<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:50:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>XArnette says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9249</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi admin. It was hard to find this site in google. It's not even in top 10. You should focus on strong links from top websites in your niche. I know of a very effective free method to get strong links and instant traffic. The best thing about this method is that you start getting clicks right away. For more details search in google for: masitsu's tricks]]></description>
			<dc:creator>XArnette</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9249</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>mua laptop cũ giá rẻ says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9152</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi there, I think your website may be having browser compatibility issues. Whenever I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in IE, it's got some overlapping issues. I just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Apart from that, wonderful website!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>mua laptop cũ giá rẻ</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9152</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>g barrett says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6079</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer More food for thought. Al is relatively impervious to H and He and once it melted and coated Ni in the core, it would tend to trap H and He in the Ni matrix "crack reaction zone". This is an excellent environment for recombination of atomic hydrogen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>g barrett</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6079</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6063</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@g barret Not too far fetched. Notice that the solid Li-Al-H melted to the sintered nickel also had a few % o Ni in it. http://bit.ly/1Fhc5Wn]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:47:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6063</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6056</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@g barrett: I've thought of that too over the past years and even recently. It could also explain why the reaction can't start right away (4-5 hours as in previous MFMP tests) but needs more time apparently (assuming Parkhomov's results are genuine. He did run his reactor tubes for an extended period of time though). It would be hilarious if it were that simple and we just didn't have the right recipe all along. Since Ryan Hunt has run many long-lasting experiments under hydrogen at all sorts of pressures (up to 15 bar) and temperatures (up to 500 °C), there must have been something missing so far. Perhaps the process was as you're hinting too slow for any noticeable effect to occur. Reading your linked document the first thing I noticed was that liquid metal can cause embrittlement. I was already aware that Gallium for example can eat away Aluminum pretty quickly and make it very brittle (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHHI2Lk79cY ); I don't know about a molten Lithium-Aluminu m alloy in a heated atmosphere on Nickel adsorbing a plentiful amount of atomic Hydrogen, although admittedly that sounds like a rather harsh environment for it to be, pretty much the worst one can imagine for metals susceptible to embrittlement. You could be onto something... not a far fetched idea at all. By the way, there were noticeable amounts of 69Ga in one of the grains in the TPR2 SIMS analysis, although one should take them at face value. I don't know if it would have any effect on Nickel too. Trace amounts are catastrophic for Aluminum. EDIT: again assuming this is true, it might also be consistent with the gamma emission correlation with temperatures. The lower the temperature, the less ductile and more brittle the affected metal is and the harsher cracks and failures would get. At higher temperatures the target metal would get softer, but also get embrittled faster.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6056</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>g barrett says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6055</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Out of left field idea ... reasonably easy to test. Reactor start up. Perhaps part of the Ni-H reaction is an accelerated form of hydrogen embrittlement of Ni? See H2 gas diag. http://www.heat-treat-doctor.com/documents/hydrogen%20embrittlement.pdf Ni is extremely susceptible to H embrittlement and the process is significantly accelerated by increased Hydrogen concentrations, stress, and heat. If the embrittlement and cracking phenomenon generates something like sonoluminescenc e at crack initiation ??? This would imply the reactor would show a significant reduction in activity when the nickel is close to its melting point and crack initiation was not possible because of plastic flow.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>g barrett</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6055</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6048</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I'm aware of that. I was trying to find an explanation, no matter how crazy it could sound, as for why all or most of the reaction energy that is supposed to get emitted in the form of gamma radiation comes out of the reactor in the form of mostly infrared radiation (and => RF? there have been claims of RF being detected from LENR too). It's as if a deep redshift is occurring at a local level.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6048</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6047</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco You only have to see one trace in the cloud chamber as all of the fuel is stable! Getting it in there as fast as possible would be the priority - such short half lives.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6047</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6046</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I've read that suggestion in your hypothesis spreadsheet. My further improvement to that is crushing the rod into small pieces in order to attempting to separate the sintered nickel particles from the LiAl (+LiH and Ni?) coating and exposing them to the atmosphere. This could turn out to be a totally unnecessary step, but one can never know, as crazy as what I'm implying might sound (which is probably even crazier than the excess heat itself). My ultra-speculati ve hypothesis is that it's where the "gamma thermalization" is occurring. In other words, what might be providing the way for obtaining abundant excess heat is also for some inexplicable reason absorbing all or most the gamma radiation generated, unless a mishap/hiccup in the process occurs. EDIT: Levi et al. in their Lugano report (pages 28-29) calculated the energy needed to show the Ni and Li isotope shifts seen to be in the ballpark of that of the one calculated through thermal measurements. While Bob Higgins' revised (lower) external temperature estimation detracts from that, it could still be regarded to be more or less consistent with it. What I'm basically saying is that in Lugano's case, the overall output excess energy does appear to come from expected nuclear reactions. As the authors interestingly note that the 7Li depletion is an unsolved problem in astrophysics, and as they hint at that in a rather goofy way (as in "we totally do not really mean it, seriously!" - not the actual wording but you get the idea) one can only wonder if they don't know the answer already and if this could explain the very same mystery of complete gamma "thermalization " in these reactors using LiAlH4. Not really LENR related, but could ring some bells: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/sep/02/big-bang-ruled-out-as-origin-of-lithium-6 (the conclusion, especially)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6046</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6045</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I have previously suggested internally and to Dr. Parkhomov that we deliberately blow up a reactor and then immediately place the fuel in a cloud chamber.