I believe that this last MFMP experiement is suffering from a undersized fuel load. But a larger fuel load will most likely blowout the alumina tube when the temperature hits the 600C critical temperature. The energy burst from from a larger fuel load when the reactor hits that critical temperture threshold will blowout the tube.
The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a fraction of a gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous. Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts. Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained. Like in a nuclear rector, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction. But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management. A strong reactor design like the tungsten tube design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the near instantanous energy bursts produced by that large fuel load when the reactor hits the critical reaction startup temperature. A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Alberto De Souza < alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote: > MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess > heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement > error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a > high amount of excess heat. > > Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano > report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of > fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf > <http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf>). > MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube > used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with > ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an > alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new > experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if > there are any... > > Alberto. > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza < >> alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during >>> this initial test. >>> >> >> Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can >> happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on >> scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be >> tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there >> was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time >> around. >> >> I think of an error that is in one's favor as a "banker's error." If one >> discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to >> complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it >> should be, there is less incentive to complain. >> >> Eric >> >> >
