RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Sunil Shah]

At the time of the explosion in the BANG clip, the video leads the audio by 
slightly less than 1 second.  Unfortunately, the resolution of the video stream 
is very low, and the FRAMERATE is painfully low : (
It's no more than 5-10 fps (frames per second).  Now, in a video where "nothing 
happens" it won't matter, but to see what's happening here you would want more. 
 A standard HD video camera does 50 or 60 fps no problem.

It could also be their video capture picture-in-picture software is not 
delivering (or the computer they are running it on). You can see this from the 
fluidity of the mouse pointer movements.

Pity.

.s

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 19:50:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second out of 
sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin against 
science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to follow false 
leads and waste tons of time trying to figure  out a pressure related problem 
that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as water in the steam 
type issue that we have spent days and days talking about. This is a shot at 
process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR experimentation as science. 
The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening in 
and experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors.
At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is a 
hot spot failure of the core. 
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:25 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into different 
sections of the frame.
It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync with 
the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of the audio 
stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.
Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very badly.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it changed 
instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence. This tells me 
that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are electrical flows 
to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang onset. 
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
Looking at the BANG video starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound 
track is behind the video track.
Why?
Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical displacement of 
the right end of the tube that goes so far as to mechanically displace the 
red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of the video frame -- all before 
the BANG.  It seems likely that this mechanical displacement was the actual 
BANG event with the sound coming nearly a second later.
Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat 
profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was not 
pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed, at 2.29 a 
white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field of scarlet 
near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the power produced 
at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not caused by a short 
circuit in the heater element because the power is steady at that time. As 2:29 
progresses the white spot grows in size.

The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of that 
time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to short out. 
The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white is at its 
maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet stating at 2:31 as 
hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going through the heater is at its 
maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is minimized at 2:35. The heater is 
completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current flow.
There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured as 
marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is 
building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument sounds 
produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the sound of the 
explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

  


  
  
Jones Beene wrote:



"If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle 
of 
the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal 
pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the 
place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation 
seems to fit the circumstances.&quo

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second
out of sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin
against science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to
follow false leads and waste tons of time trying to figure  out a pressure
related problem that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as
water in the steam type issue that we have spent days and days talking
about. This is a shot at process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR
experimentation as science.

The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening
in and experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors.

At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is
a hot spot failure of the core.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:25 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into
> different sections of the frame.
>
> It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync
> with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of
> the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.
>
> Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very
> badly.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
>> changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
>> This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
>> electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
>> onset.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the BANG video 
>>> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
>>> track.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical
>>> displacement of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to
>>> mechanically displace the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of
>>> the video frame -- all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this
>>> mechanical displacement was the actual BANG event with the sound coming
>>> nearly a second later.
>>>
>>> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
>>> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
 not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
 at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
 of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
 power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
 caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
 at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

 The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end
 of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
 short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
 is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
 stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
 through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
 minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
 flow.

 There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube
 fractured as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when
 high heat is building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection
 instrument sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until
 2.30 after the sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive
 overheating.

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
 wrote:

>  Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the 
> middle of
> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
> internal
> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly 
> the
> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
> seems to fit the circumstances."
>
> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
> The ceramic is very brittle.
> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
> inserting them in a furnace.
> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into
different sections of the frame.

It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync
with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of
the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.

Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very
badly.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
> changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
> This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
> electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
> onset.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Looking at the BANG video 
>> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
>> track.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical
>> displacement of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to
>> mechanically displace the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of
>> the video frame -- all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this
>> mechanical displacement was the actual BANG event with the sound coming
>> nearly a second later.
>>
>> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
>> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
>>> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
>>> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
>>> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
>>> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
>>> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
>>> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>>>
>>> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end
>>> of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
>>> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
>>> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
>>> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
>>> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
>>> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
>>> flow.
>>>
>>> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube
>>> fractured as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when
>>> high heat is building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection
>>> instrument sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until
>>> 2.30 after the sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive
>>> overheating.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Jones Beene wrote:

 "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle 
 of
 the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
 internal
 pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly 
 the
 place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
 seems to fit the circumstances."