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6045</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6044</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Good spot, it does look like as devices switches on at the critical Alkali Hydride melting temperature - and it would appear there is a coincident gamma peak - then it goes away. Your connection with Rossi's original demonstration is a good call. Thankyou]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6044</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6043</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: do you remember dr. Parkhomov's December 2014 slides? There was a gamma radiation count graph from his СИ-8Б G-M counter. Check out where the only noticeable small peak occurs: http://i.imgur.com/SFuBXF0.png http://i.imgur.com/SFuBXF0.png Keep in mind that it might be a coincidence and that I could be looking too much into the data, but that's enough to get me thinking. During the January 2011 demo, shortly after dr. Celani detected a significant gamma count peak coming from Rossi's E-Cat (which was high enough that Celani considered leaving the building), Rossi told to the attendees that the E-Cat started producing excess heat and that people could enter the small room where the device was operating. I believe he didn't expect that event to happen, but he knew it could.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6043</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6042</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: still, if in a cloud chamber and in other experiments Piantelli has indeed detected gamma radiation, neutrons and energies associated with standard nuclear reactions caused by protons in the several-MeV range, something must be happening for most of this to not show in the latest reactors and replications. The main difference I currently see from past gas-loaded experiments is the liquid electropositive metal reaction domain. If one were to accept Piantelli's findings and to trust calorimetric measurements from others (Levi, Parkhomov), then I can see something very unexpected possibly occurring there, likely what is allowing gamma radiation to get completely or almost completely "thermalized". Perhaps if one were to take the sintered rod out of one of these reactor tubes when it's clearly showing excess heat, quickly break it down in very small pieces and then attempting to measure radiations with a detector (or put the broken rod pieces in a cloud chamber), something could be seen? EDIT: try asking dr. Celani to tell you everything he knows/remembers from the January 2011 E-Cat public test he attended. Celani did detect gamma emissions, but wasn't allowed to use his instruments in spectrometer mode. This could be in retrospect very important information. I remember that Rossi that day had a hard time starting his reactor.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6042</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6041</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Piantelli would say that it was more like nuclear synthesis and whilst the evidence in ash via SEM and other analysis can be explained by old-school collider based particle bashing experiments (like I have done in the sheet) the actual reaction does not behave in the same way and he would call the whole thing "abnormal phenomenon". We are in a new frontier. Stoyan would say that if you massively disrupt the structure of the physical vacuum it has to do all kinds of things in its repertoire to get back in balance - but what if you are actually working with nature to get something you want, you are easing it into a state it actually wands to be in - I note the happy 62Ni. Sure, you can build the perfect house by knocking down another on the same plot, with resulting debris, but might a little re-modelling achieve the same ends?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6041</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6040</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: a big puzzle I'm having a hard time solving right now is the seemingly lack of gamma radiation detected in dr. Parkhomov's experiments or in the Lugano TPR2. As far as I now understand from prof. Piantelli's theory described in his patents, protons ejected from the Nickel lattice through orbital capture should be interacting with surrounding matter through standard nuclear reactions, ie engaging in hot fusion. I remember reading that prof. Piantelli experimentally verified proton ejection and alpha particles in a cloud chamber several times (this is also mentioned in his patents). Several of his late '90s and early '00 papers with several watts-level excess heat also showed gamma emission and neutron emission in some cases. Does prof. Piantelli expect gamma radiation emission to always detectably occur when excess heat is also occurring in the several hundred W - kW range or are there cases where he believes this might not necessarily happen?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6040</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6035</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Magnetic field has been proven to control heat and sound From Terry Blanton on Vortex. http://phys.org/news/2015-03-landmark-magnets.html Could this be a significant piece of the puzzle?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6035</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6034</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All We have one of these in Minnesota we got off EBay http://luxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Power-Controller-II_II+-Manual-Rev2.2.pdf It should allow us to program and Automate a full Parkhomov heatup and control. It can also be monitored by this software http://www.eurotherm.com/products/controllers/itools/ Ryan just needs to learn how to do it now!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6034</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6033</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer oh in that case put "if you don't want this send to Charlie Tapp" in big bold letters on it. By the way just curious is that powder magnetic?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6033</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6031</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Charlie, The little envelope goes in the larger white bubble wrap lined envelope.