to diffuse over time. It is all about the rate. Actually, it now appears that very slow diffusion can be a big advantage. Rossi apparently found that he could run a reactor for 30 days or so on about 10 milligrams of hydrogen which was introduced as a solid in AlLiH4 (1/10th of 1/10th gram). However, in analyzing the two reportedly successful reactors, the limiting factor does not seem to be hydrogen inventory, but instead it is nickel contact. The sub-gram of nickel is simply not enough since it cannot vaporize or expand in surface area. In fact the heat would tend to level and reduce any nano surface features. And based on comparing that amount of powder with the past 20 years of experiments in Ni-H, it is grossly insufficient. I keep returning to the Thermacore gas phase work for the Air Force as a standard of what can be expected. A sub-gram of nickel is too little… yet, if we have much more nickel available in the resistance wire, then the situation is different. We should not overlook that there is the modality of the SPP. If the light emission intensity were not so amazing in these dogbones, we could possibly overlook the SPP. But given that you have the interface of the Nichrome, with the ceramic, and the strong incandescent light - which is the breeding ground of surface plasmons, and then you also have the slow hydrogen migration out of the tube, it appears to me that this is the key to success, and correspondingly – the problem for the MFMP replication. I hope that this analysis is missing something, but if sealing the reactor does not work, then that will be further indication that there is more going on with the resistance wire and plasmons - than what is happening inside the tube. The bulk of heat may relate to SPP interacting with hydrogen so as to form either DDL, f/H or LENR. Take your pick. The DDL looks good to me based on the bumps in the noise which Parkhomov detected at a few key junctures. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In either of these three cases I would expect the active device to get hotter than had it been subjected to open air cooling. The trend is the same. The device may be hotter than it would be in the case of open-air cooling. But since the water bath does not enclose the inner housing on all sides, I suspect there is a significant heat loss through the top of the inner and outer housing. Although I don't think you were addressing this point, it seems to me that this would lead to an underestimation of the true energy output. http://i.imgur.com/MoEJGv3.png [1] Eric [1] Taken from http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW LENR+ YEAR!
Happy New Yea to all. Thanks for the blog posts - I read them frequently but usually have no objections or disagreements. Salut, prosit and skal to you Peter. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear Blog friends! Thank you for your existence and attention- you are now my great Family. Let's happily work together in the coming year; I hope it will be a year of great and good changes and amazing progress for LENR and specifically the LENR+ energy sources. The same message with more words in: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/2015-will-be-first-lenr-year.html HAPPY NEW YEAR! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Bob, Do you need to take into consideration the fact that a small gap exists between the outer furnace and the inner core tube? Is the contact good enough to limit the thermal resistance of this space? Any heat power flowing through that path would cause a rise in temperature of the core. I bring this up just as to point out possible differences between the dog bone and the other experiments. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. The dogbone is essentially a tube furnace. The fuel is placed in a separate alumina tube with one end molded closed and having a 4mm bore (like Lugano) that is sealed with an alumina plug. This tube with the fuel is called the reaction tube and is about 1/4 in diameter and 8 long. The reaction tube slides inside the dogbone tube furnace. There is no hydrogen diffusing to cooler regions. The whole reaction tube is about the same temperature through its radius. There are no steep temp gradients as far as the fuel is concerned. The reaction tube can be removed, replaced with a dummy, or replaced with another reaction tube with a different experimental fuel. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave and others-- The temperature gradient in the dog bone--center to outside-- should make a difference in the concentration of hydrogen and other volatile/mobile species like lithium. They would tend to condense in the outer parts of the dog bone. If Ni is volatile like Higgins thinks it may be, then its availability for reaction may be curtailed in a steep temperature gradient. Also if thermal agitation of the matrix is important at certain resonant frequencies, steep temperature gradients would tend to limit the volume of the matrix available for a reaction to be initiated. If there is such a entity as a thermal proton (like thermal neutrons in a fission reactor) then the temperature may be important in establishing the interaction cross section cross section of the proton with whatever it reacts. Rossi's negative temperature coeff. may reflect this effect of the changing frequency of the protons as a function of their temperature or kinetic energy. Li atoms may also be involved with changing frequencies as a function of the local temperature. (In the case of a neutron in a reactor, the kinetic energy of the neutron is what changes it interaction cross section with Uranium.) Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. I would also believe that convection currents would be more effective in open air rather than confined to a constant 100 degree temperature enclosure. I am assuming that there is little direct conduction between the active device and the metal container in Parkhomov's experiment. Are you aware of any attempt to conduct heat directly away? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 10:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Eric, the calibration apparently is accurate according to the text. I would guess that the insulation surrounding the water jacket and the addition of extra insulation on the top surface ensures that most of the heat ends up within the water. The calibration is key. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In either of these three cases I would expect the active device to get hotter than had it been subjected to open air cooling. The trend is the same. The device may be hotter than it would be in the case of open-air cooling. But since the water bath does not enclose the inner housing on all sides, I suspect there is a significant heat loss through the top of the inner and outer housing. Although I don't think you were addressing this point, it seems to me that this would lead to an underestimation of the true energy output. http://i.imgur.com/MoEJGv3.png [1] Eric [1] Taken from http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
Happy New Year, Unfortunately science is not driven by experiments. I rather say that it is driven by politics. However, we could make 2015 the year we just do not listen to politics. The problem as described in the article emanates from our politicians in DC and corresponding places. We allow them to make rules we do not agree to or which are given to miscellaneous government institutions to refine out of very generic political statements. Everybody conform (to get a part of the benefits but the best results are often hidden as they do not fit the generic attitude. It all trickles down to the bureaucrat we get to deal with in person, who's only interest is to fit in with those generics. I am a firm believer in small organizations as they cannot hide a bunch of generic platitudes. Politics only works in large organizations. It exists everywhere but works better the large organization we have. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: SUSY (super symmetry) is not supported by experimentation but it is absolutely required to make the standard model work, and 10 billion dollars spent to find SUSY experimentally. How many smart people do particle physics? Is particle physics FUBAR?
