Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

The can handle molten iron and nickel. I think rather than a heater, put
the bone inside one of these, filled with molten metal. If there is self
sustaining, it will just stay there, hot, unless with a run away explosion,
which will be amazing.

The material does not seem to be expensive so, not much care (except in
haddling) is required, it seems.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Cook]

Daniel--

I have used graphite stirring rod in making bronze alloys and they did not seem 
to oxidize readily.  They are cheap also.  I'm not sure what the temperature 
was, probably around 1100 C, because it was over the melting point of copper.  

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 5:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later


  Though this thick one got so hot, that by induction, saturated the camera!


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXsIbJG-r0U

  -- 

  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Frank roarty]

How about divorcing the field properties from the heater – a separate power 
feed for the SiC heater vessel and a field coil around it..  if SiC doesn’t 
create a field I am supposing it doesn’t create a faraday shield either so a 
surrounding coil should still be able to concentrate field lines thru the 
enclosed fuel.

Fran

 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 5:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

 

The problem with using either the SiC tube or a carbon rod is the loss of the 
magnetic field.

 

SPP formation is opto-magnetic. Resistance wire coils have enough amp-turns to 
provide a small axial magnetic field, and this appears to be important. See the 
papers on the Letts/Cravens effect – a small field appears to be preferable to 
a larger one 

 

This magnetic field would be lost with a one-turn rod or tube.

 

From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 

 

Silicon carbide is a good enough electrical conductor it can be made to be the 
vessel and heater at the same time

( I've tried using it as a heater -- works fine).

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads 
Vortex-l):

 

"One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper coatings 
that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy connections. They are 
also useful for current shunts."

 

Daniel Rocha wrote:

Bob,
it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to heat 
that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

Though this thick one got so hot, that by induction, saturated the camera!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXsIbJG-r0U
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

Oh, damn, it also oxidizes... and quite fast!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y674KwBig6Q

2015-04-05 19:16 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> But why not a simple graphite from a pencil? The bone is a fixed
> structure, it won't stress the fragile graphite. And they can used at will,
> since they are extremely cheap. I am focusing here on extreme "cheapness".
>
>
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

But why not a simple graphite from a pencil? The bone is a fixed structure,
it won't stress the fragile graphite. And they can used at will, since they
are extremely cheap. I am focusing here on extreme "cheapness".

2015-04-05 11:29 GMT-03:00 Bob Higgins :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads
> Vortex-l):
>
> "One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper
> coatings that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy
> connections. They are also useful for current shunts."
>
> --
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Jones Beene]

The problem with using either the SiC tube or a carbon rod is the loss of the 
magnetic field.

 

SPP formation is opto-magnetic. Resistance wire coils have enough amp-turns to 
provide a small axial magnetic field, and this appears to be important. See the 
papers on the Letts/Cravens effect – a small field appears to be preferable to 
a larger one 

 

This magnetic field would be lost with a one-turn rod or tube.

 

From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 

 

Silicon carbide is a good enough electrical conductor it can be made to be the 
vessel and heater at the same time

( I've tried using it as a heater -- works fine).

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads 
Vortex-l):

 

"One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper coatings 
that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy connections. They are 
also useful for current shunts."

 

Daniel Rocha wrote:

Bob,
it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to heat 
that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Brad Lowe]

Hey Dennis,

How about an update on what you're doing? I still think your golden balls
are the most elegant "proof" of LENR... Any chance you'd share your recipe
and/or send a set of balls to MFMP and or others?

- Brad


On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
wrote:

> Silicon carbide is a good enough electrical conductor it can be made to be
> the vessel and heater at the same time
>
> ( I've tried using it as a heater -- works fine).
>
>
>
> Hoyt Stearns
>
> Scottsdale Arizona US
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 7:30 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later
>
>
>
> Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads
> Vortex-l):
>
>
>
> "One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper
> coatings that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy
> connections. They are also useful for current shunts."
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to
> heat that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?
>
> --
>
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> --
><http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Silicon carbide is a good enough electrical conductor it can be made to be the 
vessel and heater at the same time

( I've tried using it as a heater -- works fine).



Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale Arizona US



From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 7:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later



Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads 
Vortex-l):



"One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper coatings 
that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy connections. They are 
also useful for current shunts."



On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Bob,
it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to heat 
that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?