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6031</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6029</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer on your sample bags, were exactly are you sending them to? I think what is written on the envelope should be more professional sounding than put this in your pipe and smoke it not a very serious comment. Unless of course your sending me one you could put whatever you want. My reactor is ready to go just need the junk to put in it . I took these old reload able fuse holders called reliable fuses you can find them on eBay they are from the 50's threaded on both ends with pass through bolt ends for re soldering new fuse wire in. Wraped with the heater wire from an old heat gun hooked up to three phase drive for a chem pump (all I have at the moment that is similar to a triac) I was going to take some old Canadian nickels and grind them to make some powder and for my hydrogen thinking I might use the cleaning agent works mixed with aluminum puts off very high amounts of hydrogen enough to pop a plastic bottle.so my presure should be good just need to figure out how to get it there something similar to the old fire extinguishers might work . Just flip it upside down releasing the works into the aluminum at the right temp (I need an egore to help me)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6029</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6028</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Preparing to send out Parkhomov Powder https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6028</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6026</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: somehow I was under the assumption that he's had several breakages on those which failed to show excess heat too.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:04:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6026</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6025</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Dr. Parkhomov's reactors failed in one of two ways, heater failure or tube core breach. It was the ones that did not fail that went on to show excess heat. The one that has last the longest is the current one. It would be good for us to analyse the Bang core to settle the debate on Li.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6025</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6024</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I also meant that Lugano SIMS analysis shows significantly more lithium ions than aluminum ones in the fuel powder too. Unless I'm misinterpreting these graphs (or how SIMS works), to me this appeared to suggest that there was more lithium than just that coming from a LiAlH4 source. EDIT: however, ICP-AES/MS fuel analysis of a different sample does seem to point that LiAlH4 could have been the main Li source, so perhaps I'm just reading the SIMS one incorrectly, after all. Still, I do think that extra Li could be beneficial, as you too point out in your reaction hypothesis spreadsheet. EDIT2: and I have of course seen 'Bang!' SEM and EDX too, but if the Li will want to chemically react with the alumina first as the previously linked paper reports and if EDX can't detect Li, how can we tell for sure that there's indeed a significant amount of Li in the coating forming on the sintered nickel particles? Could it be that the reactor fails (either critically or by not showing excess heat) when the Li ends up mostly reacting with the alumina cylinder? As this would seem to be very dependent on how the powder is distributed inside the core and how it sinters, it might explain why in dr. Parkhomov's case most of the time his reactors appear to work either very well or not at all. Perhaps that's also why the Lugano testers reportedly had two spare reactors at disposal, just in case (this is assuming that the inner tube too was made of alumina).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6024</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6023</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@G Barrett The way to make LiH is to have molten Li and have H2 under pressure. Same for AlH3 (though a LOT more pressure) Perhaps you did not catch our SEM and EDX from the 'Bang!' http://bit.ly/1Fhc5Wn The images of the reaction matrix look just like the post 32 day ash from Lugano Report (Particle 1, ash, Appendix 3) - Note Li cannot be seen in this test because EDX does not show it. The new reaction environment is wetted Li Al H on the sintered Nickel web, there is very little reason why this would choose to all migrate to the alumina tube, surface tension would prevent it. @Ecco As said in the sheet Al 'burns' first as it is a MUCH larger targer for the ejected 1H]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6023</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6022</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Yes - it is all in his patent and extension. experimentally derived.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6022</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6021</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good criticism. Incidentally, Parkhomov, who is apparently reporting a relatively good success rate, does not use pure alumina tubes. Also, although we know that the finned portion was made of pure alumina, there's no guarantee that Rossi used the same material for the inner tube in the Lugano experiment. It might be worth thinking seriously about this possible issue for the upcoming MFMP tests. Interestingly, Lugano fuel/ash analysis did reveal significant amounts of lithium; there wasn't as much aluminum in the ash. I wonder if they used extra lithium to compensate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6021</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>g barrett says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6020</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Robert Greenyer re ECAT fuel A couple of thoughts. LiAlH4 thermal decomposition. At 200C LiAlH4 decomposes to LiH, free Al, and Hydrogen. Al doesn't melt until 660C At 400C and 1 Bar, LiH [in the presence of free Al] reacts to form LiAl and free Hydrogen. LiAl melts at 702C at 1 Bar. First liquid metal available to coat anything. LiAl melts at 702C By 800C liquid Li reacts exothermically with alumina to form Li5AlO4 and LiAlO2 [dark brown powders]. Need to find a phase diagram for Al-Li-O. Reaction with alumina runs to completion and causes increased alumina porosity and forms cracks in the alumina. Don't think there is much/ any free Li in the fuel at any point. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022311585904544]]></description>