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I think it's a valid point to check the inner alumina tube for leaks, which can probably be done by careful postmortem. Also I wonder if the alumina tube holding the Ni - LiAlH4 was sealed in a vacum. That would be the only other concern is if it was filled under a vacum, or pumped down is if the seal broke somehow (thermal expansion?) of the fuel cylinder and seal. As an alternative to the dog bone design and to rapidly test fuel mixture, I wonder how the alumina tube would do using microwave as the external heat source? That may help in LiAlH4 dehydrogenation process and Ni-H diffusion and would help make experimenting with fuel mix a little easier. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:12 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the calibration apparently is accurate according to the text. I would guess that the insulation surrounding the water jacket and the addition of extra insulation on the top surface ensures that most of the heat ends up within the water. The calibration is key. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In either of these three cases I would expect the active device to get hotter than had it been subjected to open air cooling. The trend is the same. The device may be hotter than it would be in the case of open-air cooling. But since the water bath does not enclose the inner housing on all sides, I suspect there is a significant heat loss through the top of the inner and outer housing. Although I don't think you were addressing this point, it seems to me that this would lead to an underestimation of the true energy output. http://i.imgur.com/MoEJGv3.png [1] Eric [1] Taken from http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Ryan cemented a type-B platinum thermocouple though the center of the plug. So he had actual data on the core temperature which got to about 1200C. The thermocouple at the surface only reported getting to about 850C at the same time. Parkhomov measured his temperature in between - on the outside of the reaction tube in the middle of the heater coil turns - not at the surface. Architecturally, if proton conduction and reaction with the heater coil ever proves to be a contributor to the excess heat, it could not be replicated in the dogbone. The dogbone has a small air gap between the reaction tube and the heater tube (and the heater coil is on the other side of the alumina heater tube), so any H that diffused through the reaction tube would become H2 or H2O and escape before ever making it to the dogbone heater wire. It wouldn't make any difference what the heater wire was in the dogbone - it is not designed to take advantage of that. For any possible reaction with the heater wire, the wire would have to be wrapped directly in contact with the reaction tube where the conducted H would escape directly onto wire. This is the way Parkhomov made his heater coil. A direct replication of Parkhomov would certainly included this. Such replications are underway, but will take some time to get the materials together. MFMP is asking questions to Parkhomov and I am looking forward to his answers. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, Do you need to take into consideration the fact that a small gap exists between the outer furnace and the inner core tube? Is the contact good enough to limit the thermal resistance of this space? Any heat power flowing through that path would cause a rise in temperature of the core. I bring this up just as to point out possible differences between the dog bone and the other experiments. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com quoted some good and bad ideas: On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. What does non-homogenous sex mean? With other people? My wife would object. I do not see what music or food has to do with being open to ideas. Arthur Clarke reportedly ate a typical British meat and potatoes diet his whole life, but he was broad minded about other things. I also know what I like and I like what I know, as the Brits say. I listen mainly to classical music. Most popular music sounds like abominable noise to me. Japanese popular music, being broadcast at this moment in the annual Kohaku Uta Gassen, is saccharine glop. New unusually people -- *that* I agree with. I don't actually like real, living people, because they are boring. I prefer dead people. In books. People lived hundreds of years ago in different countries give a whole new perspective. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. I get lost when I try to go to places I don't usually go. I show up at the airport the day after the flight. As I said, spending time with people who lived hundreds of years ago in Japan, Italy or Boston is an eye-opener. As Logan P. Smith put it, People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
I wrote: Japanese popular music, being broadcast at this moment in the annual Kohaku Uta Gassen, is saccharine glop. Here is the ne *plus ultra* example. Watch if you dare; you risk kawaii (cute) apoplexy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAP6ogjTBSE This is so bad it is almost good. The translated lyrics are here: http://www.animelyrics.com/jpop/yuukorin/vitaminlove.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
I think that different countries of origin is an important thing, different first languages. These things have huge impacts on thinking. Which colours someone can see is effected by what language they are thinking in (proven in experiments). Qualified, and unqualified is another important one, education kills creativity and narrows world view. Different Myers briggs types. Different ages. Different genders? Maybe but there are few women in Physics. Different sexual orientations? Maybe the idea can be taken too far, but it is valid. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com quoted some good and bad ideas: On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. What does non-homogenous sex mean? With other people? My wife would object. I do not see what music or food has to do with being open to ideas. Arthur Clarke reportedly ate a typical British meat and potatoes diet his whole life, but he was broad minded about other things. I also know what I like and I like what I know, as the Brits say. I listen mainly to classical music. Most popular music sounds like abominable noise to me. Japanese popular music, being broadcast at this moment in the annual Kohaku Uta Gassen, is saccharine glop. New unusually people -- *that* I agree with. I don't actually like real, living people, because they are boring. I prefer dead people. In books. People lived hundreds of years ago in different countries give a whole new perspective. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. I get lost when I try to go to places I don't usually go. I show up at the airport the day after the flight. As I said, spending time with people who lived hundreds of years ago in Japan, Italy or Boston is an eye-opener. As Logan P. Smith put it, People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov has done calibration