 I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
 The ceramic is very brittle.
 I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
 inserting them in a furnace.
 They also require handling with reasonable care.


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
onset.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Looking at the BANG video 
> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
> track.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical displacement
> of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to mechanically displace
> the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of the video frame --
> all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this mechanical displacement was
> the actual BANG event with the sound coming nearly a second later.
>
> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
>> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
>> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
>> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
>> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
>> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
>> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>>
>> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
>> that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
>> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
>> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
>> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
>> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
>> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
>> flow.
>>
>> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
>> as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
>> building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
>> sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
>> sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle 
>>> of
>>> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
>>> internal
>>> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
>>> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
>>> seems to fit the circumstances."
>>>
>>> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
>>> The ceramic is very brittle.
>>> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
>>> inserting them in a furnace.
>>> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

Looking at the BANG video 
starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
track.

Why?

Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical displacement
of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to mechanically displace
the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of the video frame --
all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this mechanical displacement was
the actual BANG event with the sound coming nearly a second later.

Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>
> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
> that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
> flow.
>
> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
> as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
> building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
> sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
> sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>>  Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
>> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
>> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
>> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
>> seems to fit the circumstances."
>>
>> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
>> The ceramic is very brittle.
>> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
>> inserting them in a furnace.
>> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was not
pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed, at
2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field of
scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
flow.

There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
> seems to fit the circumstances."
>
> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. The 
> ceramic is very brittle.
> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
> inserting them in a furnace.
> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Terry Blanton]

My guess is that a critical parameter is mass of reactant ratio to
volume inside the reactor.

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[a.ashfield]

Jones Beene wrote:

"If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
seems to fit the circumstances."

I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. The 
ceramic is very brittle.
I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when inserting 
them in a furnace.
They also require handling with reasonable care.

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

Bob Greenyer comments that on the last 2 MFMP experiments, the resulting
sintered Ni + Li, Al mass slid out of the alumina tube with no apparent
sticking/sintering to the alumina.  Thus, a reactor that is safely
open-able after the reaction provides opportunity to sample the ash, and
with the correct plumbing, the gas may also be sampled.  Subsequently the
same reactor could be used again.

Since the plan to use the "easier Parkhomov design" with the Swagelok
termination uses substantially off-the-shelf components, and no glue
(reproducibility issue), the replication can be done many times with less
speculation of what changed between trials going forward.  OTOH, it is hard
to guarantee reproducibility if glued end seals are used.  Parkhomov is a
careful experimenter and he seems to have mastered the seals.

Alan Goldwater's tests of the seals have really moved this project forward.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there is
> good reason.  MFMP has had difficulty replicating the Parkhomov seals, and
> does not yet have the right size alumina parts for proper Parkhomov
> replication.  And in the Parkhomov design, it is hard to tell if the seal
> failed or the device just didn't work.  The best data from the experiment
> just completed is that the sealing of the compression fitting with the
> aluminum ferrule was good.  This is a serious win, because it permits
> analytical plumbing to be attached to a Parknomov-like device.  This
> analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure measurement, post
> experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely open the
> reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube (but
> it is not clear that it will be possible to sample the Ni materials without
> sectioning).  And, the plumbing will subtend no significant expansion
> volume.
>
> MFMP is getting ready to publish my proposed plumbing design for attaching
> to a Parkhomov-like reactor, probably on Facebook.
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 
*   
*   For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there 
is good reason… The best data from the experiment just completed is that the 
sealing of the compression fitting with the aluminum ferrule was good.  This is 
a serious win, because it permits analytical plumbing to be attached to a 
Parknomov-like device.  This analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure 
measurement, post experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely 
open the reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube….

