Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Peter B wrote: > Terry > > Tim Robbins ...That's him ...always helps me decide what I'm going > to do when I think Im down for the count > > Decide to . fight or surrender http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTv1Dmu5CYc&feature=fvst T
RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Terry Tim Robbins ...That's him ...always helps me decide what I'm going to do when I think Im down for the count Decide to . fight or surrender Some things take years but its worth it Pete > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:09:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter > From: hohlr...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Peter B wrote: > > Managed Danger > > > > Agreed > > > > There a great "Saying "in a movie "Shawshank Redemption" that I love . > > It had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget) > > > > Anyway it was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing " > > Tim Robbins. Great movie! > > T >
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Peter B wrote: > Managed Danger > > Agreed > > There a great "Saying " in a movie "Shawshank Redemption" that I love . > It had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget) > > Anyway it was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing " Tim Robbins. Great movie! T
RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Managed Danger Agreed There a great "Saying "in a movie "Shawshank Redemption" that I love . It had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget) Anyway it was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing " Safety is a priority to me , but not dieing of regret or bordom is a close secound . I would hate to get to 90 yrs old and be full of "If only we had tried" Play safe and as Spock would say "Live long and Prosper" Pete Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:32:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter From: cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I agree. There is a certain amount of risk in just getting out of bed in the morning On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" > experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other > people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight > into replicating Rossi. > > Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal > neutrons. Do I need a detector for fast neutrons? I will be placing this > detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect any > of these radiations. I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to block > most of the gammas. > > As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those. For > instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber. How do you build one? How > does one detect 6 MeV protons? Where can I buy a scintillation detector? > What kind? > > Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics. So, sorry > for the stupid questions. > > And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything > worthwhile. I think danger should be managed, not avoided. > > > Jojo > >
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Jojo, I agree. There is a certain amount of risk in just getting out of bed in the morning On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. > > Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal neutrons. Do I need a detector for fast neutrons? I will be placing this detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect any of these radiations. I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to block most of the gammas. > > As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those. For instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber. How do you build one? How does one detect 6 MeV protons? Where can I buy a scintillation detector? What kind? > > Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics. So, sorry for the stupid questions. > > And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything worthwhile. I think danger should be managed, not avoided. > > > Jojo > >
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVj69R66Agg This cloud chamber build seems the most convergent to me. You don’t need to pick up any dry ice here. When in YouTub, search on “cloud chamber” There are many how to do it videos on this subject. The following paper contains a picture of a proton coming from nickel in a cloud chamber. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CampariEGoverviewof.pdf *OVERVIEW OF H-NI SYSTEMS: OLD EXPERIMENTS AND NEW SETUP* On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" > experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other > people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining > insight into replicating Rossi. > > Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal > neutrons. Do I need a detector for fast neutrons? I will be placing this > detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect > any of these radiations. I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to > block most of the gammas. > > As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those. > For instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber. How do you build one? > How does one detect 6 MeV protons? Where can I buy a scintillation > detector? What kind? > > Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics. So, > sorry for the stupid questions. > > And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything > worthwhile. I think danger should be managed, not avoided. > > > Jojo > > >
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal neutrons. Do I need a detector for fast neutrons? I will be placing this detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect any of these radiations. I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to block most of the gammas. As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those. For instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber. How do you build one? How does one detect 6 MeV protons? Where can I buy a scintillation detector? What kind? Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics. So, sorry for the stupid questions. And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything worthwhile. I think danger should be managed, not avoided. Jojo
RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Jones, while I feel the task to replicate Rossi would be very difficult, I do not believe it is impossible. Rossi was able to get lucky so I feel my chances are good given the quality of the people in this collective. And given that we have already narrrowed down many of the factors, like powder size, degassing procedures, catalysts and other things, I feel that it would not take that long to replicate Rossi. Besides, I'm still young and semi-retired and I've got nothing else to do. This R&D seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Even If I do not achieve a breakthrough, it is still worth it in keeping me from getting bored and end up doing something useless with my time. And I am not a stranger to lab research myself as I have done experiments of significant complexity during my graduate years. You're the physicist, tell us engineers what to do and what procedure to use, what equipment to use based on your current understanding. Like I said, your insight will go a long ways in helping set the research direction. Keep the ideas and the theoritical speculations coming. They may seem irrelevant but builders like us are gaining a lot of insights from it. But anyways, I am taking a lot of precautions. My reactor will be placed inside a 4" pipe that will act as a first blast shield, then put the set up in a corner behind my vacuum pump, then place some 3/8" steel plates, then place it in a blast chamber with 8" concrete walls. The concrete wall will act as a radiation shield and a blast shield. I suspect my blast chamber will withstand a stick of dynamite. And since my reactor is small, I do not expect a massive and devastating explosion, although I am hoping for an explosion so that I will know I have identified the catalyst.