			<dc:creator>g barrett</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6020</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6018</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: unfortunately they could not detect Lithium (or Hydrogen) with their analysis method. There are suggestions that Rossi might have been using it at least since he was first introduced to Ikegami and Petterson, which I think happened in late 2011. Either way, it appears that the presence of liquid metal in the possible reaction zones is more important than most people imagined. Astrophysicists , many of whom seem to have noticed anomalies in some of them, like Lithium (which has an important role in nucleosynthesis ), model liquid metal environments as dense plasmas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_liquid This could be relevant too: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mikio_Fukuhara/publication/235591577_Acceleration_of_the_d_d_reaction_in_metal_lithium_acoustic_cavitation_with_deuteron_bombardment_from_30_to_70_keV/links/02e7e52b9412f32676000000.pdf (but no bubble fusion as I speculated several posts earlier) And this is too: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepja%2Fi2014-14153-3 (many links/papers on the subject seem to get posted on various LENR discussion venues, as of late) @Edwin Pell: the thermocouple is on the outer surface of the inner cylinder, it's not exposed to hydrogen. I don't think Parkhomov used a dummy this time, let alone one containing LiAlH4.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6018</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6017</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I came across a leaked paper again today (which I never really read before) that was published in January 17th, 2013, which puts the likely technology as older type E-Cats. In it, the authors test ash taken from a reactor that had run for 6 months. I was astounded to see that ALL the detected ash elements are accounted for by the previous reaction chains I had calculated, were stable and I had already detailed how they would leave the reaction zone assuming reactor operating temperature under 650ºC (Mg melting point) I have added a new section to the sheet "Analysis of fuel in the original E-Cat" http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 02:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6017</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6016</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All UPDATE #1 Re-heat and settling time to 1200ºC, after the cool down and heater replacement, took just 3 hours which compares favourably to the first heat up time of 12 hours. This is again, a great result.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6016</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6015</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bob, do you know if the dummy reactor contains LiAlH4?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6015</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6014</link>
			<description><![CDATA[High temperature hydrogen destroys thermocouples. They read higher than true after exposure. This does worry me. A thermocouple in a stainless steel sleeve not cemented to the tube would make me happier. When will some group in the world repeat Parkhomov's experiment????]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6014</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6009</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: if LENR were to start in the nickel lattice as per Piantelli, it would make sense to me that secondary reactions could then possibly occur in the Li and then back again to the Ni. I do accept this explanation (although I can't really refute it either). BTW, It's worth pointing out that Ikegami-Petters on's theory of Chemofusion in metallic liquid Lithium appears to have several proponents among Swedish/Italian E-Cat testers (TPR1/TPR2). EDIT: lookup Pettersson, Tegnér, Kullander, Ikegami First here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf Then here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Ikegami-Ultradense-Nuclear-Fusion-ER2006-42W.pdf Note that the first independent ECat report on ArXiv got published before it became widely known that it used Lithium. I think it's likely that the professors involved have known that for a good while, given their background and, apparent trust by Rossi. EDIT2: this is very relevant http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf "Chemonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Clusters in Li permeated Metal Hydrogen Systems" (TPR1's Torbjörn Hartman appearing here too)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6009</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6007</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(continued from comment #107, ran out of space) In reference of EDIT1 and EDIT4 in my previous comment, as I was about to ask if MFMP Parkhomov replication test tubes appeared to make any clicking sound above 660°C during previous experiments, and that if perhaps a heat-shielded microphone or accelerometer could be fitted somewhere in order to detect vibrations from them (and confirm whether cavitation or something else physically occurs at high temperature), I realized that I was getting closer to F.Cardone's hypothesis of piezonuclear reactions occurring in fault lines in the Earth's crust during large earthquakes. EDIT: what about magnetostrictio n? Would that induced by the AC heating coil to the sintered nickel rod/lattice be enough to cause molten Lithium to get involved in displacement-ca used cavitation at a microscopic level, which might in turn cause shockwaves => sonoluminescenc e (see EDIT1 and 4 in comment #104), enabling LENR? This could explain why AC power is needed and why heat alone is not enough to drive the reaction. It might also explain, if you trust them, why early E-Cat SIMS analysis made in 2009 had so much Fe. Fe is a ferromagnetic element. If we take for granted the assumption that nuclear reactions are mainly occurring in the molten alkali metal used, then the Ni or Fe lattice is only or mostly there to work as a sort of receiver for external stimulation, although it might itself get involved in LENR once it is initiated in the liquid metal. EDIT2: no, magnetostrictio n would have a too small of an effect to affect molten lithium at that level.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6007</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6005</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Good news! I went out and bought a 0.1g accuracy set of small digital scales ( you can imagine what looks I got, especially as I was asking for very small containers/samp le bags also!) Anyhow, it appears I have over 13 g of the very same Ni powder that Parkhomov's is using now. Not sure the best way to send it - small, thick, zip lock polythene bags will go in a bubble envelope easily - and in the Lugano reports, Rossi used something similar, so it would be a closer replication! Dr Brian Ahern has asked for some, and I will send samples to other team members, also to get SEM and EDX so everyone can know the type of powder that he is using now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6005</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6004</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thanks]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6004</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Peter None of this Parkhomov did, He mixes in his lounge in a pestle and mortar and no nickel preparation. We demonstrated In our 'Bang!' experiment that it is critically important to sinter filamentary Nickel together. It is all in these two documents https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6002</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Peter Mobberley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6001</link>