Coincidentally, Peter just posted on the more general subject “creative 
replication.” It is controversial, some would say “unscientific” (not)… but 
there is no doubt it is a gamble and an expedient in a “risk vs. rewards” 
tradeoff. 

In an ideal world, sure – go for accuracy first - but that can add months or 
years to the task. 

Instead, and luckily - the overriding dynamic here is that Parkhomov was 
successful with a less than faithful replication of Rossi, and he managed to 
move the field forward - because of that variation, since everything he did 
differently adds significantly to the knowledge base in a way that faithful 
replication can never do. It also means that the underlying experiment is 
robust but not well understood.

And furthermore, the creative enhancement gamble can pay-off handsomely in 
expediency - with months or time being shaved off of development. If we 
correctly judge that Rossi himself missed as much as he got right, then the 
risk of a false “enhancement” is minimal. Now, with a dozen or more new players 
entering the fray (as it appears) – some with their own creative slant on 
replication, and others going for more faithful versions – this is where it 
really gets interesting.

We could be at a tipping point, folks. It is an exciting time.

Jones
  

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[AlanG]

My notes on sealing tests using the Parkhomov cement formulation can be 
seen at:

http://www.evernote.com/l/AXeKakT2sSpFMpLYlLx85OpP_c-MaaApbfs/

Dr Parkhomov has provided some additional details, which I will try in 
the coming week. My conclusion so far is that a  cement that contains 
water as this one does will not seal the inside of a small-bore tube due 
to shrinkage as the cement cures.


On 2/8/2015 9:56 AM, James Bowery wrote:
In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty 
compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the 
justification for such deviation should be carefully documented prior 
to the experimental run.


Where is this documentation for the justification for departure 
from Parkhomov's protocol?


On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote:


I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor
tube at failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't
really know how much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume
estimate for the chamber is probably only accurate +100%/-50%. 
The volume of the system can and should be measured prior to start

of the experiment.  This can be done with a calibrated piston
plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc using the
piston and see how the pressure changes.

Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one
pressure.  Third, we don't know what is happening chemically
inside the hot chamber.  Sure there is decomposition, but there
are probably also other hydride formations occurring at that
pressure and temperature (note that there was added zirconium).
Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would reduce the
pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.

The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was
in this experiment and we won't know until it is carefully
measured.  There is no real point to the wild speculation.  It
will just have to be measured.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Yes, that isthe good news- thatthe compression fitting works,
and if the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy
way to fix that also.

To minimize thermal stress – theheater wire could be
“feathered in” from both ends, whenit iswoundso that there is
an intermediate zone of heat which is less than the fully
woundwire, but greater thanthe unheated zone.The idea is to
spread out the areas of highest temperature gradient, to
reduce thermal stress.

*From:*_Bob Higgins_

Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the
compression fitting giving way under pressure - the fitting
remained intact.  This experiment was of the "easier
Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made
with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a
soft aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater. 
Alan's tests suggested the compression fitting would hold and

it did! \

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there is
good reason.  MFMP has had difficulty replicating the Parkhomov seals, and
does not yet have the right size alumina parts for proper Parkhomov
replication.  And in the Parkhomov design, it is hard to tell if the seal
failed or the device just didn't work.  The best data from the experiment
just completed is that the sealing of the compression fitting with the
aluminum ferrule was good.  This is a serious win, because it permits
analytical plumbing to be attached to a Parknomov-like device.  This
analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure measurement, post
experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely open the
reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube (but
it is not clear that it will be possible to sample the Ni materials without
sectioning).  And, the plumbing will subtend no significant expansion
volume.