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
I am sorely tempted to give experimental advice even though I have no right to. So let me succumb. I would not do this stuff myself out of fear of bodily harm. In the beginning of your experimentation, I would keep it as simple as possible. IMHO, the excess heat detection route is not the easiest and most sensitive way to go. I would look for excess high energy protons at 6 MeV, or in general any change in radiation production as an indicator of research progress. To start out stay away from powder, use a bar or foil of nickel to get the Nickel surface preparation right. Expose the bar to hydrogen and when you think that the reaction has stabilized, remove it from your reactor, place it in a radiation detection device: cloud chamber (Build it yourself for $10), Particle Detectors - Geiger Counter, Scintillation Detector, Solid State Detectors …something that detects ionizing radiation… and see if there is an increased level of radiation over the background that you have initially measured before the hydration process. Use the increase or decrease in radiation levels as a feedback mechanism to hone your surface prep. When you think that you have optimized this step, only then move on to micro powder. BE very careful. So sorry, please excuse me…Even at the risk of embarrassing myself, succumbing to temptation always feels good. Best regards, Axil On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have > a consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor > walls? or free floating inside the reactor? > > There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the > comments on this collective on this. On the one hand, sintering the Ni > powder may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability > by allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free > floating Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for > reaction. Does anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder? I > haven't read anything on that. > > I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our > collective. I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective > thinks is the best initial guess. > > > Jojo > > > >
RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
I agree with Günter here, with one proviso. If you very clever to start out with, do your homework perfectly, take adequate precautions and have lots of Lab experience - then you might get lucky even on a low budget, if everything were to go perfectly. In retrospect, once all is known, this will probably be fairly easy (except for obtaining the correct nanopowder). Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. For instance – an interesting book is out (but not available in English AFAIK). Experts in the USA had assumed the Nazi effort to build an A-bomb was way behind us, since they could not put adequate resources into it at the time - and this cannot be done cheaply. Then a historian named Karlsch made the claim that the SS almost got lucky, on a pittance … http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe This means absolutely nothing, and Karlsch was most likely wrong on many details - plus it would have been a ‘dirty bomb’ anyway – except to say that very daunting tasks often have an easy solution, in retrospect. Maybe I should find a better example of that premise, anyway :-) However, back to Ni-H - there is one commercially available 10 nm nanopowder which is known to work. It is expansive. Brad Lowe of ecatbuilders has gotten hold of some (and I see you have posted to that forum) so why not wait to see what his results are? Otherwise, I put your chances at almost zero on a minimal budget - unless you can get hold of the proper nanopowder, which is known to work and go from there. Brad has the least expensive possible setup, and it is a simple comparison test of two identical reactors, with-and-without - but if he gets lucky with this, then so could you. Let me say that this R&D is very dangerous, involves toxic materials and explosive gases, and myself nor anyone on this forum are responsible in any way for personal or financial injuries or losses. You assume the complete risk for this. There have been three deaths which I am aware of – two experimenters with hydrogen (HHO) in Southern California and one at SRI in cold fusion. Forewarned is forearmed. From: Günter Wildgruber Jojo, Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field. Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a lot of trial and error and educated guesses. If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$, and have no colleagues for brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial. I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t. It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that. What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives preliminary results in the first place. This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, to my opinion. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that. Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow. Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits sense. Next You have to cultivate Your intuition: How should the reactive nickel-surface look like? 100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range. Look at what is possible. One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right parameters in say 10 dimensions. Does Rossi have it? Defkalion? We do not know.
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex-l Gesendet: 20:52 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter ...Before long, I have no doubts I will need a glove box, and industrial microwave, some custom RF equipment and... Jojo, I myself am involved in the design of RF-generators for plasma-generation, and naturally was curiuous, what to see about that in the real setups, both theoretically and experimentally. (Rossi/Defkalion) This is a very sensible matter, I can assure you, but I cannot see any hint, that RF-generation of any sophistication is involved. Maybe as a dirt-effect, so to say, but it does not seem to be essential in initiationg or controlling the process. Apart from Terahertz differential Laser excitations, which by nature are difficult, I cannot see anything akin to RF-induced excitation. Either the process is quite simple, -without any RF- or it is very elaborate. Just my five cents. - Original Message - >From: Guenter Wildgruber >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:31 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter > > > > > > > > > Von: Jojo Jaro >An: Vortex-l >Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012 >Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter > > > >With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a >consensus .. > >--- > >Jojo, > >Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field. > >Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a >lot of trial and error and educated guesses. > >If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$, and have no colleagues >for brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial. > >I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t. >It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have >lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that. > >What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives >preliminary results in the first place. > >This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, >to my opinion. > >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml > >If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that. >Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow. > >Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits >sense. > >Next You have to cultivate Your intuition: >How should the reactive nickel-surface look like? >100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range. >Look at what is possible. > >One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right >parameters in say 10 dimensions. >Does Rossi have it? >Defkalion? > >We do not know. > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Yes, an investment of 100K is possible. I've actually budgeted 2 Million for this endeavor, although at this stage, I am starting with very cheap and simple reactor and calorimeter designs. I am only spending a few hundred right now. Before long, I have no doubts I will need a glove box, and industrial microwave, some custom RF equipment and an SEM with X-Ray backscattering capabilities to characterize the individual atoms. Right now, I am trying to get a handle on Research Direction, more than the equipment itself. I feel I can test many of the Ideas here without spending too much right now. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter -- Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex-l Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a consensus .. --- Jojo, Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field. Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a lot of trial and error and educated guesses. If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$, and have no colleagues for brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial. I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t. It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that. What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives preliminary results in the first place. This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, to my opinion. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that. Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow. Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits sense. Next You have to cultivate Your intuition: How should the reactive nickel-surface look like? 100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range. Look at what is possible. One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right parameters in say 10 dimensions. Does Rossi have it? Defkalion? We do not know.