			<description><![CDATA[TRICKS OF THE TRADE ! CAUTION ! You must wear a respirator. This must be done in an extracted fume cupboard. In order to prevent nickel powder from sinterring and hence becoming inactive , give it an overcoat to prevent metal to metal contact. Heat your powder in air to arround 400C. In an iron or nickel crucible with a bunsen. Continuously stir for 10 -15 mins.the particles will grow an oxide overcoat. The oxide coating is porous and as far as hydrogen is concerned, it's as if it isn't there. Sorry Peter (Gluck) , this is completely against your immaculate surface approach ! Pete]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Peter Mobberley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6001</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6000</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm seeing this: http://i.imgur.com/crC95O9.png I don't have enough expertise to tell whether it's to be expected or not. EDIT: I considered deleting this post because I made a couple mistakes when digitizing the SIMS analysis (which I'm in the process of correcting), but since the corrections would reinforce the point I was making here, I've only removed the embedded image.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-6000</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5998</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Thankyou for this excellent work. Can you to try and line up the moments before and after the bang from the HugNetLab data (using the collapse in temp as an indicator of when the bang happenned) with the geiger chart you have made.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5998</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5995</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco The Isotopic shift chart is easier to read. Can you add clarity to the 'Beep' chart. is thed redness due to beeps.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5995</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5994</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I don't know if you remember when I commented that there seemed to be a slight increase in beeping from the Geiger counter before the Bang! event, in addition to apparently (to me) several beeps occurring quicker than normal as it happened. I tried reviewing the audio data from the Bang! Youtube video you posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dDfRaDY2R_A&hd=1), marking when beeps occurred: http://i.imgur.com/CH82v5sl.jpg Larger version here: http://i.imgur.com/CH82v5s.jpg But do keep in mind that some beeps might have been masked out by noises, voices, etc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5994</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5993</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@charlie tapp: the ground wire as a possible pathway for an external power source in early E-Cat models was a speculation by some skeptics. Rossi removed it after those criticisms. You will need some mental gymnastics to trust the source, but try Google-translat ing the comment written by "Cures" on September 15, 2013 09:47 here: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747&reply_id=123534014#123534014 ]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5993</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5992</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer also may be an artifact but while playing around with my junky setup I was thinking about your 50 MHz frequency idea so I grabbed a 2 pound hammer and bumped the cement close to it trying to get close to that freq. (totally guessing of course on pitch) but at about 970 c highest temp I could get with the heating coil I have the temp went up 2 degrees when I stop it goes back down I tried it several times and sure seemed like that is what was causing it Maybe grab a cheap guitar tuner before the next run they make several different frequency who knows maybe sound waves help]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 06:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5992</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5991</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer I seem to remember something about a ground wire in the original e cat. Someone thought it was an external power source and Rossi explained as ground could that ground wire have made the nickel act as a tesla coil with the heating coils pumping the electrons to cause a MHz radio frequency of some kind in the powder just a thought]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:56:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5991</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5990</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: maybe it's not as clear as extracting and plotting the data linearly, but have a look at this image showing the difference between the original graphs: http://i.imgur.com/vjrg5QFl.jpg Larger, clearer: http://i.imgur.com/vjrg5QF.jpg WHITE areas denote that there's been a decrease in counts for a given isotope, while RED areas denote an increase. The 63Cu / 65Cu artifact appearing in the ash is quite visible (in red). By the way, I found this useful for decoding the graph quickly: http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~massspec/atomic_mass_abund.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:02:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5990</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5989</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco The progression from Lighter Fe and Ni AMU to higher is consistent. interesting.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5989</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5988</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For what it's worth: http://i.imgur.com/cEWSIiv.png http://i.imgur.com/cEWSIiv.png http://i.imgur.com/GJ1ow1Q.gif http://i.imgur.com/GJ1ow1Q.gif @Robert Greenyer: I remember that Rossi eventually said that copper in the analyses was due to contamination by sputtering, but I'm unable to find a source for this right now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5988</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5987</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Yes log. Fe progresses to Ni (especially with 2 X 1H & also He from reactions with Al) I think the copper is a contaminant from the reaction vessel used at that time. It stops at Ni62 and Ni64, but Ni64 would eventually iterate to Ni62 but it would take a lot longer run in the older, less aggressive system. Ni62 has a larger peak, and that is as it should be.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5987</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5986</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: is my understanding that the original graphs have counts (y axis) in a logarithmic scale, correct? If yes, then there are minute quantities of nickel compared to other isotopes (copper especially, in the "after 3 months" scan), at least in this analysis. I haven't included isotopes below a 200000 c/s threshold because they would have been virtually indistinguishab le from a 0-height bar and even filtering the dataset this way, preparing these graphs manually is a bit time-consuming.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5986</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5985</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You are missing the leap in 62 and 64Ni and the drop in the other Nickel Isotopes. There is no easy way to get the 63Cu or 65Cu otherwise Other than that, the whole dataset fits the broad theory. If you can re-analyse it, Can you do a net +'ve and net -ve on an above and below the line basis.