--

Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads
Vortex-l):

"One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper
coatings that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy
connections. They are also useful for current shunts."

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Bob,
> it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to
> heat that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

Bob,
it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to heat
that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[David Roberson]

Thanks Bob,

Now I see that a closer look at the glow tube construction is going to be 
required reading.  Your explanation should help all of us to better understand 
why the relatively low reading at his thermocouple chosen location is 
reasonable.  Perhaps he should consider picking a location that is more 
reflective of the actual core temperature if he wants to rely upon the PID 
controller to hold core power constant.

If the location is not carefully chosen, then the control will tend to keep the 
overall power constant instead of the contribution due to the core alone.  
There would then exist a risk of core melting that is not controlled adequately 
by the PID controller.

I would suggest that you guys find a way to maintain a more direct contact to 
the core heat generation process.  The best solution may be to go back and add 
the control thermocouple to some core internal location.   If that is done, it 
should become possible to detect core power generation by monitoring a drop in 
temperature of the outside surface of the largest cylinder.  I am assuming that 
a finite value of thermal resistance exists between the core and the heating 
coil prior to a careful review of the structure.

Or, is it possible to cover the present thermocouple in a manner that allows it 
to more accurately reflect the core temperature?  Perhaps that heat escape 
route by radiation, etc. can be prevented by adding a section of material or 
possibly insulation.   It concerns me that 300 C exists between the measured 
and the assumed real value of core temperature.  If that difference can be 
lowered to 50 or even 100 C, I would have more confidence in the results.

Please do not take my suggestions as being negative toward what you guys are 
doing.  I appreciate the major amount of effort that is being applied by all of 
those concerned.  I am merely offering some ideas for your consideration that 
might help us to uncover the LENR activity.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later


 
Finlay asked a similar question.  The answer is in the thermal model for the 
mounted area of the thermocouple.  
   
  
  
   The thermal model for Alan's thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is 
different than Parkhomov's.  Alan's thermocouple is in a center gap in the 
heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.  He 
has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick 
alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not 
covered (not insulated).  Thus, there is thermal load to the environment 
(radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the 
thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface 
temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils.  Fortunately, Alan 
measured this differential in temperature between where he had the thermocouple 
on the reactor tube and the core temperature.   
   


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, David Roberson   wrote: 

 
  Bob,
 
 You appear to be making the assumption that excess power is being generated 
within the core.  Why would you expect the temperature inside the core to be 
above the outside of the core unless some extra power is being produced?  Why 
1200 C when the outside is at only 900 C?
 
 Something does not seem to add up in that calibration run, or perhaps I just 
missed a fine point that you can help explain.  Thanks.
 
 Dave
 


-Original Message-
 From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
 To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
 Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 12:41 pm        
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later
 
 
  
 There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power when 
the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core temperature 
was over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned out by the time 
the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to 1200C, even if Alan 
could drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different differential between his 
tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did.  Alan measured his differential 
curve.  If he had gone to 1200C at the reactor tube OD, the heater wire would 
have been at or above its melting temperature and the core may have been nearly 
1400C.  It was just not practical.   

   
   
 If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube may have 
read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.   
   

   
   
 Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable leaving 
the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Axil Axil]

I was interested in how the pressure behaved in the experiment. To my
despair, the experiment ended way to soon to see the pressure flatline. The
pressure was still going down at the end of the experiment. Parkhomov ran
the experiment in his living room for 3 days, Alan Goldwater was concerned
about keeping the hot nuclear reactor unattended in his garage overnight
while he slept, understandable, it was a long day, he was tired, he wanted
to sleep, so the experiment was turned off. There should be some provision
made to run an experiment for days without the fear of a house fire
interrupting the generation of data.

The experiment could be brought up to high temperature rapidly since we can
see the pressure in the reactor react. As long as the pressure is below the
tube pressure rating, then get the tube hot fast to save time, then let the
pressure fall as it may. Parkhomov can afford to take his time, he is
fearless. If an experiment is to be limited to one day, provisions must be
made to maximize that time.

Alan Goldwater used a ramrod to pack the fuel into the tube, Parkhomov used
a long tube with a large volume in the core cavity because he wanted to use
Epoxy to seal the cold tube ends. This may be why  there is a large
pressure difference between the two experiments. Parhomov had a very large
reactor volume to work with because of the long tube that was mostly empty
whereas Goldwater had hardly any space remaining in the tube that he used.