MFMP is getting ready to publish my proposed plumbing design for attaching
to a Parkhomov-like reactor, probably on Facebook.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty
> compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the justification
> for such deviation should be carefully documented prior to the experimental
> run.
>
> Where is this documentation for the justification for departure
> from Parkhomov's protocol?
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube
>> at failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know
>> how much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the
>> chamber is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can
>> and should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done
>> with a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by
>> 1cc using the piston and see how the pressure changes.
>>
>> Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
>> Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
>> Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
>> formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
>> added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
>> reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
>> LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.
>>
>> The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
>> experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
>> real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and
>>> if the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
>>> also.
>>>
>>> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in”
>>> from both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone
>>> of heat which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the
>>> unheated zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest
>>> temperature gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>>>
>>> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>>>
>>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty
compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the justification
for such deviation should be carefully documented prior to the experimental
run.

Where is this documentation for the justification for departure
from Parkhomov's protocol?

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube at
> failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know how
> much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the chamber
> is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can and
> should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done with
> a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc
> using the piston and see how the pressure changes.
>
> Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
> Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
> Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
> formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
> added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
> reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
> LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.
>
> The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
> experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
> real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if
>> the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
>> also.
>>
>> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in”
>> from both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone
>> of heat which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the
>> unheated zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest
>> temperature gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>>
>> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>>
>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube at
failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know how
much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the chamber
is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can and
should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done with
a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc
using the piston and see how the pressure changes.

Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.

The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if
> the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
> also.
>
> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in” from
> both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone of heat
> which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the unheated
> zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest temperature
> gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>
> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>
> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jones Beene]

Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if the 
problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that also.

To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in” from both 
ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone of heat which is 
less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the unheated zone. The idea is 
to spread out the areas of highest temperature gradient, to reduce thermal 
stress.

From: Bob Higgins  

Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting giving 
way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment was of the 
"easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made with a 
compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft aluminum ferrule at 
the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests suggested the compression 
fitting would hold and it did!  \

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Maybe submersing in water bath would help even temp profile

On Sunday, February 8, 2015, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  I think the failure was caused by a brittle fracture of the alumina tube
> due to thermal stresses, internal micro stresses caused by micro bubble
> formation and resulting embrittlement.
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
> 
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎February‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
>
> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
> compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
> problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
> to instrument the reaction vessel.
>
> When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.
> This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large
> charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will
> extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that
> was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was
> 1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8"
> ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  > wrote:
>
>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>> debatable...
>> -mark iverson
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Cook]

I think the failure was caused by a brittle fracture of the alumina tube due to 
thermal stresses, internal micro stresses caused by micro bubble formation and 
resulting embrittlement.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎February‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting giving 
way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment was of the 
"easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made with a 
compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft aluminum ferrule at 
the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests suggested the compression 
fitting would hold and it did!  Using the compression fitting is a real win 
because it completely avoids the problematic sealing of the ends with cement 
while providing an opportunity to instrument the reaction vessel. 



When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.  This 
could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large charge of 
LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will extract that 
volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that was added, as 
being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was 1/4" OD, but at the 
moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8" ID tube.  The Parkhomov 
tube had an ID of half of its OD.




Bob Higgins




On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[a.ashfield]

I saw a comment that stated the ticking sound was not from the Geiger 
counter but from an H2 leak detector.  Can anyone verify this?
ALso, is i possible to verify there was not an audio delay of about a 
second in the video that might explain the delay in the ticking picking 
up speed?

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

So the short answer is that rather than not thinking to hook up the
pressure sensor, the they thought to not do so given the exigencies of
their particular situation.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of
> self-preservation kicking in.
>
> Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to
> run these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not
> readily available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open
> up a large gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is
> really small.  Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the
> high pressures as the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to
> get the compression fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume
> must be filled with alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to
> the compression fitting must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the
> pressure measured would not be representative of what it was inside
> Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on plumbing to make such measurements
> using 1/16" stainless tubing having a 0.006" bore with appropriately small
> other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in the plumbing.
>
> What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that
> the really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools
> to room temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?
>
> My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction,
> have a way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis,
> and have a way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which
>> is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook
>> up the pressure sensor.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Greenyer <https://disqus.com/by/bobgreenyer/>  Obvious
>>> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838945044>
>>> • 40 minutes ago
>>> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838958558>
>>>
>>> The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The
>>> core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>>>>
>>>> -mi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
>>>> *To:* vortex-l
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out
>>>> in the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>>>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>>>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>>>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>>>> debatable...
>>>> -mark iverson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:
>>>> orionwo...@charter.net]
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
>>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>>>
>>>> Good show,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Craig.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>>> svjart.orionworks.com
>>>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>>>
>>>> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>>>>
>>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>>>>
>>>> > Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of
self-preservation kicking in.

Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to
run these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not
readily available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open
up a large gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is
really small.  Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the
high pressures as the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to
get the compression fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume
must be filled with alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to
the compression fitting must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the
pressure measured would not be representative of what it was inside
Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on plumbing to make such measurements
using 1/16" stainless tubing having a 0.006" bore with appropriately small
other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in the plumbing.

What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that
the really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools
to room temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?

My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction,
have a way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis,
and have a way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which
> is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook
> up the pressure sensor.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Bob Greenyer <https://disqus.com/by/bobgreenyer/>  Obvious
>> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838945044>
>> • 40 minutes ago
>> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838958558>
>>
>> The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The
>> core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>>>
>>> -mi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
>>> *To:* vortex-l
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out
>>> in the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>>> debatable...
>>> -mark iverson
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net
>>> ]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>>
>>> Good show,
>>>
>>> Thanks, Craig.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>> svjart.orionworks.com
>>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>>
>>> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>>>
>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> > Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

There is a second or two delay from the time of increased heat production
and the production of radiation. A facto-fusion event would produce  the
simultaneous onset of the heat/radiation occurrence.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I would be hesitant to ascribe a transient radiation detection as
> necessarily due to LENR.  When the reactor exploded, there could have been
> fracto-fusion which is known to produce a pulse of neutrons.  Also, when
> the tube exploded, it shattered the silicon carbide heater that they were
> using, no doubt momentarily creating an electrical plasma as the AC source
> arc'ed over the initial fracture.  Such an electromagnetic anomaly could
> have induced an error in the reading.  There are lots of other
> possibilities, and LENR is just one of them.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> There must be a some sort of reaction component to this explosion because
>> the gamma counter when wild for a few seconds. Gammas are produced by
>> nuclear causes.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan confirmed that the tube used was of the original Dogbone design
>>> with a 4mm ID and a 6.35mm (1/4") OD.  This has a wall thickness of only
>>> 1.18mm compared to Parkhomov's 2.5mm wall thickness.  For the strength of
>>> the tube used, the amount of LiAlH4 inserted was just too much.
>>>
>>> Fortunately they were all behind a safety shield.  This should be a
>>> lesson to all replicators.
>>>
>>> Bob Higgins
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which
is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook
up the pressure sensor.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Bob Greenyer <https://disqus.com/by/bobgreenyer/>  Obvious
> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838945044>
> • 40 minutes ago
> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838958558>
>
> The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core
> was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
>> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>>
>> -mi
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>
>>
>>
>> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out
>> in the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>> debatable...
>> -mark iverson
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>>
>> Good show,
>>
>> Thanks, Craig.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> svjart.orionworks.com
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>>
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> > Craig
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

I would be hesitant to ascribe a transient radiation detection as
necessarily due to LENR.  When the reactor exploded, there could have been
fracto-fusion which is known to produce a pulse of neutrons.  Also, when
the tube exploded, it shattered the silicon carbide heater that they were
using, no doubt momentarily creating an electrical plasma as the AC source
arc'ed over the initial fracture.  Such an electromagnetic anomaly could
have induced an error in the reading.  There are lots of other
possibilities, and LENR is just one of them.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> There must be a some sort of reaction component to this explosion because
> the gamma counter when wild for a few seconds. Gammas are produced by
> nuclear causes.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Ryan confirmed that the tube used was of the original Dogbone design with
>> a 4mm ID and a 6.35mm (1/4") OD.  This has a wall thickness of only 1.18mm
>> compared to Parkhomov's 2.5mm wall thickness.  For the strength of the tube
>> used, the amount of LiAlH4 inserted was just too much.
>>
>> Fortunately they were all behind a safety shield.  This should be a
>> lesson to all replicators.
>>
>> Bob Higgins
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