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5985</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5984</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I was wondering that too (as I hinted on FB). Either there was no Ni or the SIMS analysis focused on portions of the fuel/ash without Ni (ie the "catalyzer"). However, if you only looked at my linearized graphs, please also check the original ones on New Energy Times I previously linked, just to be sure and confirm that I haven't made mistakes in the process.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5984</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5983</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Where is the Ni?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5983</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5982</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco What you say and have evaluated makes perfect sense. Rossi was making a molten ionic hydride on the surface from a molten Alkali metal and Hydrogen. Now I understand what the Italian military guy was saying to me in Rome when he snuck up to me after my presentation and said "you need to add an Alkali metal" I said "what, like Lithium" and he disappeared. He didn't mean a specific one, he literally meant "you need to add an Alkali metal"! I have reported this before, but now it is all the clearer!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5982</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5981</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I wanted to verify whether pressure readings during the January 2nd stainless steel Dog Bone test actually started started becoming noisy at about 660 °C and... yes, they actually did, speaking of internal temperatures: http://i.imgur.com/qBCyqIQ.png Larger, readable version here: http://i.imgur.com/qBCyqIQ.png Version without annotations: http://i.imgur.com/wwdQci4.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5981</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5980</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: somewhat unrelated with your comment, but looking again at the SIMS analysis scan on the NET website of the "fuel" I'm wondering if we're not actually looking at the "secret catalyst", at least for early-type low-temperature E-cat's (which used to have an external high-pressure hydrogen tank). With Na, K it looks like there's most of what is needed for producing ionic hydrides on-site, perhaps with the catalytic help of Fe of which there's plenty, apparently. No nickel at all there, unless I'm misinterpreting the data (which could be likely). It would be really funny (in reality, not at all) if Rossi's "secret sauce" was never really a "secret". I tried making the SIMS analysis counts scale linear, by the way (most abundant isotopes only): http://i.imgur.com/9kHl43J.png http://i.imgur.com/e2NbbZs.png Hopefully I haven't made any mistake.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5980</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5979</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All On review of our first fuelled reactor (Jan 2nd 2015) that formed our LiAlH4 breakdown pressure test, it would appear that pressure got crazy right around the melting point of Al ( 660.3ºC) and LiH (688.7C) https://www.evernote.com/pub/marpooties/projectdogbone#st=p&n=c33478ce-f054-401e-a2c4-b220df60208b]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5979</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5975</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Charie Tapp, Thanks for your kind words. I need to get LENR out of the way, I think we are ready for Kickstarter now, if we can raise the required funds, we'll do a huge amount of experiments - it will be the mother of all LOS.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 23:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5975</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5974</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Tom Clarke Yes you missed the part of the Argument that is my hypothesis, that Ni62 is a very happy atom, therefore it only tries to reject the 1H that tries to get in via the shrinking trojan horse of Protide (H- ion) unlike all other isotopes (possibly Ni64 is transmuted by 1H ejectiles) Basically, if we accept the report of pure Nickle 62, and we know the reaction matrix, because we determined that from the SEM of 'Bang!' fuel which matches the particle 1 SEM of ash from the Lugano report, it all gets a lot easier. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUUoyX29CelRzd2M/view?usp=sharing 62 Ni can still springboard 1H to interact with the Li... even when ALL the Ni is 62Ni, the reaction rate is determined by a pretty much fixed surface area of sintered filamentary Ni, the ejected 1H will ONLY interact then with the molten Al or Li in direct contact. By the dip in at 8-10 days, the much larger 27Al targets will have been 'burned' and we are left with the 7Li and 6Li. Since, according to Piantelli, only the 1H + 7Li - 4He+α is probable, and the α might EC to 4He, then as the remaining 7Li 'burns' the open sintered nickle we breaths it out maintaining the pressure in the reactor. The 6Li stays in place, keeping the available fuel wetted to the reaction zone. Note that 1H + 7Li - 4He+4He is the MOST energy releasing reaction and becomes the most likely at the end. Especially if you UP the stimulation above the boiling point of Mg (1H + 27Al product which has all burnt by then) to UNDER the boiling point of Li. We determined experimentally that the Lugano temperatures were off, accounting for the errors made in Lugano, you get the temperatures to meet the above hypothesis. Literally, the size of the engine is the surface area & initially the bulk volume of the Nickel. BUT the fuel tank is the atoms of Ni that are NOT 62Ni (yielding lower energy) and those that will accept a 1H projectile. The reactor would get MORE effective right up until the surface is covered by less than a 1 atom layer of Li. A slight dip at the end would signal this start as observed in the Lugano data. I recall that Rossi said they gave a 35 day charge and they ran for 32 days. Everything is auto consistent. When you know the size of your engine and its miles per gallon, you can have an educated guess on how much fuel you need to run a fixed distance. In the case of the E-Cat, the best is saved to last. In our LIVE thermal assessments of a Dog Bone, we put 1.03Kw into a "fake LENR core" and the outer temperature was under 1000ºC (measured by 2 thermocouples and Williamson Pyrometer) when the inner temperature was over 1579ºC! http://bit.ly/1wXehRK The outside of the Lugano reactor was NEVER at 1410ºC, if it was, the nickel would have melted, the Lugano ash showed that not to be the case.