Jed wrote: I will add you to my auto-delete file, to eliminate this irritation. ***Jed, please don't. I enjoy your exchanges with Blaze. It's so entertaining and you always add some measure of fact that I had not considered beforehand. Chalk it up to the education process. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This gives me much more confidence in the results. Noted!I am highly skeptical however. I think it's great MFMP is taking the time to try to reproduce this, which they definitely should, but I think expectations should be that it's very unlikely anything will result of this. Based on what? Where the hell do you come up with these expectations? More throwing darts in the dark? Your statements here show that you do not know the first thing about cold fusion! Or calorimetry, or any other relevant discipline. You have not made a single technical assertion in the last several messages. All you talk about is your own magic hocus-pocus ESP ability to make assertions about the truth or falsity of experimental results without *any consideration* of the technical details. Without even mentioning them! How can you be highly skeptical about a subject you don't know the first thing about? That is like me being highly skeptical of quantum mechanics. I am sick of your blather. I expect other people are sick of hearing that I am sick of you. So I will add you to my auto-delete file, to eliminate this irritation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW LENR+ YEAR!
HPYMMXV!
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
James, it sounds like you are having a bad day. harry On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I think you mean to say science SHOULD BE driven by experiments over arguments. However if science were driven by experiments, this list would not need to exist. John On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:21 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Idiocy. Science is driven by experiment over argument. When you insist on contaminating every human ecology with every other human ecology you violate a central tenant of science: controlled experimentation. When failures occur under cirumstances of enforced contamination you are left with nothing but confusion. You learn nothing from your failures. Indeed, you learn nothing from your successes. The conceit that conversation or discourse or discussion can be the appeal of last resort in testing truth is something only humans who are deluded by words could conceive of. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:49 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Why smart people defend bad ideas http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/ excerpt: The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking. Just because everyone in the room is smart doesn’t mean that collectively they will arrive at smart ideas. The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods). That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring. Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself. If the group, as a collective, is only capable of approving B level work, it doesn’t matter how many A level ideas you bring to it. Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul. A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs. Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. It’s the only way to guarantee that the best ideas from your smartest people will be received openly by the people around them. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. Be in the moment and be open to it. Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us. If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
watch more French cinema https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbAohexT0Ho Harry On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com quoted some good and bad ideas: On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. What does non-homogenous sex mean? With other people? My wife would object. I do not see what music or food has to do with being open to ideas. Arthur Clarke reportedly ate a typical British meat and potatoes diet his whole life, but he was broad minded about other things. I also know what I like and I like what I know, as the Brits say. I listen mainly to classical music. Most popular music sounds like abominable noise to me. Japanese popular music, being broadcast at this moment in the annual Kohaku Uta Gassen, is saccharine glop. New unusually people -- *that* I agree with. I don't actually like real, living people, because they are boring. I prefer dead people. In books. People lived hundreds of years ago in different countries give a whole new perspective. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. I get lost when I try to go to places I don't usually go. I show up at the airport the day after the flight. As I said, spending time with people who lived hundreds of years ago in Japan, Italy or Boston is an eye-opener. As Logan P. Smith put it, People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Ryan Hunt (HUG, MFMP) did a post-mortem on the reactor tube from the first experiment with the dogbone and fuel as described by Parkhomov. He found a gross failure of the seal of the plug in the tube. Also, because he didn't shake it to distribute the powder, the powder ended up in the opposite end from the plug in a bunch. The next focus will be on the seal. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:Why smart people defend bad ideas
Well, Jed, Yuko Ogura looks to be about 16. But according to Wikipedia she was born November 1, 1983, making her well over 30 years old. She still looks like jail bait to me. When was this song videoed? Fifteen years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuko_Ogura Oh my gosh! She's married and even had a kid back in 2012. She then wrote a book about motherhood. Amazing. Yuko's innocent child-like eyes capture Anime and Manga pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime The you tube song was interesting to watch... just once. Educational. Happy New Year Vorts, and you too Jed. May 2015 bring us good surprises. It would be about time. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW LENR+ YEAR!
Terry Sez HPYMMXV! Charm sez MEOW back. c u NY Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