There must be a some sort of reaction component to this explosion because
the gamma counter when wild for a few seconds. Gammas are produced by
nuclear causes.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Ryan confirmed that the tube used was of the original Dogbone design with
> a 4mm ID and a 6.35mm (1/4") OD.  This has a wall thickness of only 1.18mm
> compared to Parkhomov's 2.5mm wall thickness.  For the strength of the tube
> used, the amount of LiAlH4 inserted was just too much.
>
> Fortunately they were all behind a safety shield.  This should be a lesson
> to all replicators.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Be careful not to get the integrity too strong, otherwise you could have
>> a real pipe bomb on your hands..
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
>>> compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
>>> problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
>>> to instrument the reaction vessel.
>>>
>>> When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body
>>> failure.  This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a
>>> too large charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.
>>> MFMP will extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of
>>> LiAlH4 that was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube
>>> used was 1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube
>>> or a 1/8" ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.
>>>
>>> Bob Higgins
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
 right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
 I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
 release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
 debatable...
 -mark iverson

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

Ryan confirmed that the tube used was of the original Dogbone design with a
4mm ID and a 6.35mm (1/4") OD.  This has a wall thickness of only 1.18mm
compared to Parkhomov's 2.5mm wall thickness.  For the strength of the tube
used, the amount of LiAlH4 inserted was just too much.

Fortunately they were all behind a safety shield.  This should be a lesson
to all replicators.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Be careful not to get the integrity too strong, otherwise you could have a
> real pipe bomb on your hands..
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
>> compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
>> problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
>> to instrument the reaction vessel.
>>
>> When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body
>> failure.  This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a
>> too large charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.
>> MFMP will extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of
>> LiAlH4 that was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube
>> used was 1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube
>> or a 1/8" ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.
>>
>> Bob Higgins
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>>> debatable...
>>> -mark iverson
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Be careful not to get the integrity too strong, otherwise you could have a
real pipe bomb on your hands..

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
> compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
> problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
> to instrument the reaction vessel.
>
> When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.
> This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large
> charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will
> extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that
> was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was
> 1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8"
> ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>> debatable...
>> -mark iverson
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
to instrument the reaction vessel.

When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.
This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large
charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will
extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that
was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was
1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8"
ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> debatable...
> -mark iverson
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

At 2.29 a white spot appears in the field of scarlet but the power going
through the coil is still nominal. This means that the reaction is not
caused by a short circuit in the heater element.

The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
stating at 2:31. The power going through the heater is at its maximum at
2:32 until 2.34. The power is minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely
shorted at 2:55 with 0 current flow.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> After the explosion there is a small white spot that persists after
> most of the tube ceases to glow white.
> Is that lens flare or a residual hot spot in the reactor?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
> > Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
> >
> > -mi
> >
> >
> >
> > From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
> > To: vortex-l
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
> >
> >
> >
> > The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out
> in
> > the video, which never reaches 1.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> > wrote:
> >
> > At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> > right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.
> And I
> > use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> > release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> > debatable...
> > -mark iverson
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net
> ]
> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
> >
> > Good show,
> >
> > Thanks, Craig.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steven Vincent Johnson
> > svjart.orionworks.com
> > zazzle.com/orionworks
> >
> >> Short segment showing the explosion.
> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
> >
> >> Craig
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

That is probably the targeting laser spot for the Williamson pyrometer.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> After the explosion there is a small white spot that persists after
> most of the tube ceases to glow white.
> Is that lens flare or a residual hot spot in the reactor?
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[H Veeder]

After the explosion there is a small white spot that persists after
most of the tube ceases to glow white.
Is that lens flare or a residual hot spot in the reactor?