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5974</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5973</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer seems you have been busy in your mind,just read a bunch of your stuff. Including other posts at other sites. Don't let this make you crazy we need you here. Just sit back drink a beer and relax. This thing is getting more complicated by the second and me being a simpleton do not think it is that complicated after all the sun keeps working and it is not in a million dollar lab with rocket scientist monitoring and adjusting millions of pieces of equipment. I think it is as simple as a swing one thing starts it and by moving that thing somewhere else it will keep going until you stop rearranging that thing (in this case weight) p.s. C=tx30cl+to (C being clarity,cl being coors light,to being time off) this equation works the best for my lab!!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5973</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5972</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All What Nickel Powder was used? []=Project Dog Bone=[] Captured in the Live Doc http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5972</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tom Clarke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5971</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lugano experiment explanation Just a small point. Any hypothesis for the Lugano experiment results must explain lack of detected gammas. Specifically any reaction pathway that includes gammas must be excluded from consideration. There is other evidence - if there were an LENR effect it would have to somehow exclude gammas because otherwise the many experiments to date would have unambiguously detected these. I know there have been a few claims but these are sporadic and best fit as experimental errors (electrical interference etc) given that all the carefully instrumented experiments have shown no gammas. In your case you can hypothesise that something about LENR prevents nuclei that would decay with gammas from being directly formed. More difficult to hypothesise that the indirect decay product of an LENR reaction that decays with a gamma should somehow be ruled out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tom Clarke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5971</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tom Clarke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5970</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lugano Peak at End @Bob - as I understand it you hypothesise this is related to the near-full conversion to Ni-62. However, the time of the experiment was fixed at start, not depending on conditions. The testers could not know when Ni-62 conversion would be complete. Hence the (strong) coincidence of 99% Ni-62 conversion at end remains. For credibility you therefore need a hypothesis which: (1) predicts early Ni-62 conversion and some other mechanism for power, e.g. conversion of some other reactant, or some thing else. or (2) has swapped reactors/ ash samples, etc with Ni-62 present in the ash for some reason not related to the reaction. This is I know not compatible with the assumptions under which you are working (seeing what can be inferred from the ash composition) so you need not consider it. Brain storming all these ideas is excellent - but before jumping to conclusions you maybe need the "does it make internal sense" acid test? The hypothesis space here is very large indeed, including a whole load of non-LENR hypotheses, so partial explanation of the data is not so impressive. (The more free parameters you have in the hypothesis space the easier it is to adjust them to get coincidental hits with the observations to be explained). Forgive me if I've missed some part of the argument here! Tom]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tom Clarke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5970</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5968</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All More clarity added to section "The Peak “just at the end” of Lugano"]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:15:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5968</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5967</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All What temperature should the Hot Cat start operating? Added to the live doc. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5967</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5966</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All I have added what the ECat, E-Cat HT1 & 2 might be and why the ECat family is much easier to work with and control than the Hot Cat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5966</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5965</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Various updates in the live doc drawn from the pre-Lugano patent extension explain the burning of 7Li and the remaining 6Li]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5965</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5964</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ All I have added the reaction chains and reasoning for the xNi > 62Ni refinement at the bottom of the document and the same reasoning (in addition with reference to Piantellis patent extension) explains why it might be advantageous to use pure 62Ni with 7Li.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5964</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5963</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco They could not have used only cast alumina, since they would need to heat it to over 1700ºC to get it fully sintered and Hydrogen tight. They, almost certainly, would have used a pre-cast internal component. The jury is out as to if the was near-pure Alumina or more in the vein of Parkhomovs cylinders. I personally would tend towards and alumina of 95% purity or higher, since that would be hydrogen tight and structurally competent in certain formulations at the high temperatures. The revelation about Parkhomov's cylinder was more relevant to his choice of sealing method, it explains why we failed to get a seal when we tried his method as there was no silicates to mesh to. The analysis started being interesting with looking at the disappearance of Al from the bulk analysis on page 53 of the lugano report, this method dissolves a whole chunk of material. Correct proportions of Li to Al in fuel, NO Al in ash. Where would the Al go - well if we assume Piantelli is corrects, then the vast majority would end up as Silicon, and silicon was found in our EDX and in Lugano ash. The Caveats for us is that whilst our alumina was 99.8% pure, we had silicon carbide elements. The interesting thing is that only the fading red/brown tinged exterior had a high concentration of Si, whereas the Alumina shards, did not. http://bit.ly/17RJJFn Note, before the above photo was taken, the sintered core and Alumina shards were comfortably held in place by the whole assembly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5963</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5961</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All FB post made about my work of the last two days. Hypothesis []=Project Dog Bone=[] Whilst the US patent office was fair in the dismissal of the thermal claims made by the Lugano report, Bob Greenyer was frustrated by the US patent offices incompetence in some of its other analysis, namely 1. Calling the outside of the of the Lugano reactor Aluminum instead of Alumina in rejection point 4 was unforgivable and 2. Saying that there is "there is no evidence in the corpus of nuclear science" to substantiate the claims