The Goldwater experiment looked nothing like the Parkhomov experiment. The
Parkhomov electrical heater was different from Goldwater’s electrical feed.



>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Finlay asked a similar question.  The answer is in the thermal model for
the mounted area of the thermocouple.

The thermal model for Alan's thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is
different than Parkhomov's.  Alan's thermocouple is in a center gap in the
heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.
He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick
alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not
covered (not insulated).  Thus, there is thermal load to the environment
(radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the
thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface
temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils.  Fortunately, Alan
measured this differential in temperature between where he had the
thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> You appear to be making the assumption that excess power is being
> generated within the core.  Why would you expect the temperature inside the
> core to be above the outside of the core unless some extra power is being
> produced?  Why 1200 C when the outside is at only 900 C?
>
> Something does not seem to add up in that calibration run, or perhaps I
> just missed a fine point that you can help explain.  Thanks.
>
> Dave
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 12:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later
>
>  There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power
> when the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core
> temperature was over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned
> out by the time the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to
> 1200C, even if Alan could drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different
> differential between his tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did.
> Alan measured his differential curve.  If he had gone to 1200C at the
> reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been at or above its melting
> temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C.  It was just not
> practical.
>
>  If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube
> may have read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.
>
>  Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable
> leaving the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a
> controlled cycle before he fell asleep.
>
>  On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>>  Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you
>> were following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can
>> you explain that?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Tungsten has a very high melting point, but it suffers badly from oxidation
and will fail at 1000C if exposed to O2.  Kanthal A1 is one of the best
alloys for a heater coil that can survive in the presence of O2 (leakage)
and it is reasonably ductile for forming.  Ductility is important because
if the material is hard, forming into a coil will cause it to crack and it
will fail at the crack.

To get to higher temperatures, non-ductile metals and conductive ceramics
(like SiC) are used.  Bob Greenyer is getting SiC tube heaters quoted from
an company in India - these are good to well over 1500C, but are fragile.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Can't you use W as a heater?
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[David Roberson]

Bob,

You appear to be making the assumption that excess power is being generated 
within the core.  Why would you expect the temperature inside the core to be 
above the outside of the core unless some extra power is being produced?  Why 
1200 C when the outside is at only 900 C?

Something does not seem to add up in that calibration run, or perhaps I just 
missed a fine point that you can help explain.  Thanks.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later


 
There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power when the 
reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core temperature was 
over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned out by the time the 
reactor tube temperature could have been driven to 1200C, even if Alan could 
drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different differential between his tube OD 
and his core temperature than Alan did.  Alan measured his differential curve.  
If he had gone to 1200C at the reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been 
at or above its melting temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C.  
It was just not practical.  
   
  
  
If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube may have 
read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.  
  
   
  
  
Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable leaving 
the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a controlled cycle 
before he fell asleep.   
   


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha   
wrote: 
 
  
   
Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you were 
following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can you explain 
that?
  
  


   
  
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

Can't you use W as a heater?

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power when
the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core
temperature was over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned
out by the time the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to
1200C, even if Alan could drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different
differential between his tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did.
Alan measured his differential curve.  If he had gone to 1200C at the
reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been at or above its melting
temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C.  It was just not
practical.

If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube may
have read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.

Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable
leaving the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a
controlled cycle before he fell asleep.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you were
> following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can you
> explain that?
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Craig Haynie]

> 
> My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and
> instrumented Parkhomov replication experiment to date.  There are sure
> to be better experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for
> putting together a good experiment.
> 
Hear, Hear!

My comments sounded more negative that I meant them. The thrust of my
comment is that replication is a difficult process and quick positive
results should not be expected. 

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you were
following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can you
explain that?

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

I think you are being unduly unkind in observations of Alan Goldwater's
experiment.