Harry

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:
> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>
> -mi
>
>
>
> From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
>
>
> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out in
> the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I
> use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> debatable...
> -mark iverson
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
> Good show,
>
> Thanks, Craig.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.orionworks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>> Short segment showing the explosion.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>
>> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The spike showed up on the screen after the explosion I think.
>

Yup. In the video above, "Bang!" The explosion occurs at 2:31. The spike
appears at 2:49. If the spike were already on the screen when the explosion
occurred I might suspect that it was the beginning of an anomalous reaction.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

It is premature to assume that the explosion was caused by the Rossi
> effect.  The temperature was rising smoothly a few seconds before it
> occurred, but there seemed to be some indication of a very rapid rise
> immediately before everything went haywire.
>

My guess is that temperature spike was caused by the thermocouple
malfunctioning at the moment of the explosion. The spike showed up on the
screen after the explosion I think.

If this were the Rossi effect I would expect to see the temperature
gradually rise above the calibration point, rather than suddenly spiking
like that. Maybe not though. Rossi has observed runaway heat excursions,
that reportedly frightened him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

Bob Greenyer <https://disqus.com/by/bobgreenyer/>  Obvious
<http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838945044>
• 40 minutes ago
<http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/06/live-video-feed-from-mfmp-feb-5th-experiments-planned/#comment-1838958558>

The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core
was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>
> -mi
>
>
>
> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
>
>
> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out in
> the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> debatable...
> -mark iverson
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
> Good show,
>
> Thanks, Craig.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.orionworks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>
> > Craig
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[David Roberson]

It is premature to assume that the explosion was caused by the Rossi effect.  
The temperature was rising smoothly a few seconds before it occurred, but there 
seemed to be some indication of a very rapid rise immediately before everything 
went haywire.

According to my simulations this might be due to this system acting like a type 
2 or 3 positive thermal feedback device.   In that case, the temperature inside 
the core would have passed the threshold where the negative resistance region 
begins.  Once entered, the internal temperature will rapidly rise as additional 
heat energy is released at an ever increasing rate.  This rapid rise will not 
cease until the device self destructs or, if they happen to be fortunate,  
reaches a temperature at which the heat energy escapes at a rate that exceeds 
its production rate.

The geometry of the test device is the main variable that can be used to solve 
this problem properly.  Of course, if the amount of fuel is reduced, the 
overall system can be reduced to type 1 operation.  In that case there is no 
negative resistance region and any desired operating temperature can be 
established by adjusting the input drive level.

I believe that it is important to establish exactly what caused the failure 
before anyone knows how to best proceed.  If the cause can not be accurately 
determined, then it would be prudent to reduce the amount of core fuel to 
ensure type 1 behavior.  We can generally obtain useful data from a system that 
remains in operation throughout the test procedure.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 1:39 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project


At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use 
that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release.  
Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson

-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

> Short segment showing the explosion.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

> Craig


 

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

I believe they should check their sensor.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?
>
> -mi
>
>
>
> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
>
>
> The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out in
> the video, which never reaches 1.0.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> debatable...
> -mark iverson
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
> Good show,
>
> Thanks, Craig.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.orionworks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>
> > Craig
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

-mi

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

 

The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out in the 
video, which never reaches 1.0.

 

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson


-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

> Short segment showing the explosion.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be> 
> &feature=youtu.be

> Craig

 

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out in
the video, which never reaches 1.0.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
> debatable...
> -mark iverson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
> Good show,
>
> Thanks, Craig.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.orionworks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> > Short segment showing the explosion.
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>
> > Craig
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson

-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

> Short segment showing the explosion.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

> Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

Did anybody else pick this up? When the explosive sequene begins at 2:30
with a bang, the radiation counter goes wild. The counter seems to
correspond with a color change in the center of the tube from white to
scarlet that proceeds left to right on the underside of the alumina tube
until all the white area is replaced by scarlet color. This correspondence
between the g-counter and the color change process seems to lasts until
2:34 when both the color change and the counter activity stops together.