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex-l Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a consensus .. --- Jojo, Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field. Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a lot of trial and error and educated guesses. If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$, and have no colleagues for brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial. I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t. It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that. What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives preliminary results in the first place. This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, to my opinion. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that. Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow. Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits sense. Next You have to cultivate Your intuition: How should the reactive nickel-surface look like? 100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range. Look at what is possible. One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right parameters in say 10 dimensions. Does Rossi have it? Defkalion? We do not know.
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
Thanks Axil, What do you think of my recipe below: I plan to heat Ni powder to say 300-400C (below curie point) in open air to allow creation of Nickel Oxides. Also heat some copper powder and some iron powder in open air for the same purpose. Mix about 7% copper and 3% iron powder with Ni powder so prepared. Place the mixture into the reactor and perform the Piantilli style heating to 400c and vacuuming and then loading H2, and repeating several times to totally boil off the oxides. All the 3 powders should have lots and lots of micro-cavities. This should improve the copper's and iron's ability to split H2 to H+. At least that's the theory. Then cool the reactor to room temp and then do a final load of H2 at 300-360 psi. Then start the reaction. Any flaws in my thinking? Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter The one big disadvantage of using the reactor walls is in replacing the embedded powder. When the powder is spent, the whole core must be discarded...not competitive. On the other hand, nano-powder may be too tiny to allow surface phonons to propagate correctly (however that might work). Nano powder might not work. The compromise in micro powder in the 5 micror size range. This powder is replaceable, yet big enough to carry effective phonon vibrations. The challenge is to properly form the surface of the micro-powder to provide micro-cavities that allow protons to become synchronized (coherent). Like Jones has posted, protons repel each other but when you put them in a small quantum well, they bounce off each other and also off the cavity walls for a very long time until they just so happen in a one in a million encounter to approach in just the right way to syncronize their quantom properties. That is the only job of the micro-powder, to get protons to sync up into coherent pairs. IMHO, Nano powder is too small to perform this function and the reactor walls are too inconvenient, but micro powder is just the right size and weight…and the surface needs to have the most effective micro cavities formed on each particle too. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor walls? or free floating inside the reactor? There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the comments on this collective on this. On the one hand, sintering the Ni powder may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability by allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free floating Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for reaction. Does anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder? I haven't read anything on that. I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our collective. I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective thinks is the best initial guess. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
The one big disadvantage of using the reactor walls is in replacing the embedded powder. When the powder is spent, the whole core must be discarded...not competitive. On the other hand, nano-powder may be too tiny to allow surface phonons to propagate correctly (however that might work). Nano powder might not work. The compromise in micro powder in the 5 micror size range. This powder is replaceable, yet big enough to carry effective phonon vibrations. The challenge is to properly form the surface of the micro-powder to provide micro-cavities that allow protons to become synchronized (coherent). Like Jones has posted, protons repel each other but when you put them in a small quantum well, they bounce off each other and also off the cavity walls for a very long time until they just so happen in a one in a million encounter to approach in just the right way to syncronize their quantom properties. That is the only job of the micro-powder, to get protons to sync up into coherent pairs. IMHO, Nano powder is too small to perform this function and the reactor walls are too inconvenient, but micro powder is just the right size and weight…and the surface needs to have the most effective micro cavities formed on each particle too. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have > a consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor > walls? or free floating inside the reactor? > > There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the > comments on this collective on this. On the one hand, sintering the Ni > powder may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability > by allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free > floating Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for > reaction. Does anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder? I > haven't read anything on that. > > I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our > collective. I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective > thinks is the best initial guess. > > > Jojo > > > >