Alan had previously done a dummy run with a thermocouple inserted into the
center of the core and had a calibration curve showing the internal
temperature of the reactor vs. the temperature on the outside of the
reactor tube and the temperature on the outside of the heater assembly
surface.  Alan's arrangement is less insulated than Parkhomov's and there
was a larger gradient from the core of the reactor to the outside of the
reactor tube.  Parkhomov did not have this calibration, so his core
temperature during his experiment is unknown; though his core temperature
was likely much closer to his reactor tube exterior measure of 1200C.  Alan
chose to remove his internal thermocouple for the actual run for fear of
contamination.  Alan chose a temperature to regulate using the reactor tube
outside measure that would result in a core temperature of 1200C.  Had Alan
taken the reactor tube surface temperature to 1200C, he probably would have
melted the Ni, if he could have gotten to that temperature without burnout
of his heater coil.  At most, the criticism should be that Alan could have
insulated his reactor to a greater extent; perhaps with a reflector as did
Parkhomov.

We now have samples of the Ni powder that was used in Parkhomov's
experiment, but do not yet have an analysis of it.  So matching the Ni fuel
Alan used "to spec" was not possible because we have no real
specification.  Further, we don't know what is important.  Is it the
surface morphology of the powder particles that are important (but
unknown)?  Is it the purity?  LENR history shows that the highest purity is
usually NOT what produces positive LENR results.  We suspect Parkhomov's
LENR powder to have been produced with a carbonyl process, and are sending
a sample for analysis now.  We do know that the Lugano HotCat used a
carbonyl Ni powder.  Parkhomov did not buy a specific powder - he bought
what he could get.  Alan used a similar carbonyl Ni powder.  It was a good
choice based on available information.

Parkhomov is also using "alumina" tubes of unknown purity - they were what
he could get.  Based on comments MFMP received from Parkhomov, we believe
he may have been using a mullite tube (~70% alumina).  This is a core
difference with what Alan and MFMP used - high purity (99.7%) alumina.  The
high purity alumina will be stronger, conduct less hydrogen, and will be
more immune to chemical erosion (it is the portion which is not alumina
that is subject to chemical erosion).

Alan's seals were good - an improvement over Parkhomov's latest epoxy
seals.  This is borne out by the pressure profile Alan recorded - pressures
about an order of magnitude higher than those of Parkhomov.  So were
Parkhomov's LEAKS important in his LENR?  TBD.

I think a far bigger unknown, as reported by Jones Beene, is the unknown
isotopic composition of the Li in the LiAlH4 that Alan used.  We should see
isotopic analysis of Parkhomov's fuel reported at ICCF19, and then we will
have an idea of what he used.  However, the LiAlH4 that Alan used is a
complete unknown and could easily have been 6Li robbed.  We are currently
investigating where MFMP could have ICP-MS done on its samples (any
suggestions?).

These comments are all without analysis of the experimental data from
yesterday, just observation of the experiment.  We will have to do the data
reduction now against the dummy calibration run to understand what actually
happened.  We know the properties of the Ni used, but we don't know about
the LiAlH4.  We know the properties of Alan's alumina tubes and seals, but
we don't know the properties of Parkhomov's tubes or seals.  We don't know
that the COP never exceeded 1.0, we just suspect it from casual observation
of the raw data.

My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and instrumented
Parkhomov replication experiment to date.  There are sure to be better
experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for putting together a good
experiment.

Bob Higgins


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Craig Haynie 
 wrote:

>
> >
> > MFMP didn't show COP>1, with the dog bone test,  last night
>
>
> It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a
> clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855
> C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they
> decided to raise it more, to an unspecified number. Meanwhile, the
> peanut gallery was saying that the reaction didn't even start until the
> outside core temperature was near 1200 C, and that the only constraint
> was that nickel melted around 1455 C.
>
> They were also using a nickel powder for fuel which was not to spec, but
> this was understood before the run.
>
> Learning how to replicate a known phenomenon is a learning process all
> by itself. I can only imagine that several more tests will need to be
> done, and that Parkhomov will need to be consulted, befor

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Craig Haynie]

> 
> MFMP didn't show COP>1, with the dog bone test,  last night


It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a
clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855
C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they
decided to raise it more, to an unspecified number. Meanwhile, the
peanut gallery was saying that the reaction didn't even start until the
outside core temperature was near 1200 C, and that the only constraint
was that nickel melted around 1455 C. 

They were also using a nickel powder for fuel which was not to spec, but
this was understood before the run.

Learning how to replicate a known phenomenon is a learning process all
by itself. I can only imagine that several more tests will need to be
done, and that Parkhomov will need to be consulted, before this team has
a chance of success.

Craig

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Daniel Rocha]

MFMP didn't show COP>1, with the dog bone test,  last night