There seems to be a change in state happening inside the tube between 2:30
and 2:34 corresponding to a large production in gamma radiation. What was
the maximum gamma level detected? Was it 1.02 GeV? That is electron
positron radiation as reported by Rossi?.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> Short segment showing the explosion.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be
>
> Craig
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

> Short segment showing the explosion.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

> Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Short segment showing the explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Weaponiized! Yeah!

On Friday, February 6, 2015, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Craig Haynie  > wrote:
>
> > So, the test is over. No good result.
>
> Are you kidding?  They successfully replicated results experienced by
> both Rossi and Parkhomov. 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Craig Haynie  wrote:

> So, the test is over. No good result.

Are you kidding?  They successfully replicated results experienced by
both Rossi and Parkhomov. 

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded 
and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the 
LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45 
on the clock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c999f4--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ec&feature=iv&src_vid=bK6d3t4lSjM&v=eP9l356ymg8

So, the test is over. No good result.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

It was just another calibration test, and it's over now.

Craig

On 02/05/2015 06:07 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
Another live run. I believe this is one with a rossi core, but I am 
not certain. They were going to do this today, and the day's almost over.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c99790--2767-93c9-001a1147517a&feature=iv&src_vid=yMpIxeb_L50&v=-tzMEIAwG30 



Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Another live run. I believe this is one with a rossi core, but I am not 
certain. They were going to do this today, and the day's almost over.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c99790--2767-93c9-001a1147517a&feature=iv&src_vid=yMpIxeb_L50&v=-tzMEIAwG30

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Check out this photograph:

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/a.587293604634676.1073741827.466698113360893/917327598297940/?type=1

They said it looked orange. The caption is, "Silicon Carbide Element at 
1400ºC internal temperature." It also looks like they've removed the 
casing -- or something. I doesn't look like a complete dog bone.


Craig


On 02/05/2015 02:52 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
They say that though the dog bone appears white hot on video, it 
actually looks orange in person. This may explain the apparent visual 
discrepancy with the photograph in the Lugano report, and the reported 
temperature. It also demonstrates that you really can't trust 
photography to accurately reflect color, without detailed information 
on the type of photography used.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

On 02/05/2015 04:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
They blew a fuse when the cranked up the control run to 2.2 KW. They 
say they're preparing the core for another run in a little while. I 
hope they have the video back for that run.




From the Facebook page:

"We just tripped the breaker trying to max out the variac. The SiC 
element went comfortably to 1557ºC so we want to focus on building a few 
Ni+LiAlH4 filled fuelled cores this afternoon."


This sentence makes it appear as if they may no longer be planning on 
actually doing the core run this afternoon.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

On 02/05/2015 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

The broadcast is over already.




They blew a fuse when the cranked up the control run to 2.2 KW. They say 
they're preparing the core for another run in a little while. I hope 
they have the video back for that run.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jed Rothwell]

The broadcast is over already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

They say that though the dog bone appears white hot on video, it 
actually looks orange in person. This may explain the apparent visual 
discrepancy with the photograph in the Lugano report, and the reported 
temperature. It also demonstrates that you really can't trust 
photography to accurately reflect color, without detailed information on 
the type of photography used.


Craig

On 02/05/2015 02:35 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:

Here's the live link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c99268--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ec&feature=iv&src_vid=0DY4TJmCJS8&v=yMpIxeb_L50 



They're up to 1700 watts on the control. Afterwhich, they plan to 
insert a core into the dog bone and run it again to see if there's any 
difference.


Craig

[Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Here's the live link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c99268--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ec&feature=iv&src_vid=0DY4TJmCJS8&v=yMpIxeb_L50

They're up to 1700 watts on the control. Afterwhich, they plan to insert 
a core into the dog bone and run it again to see if there's any difference.


Craig