that the reaction in the reactor could be based on p + 7Li > 2 4He (in point 10) p + 58Ni > 59Cu + gamma and that it can only occur in the context of proton beam accelerator experiments ignored the published and awarded Piantelli Patent. The Francesco Piantelli Patent was based on empirically derived data for the energy of an ejected proton from Ni via unstable orbital capture of H- ions, more than sufficient for described reactions. This had been peer reviewed and published by Sergio Focardi, Piantelli et al. in Il Nuovo Cimento in 1998! Again, incompetent. Of course, it might be difficult for this to be the key reference for obvious reasons! Essentially the USPTO was saying that Piantelli's patent + extension was not valid, but more likely - they had let their dogma save them from bothering to check. On the basis of this and the amazing SEM images and EDX data Ed Storms and Kiva Labs got from the debris of the 'Bang!' reactor, (an experiment frozen in time) here: http://bit.ly/1Fhc5Wn Which revealed for the first time a new reaction domain in molten Li-Al-Ni-H, Bob decided to see what would happen if he assumed that Piantelli was correct and applied the p projectile to each of the elements in the 'Bang!' core to see what would result, using the calculator here http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/qcalc/index.jsp Bob writes in brief "First up was Al, which decayed to Si or Mg... Taking the Si, we get short half life Phosphorous, wah, could this explain the red/bown colour of the sintered fuel rod that then became less red/brown over time? hmmm... last decay product, stable Phosphorous. Then looked to see if we had Silicon in our 'Bang!' EDX - yes..., did they have it in the Lugano ash, yes... what happened to the Aluminum in Lugano - it all disappeared! hmmm. Mg present in Lugano fuel, but not in ash, hmmm. What phase is everything in... why did they run at lower temperature till a dip in COP? How would this account for the COP profile over the length of the Lugano experiment? On the same logic, what would be in the E-Cat." http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA Bob says he may be wrong, but thinks it might be worth discussing. He intends to make a presentation to run through the thinking.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2015 00:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5961</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5960</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Charlie Bob Higgins will be taking up the reigns and Dr. Brian Ahern is making progress with his experiment design. Both will be based on Parkhomov but Bob H's will focus on fully understanding the pressures across temperatures and time for the system which will then be able to guide everyone more exactly on what is going on, how to treat it in an experiment which will also aid design of reactors.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5960</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5959</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@robert greenyer when is the next tests and what is planned?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5959</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5958</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I guess we shall all have to wait until the next round of testing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5958</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5957</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: did the nickel pellet shatter/explode ? Or did the quartz tube just fail due to excessively quick cooling? Either way, an observation by Bob Higgins made me think (speculate) about what could have happened. Lithium when solidifies can recrystallize in a non-compact form and expand noticeably when this happens (think of old lithium batteries expanding in size after many recharging cycles). If the Li can expand that way as it solidifies, it must be causing local huge stresses in the rod/pellet of sintered, H2-saturated nickel particles (bound together by the solidified aluminum) due to pressure, especially since the more temperature decreases, the more the stiffness of solid metals increases. This makes me wonder if early-type "low-temp" E-Cats might have actually worked with Lithium, exploiting this property. I believe that's the temperature range where they've been reported to work at. It could be interesting to see what happens after cycling repeatedly between the solidus temperature of Li and that of complete melting of Al and good sintering of the Ni particles, so that cracks in the rod/pellet - if they form - get "repaired" in the process. Unfortunately though, reports of constant, high temperature long term usage with apparently positive COP from Rossi (and to some extent, Parkhomov - although there's no confirmation of positive COP for more than short periods of time) admittedly make this attempt at speculating the working mechanism lacking.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5957</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5954</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I agree with you. I am reminded also of Parkhomov when he told us another Researcher saw excess heat when they cooled down their reactor - it spontaneously started to warm up again. Though there there is a reversible reaction for LiAlH4, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride wait until my next post!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5954</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5953</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: [disregarding for the sake of argument conventional/ch emical explanations - taking into assumption it's LENR] perhaps it's not directly due to the pressure, but instead the cooling effect of the incoming hydrogen gas (as also observed by Mathieu Valat?) on the active material? Given that there have been claims of nuclear emissions from cryogenic cooling or energy shocks (exploding wires through large current pulses) in the LENR literature, that would make sense, to me at least. This also why recently I've sort of become sort of fixated with discussions about pressure, mechanical shocks, stresses, etc. If Parkhomov's reactor do produce excess heat, if only heat is needed for LENR to occur and if the underlying mechanism is similar/the same, then it might have something to do with the hydrogen-loaded lattice getting more stressed and releasing more heat (and/or nuclear emissions) the more it's heated, in his case -- or suddenly cooled, in the one below.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5953</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5950</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: for a while I thought that was specifically for the purpose of mechanically pre-stressing the active powder.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5950</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5949</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Starting to document the second experiment / Lab I saw last week. One team, sponsored by a Russian registered entity "LockTherm LLC", again with no luxury of a glovebox, is taking a very different approach to their experiments and has developed a very ingenious method of pressing pellets for their reactors. The technique is very valuable to would be replicators and has many advantages, it makes powder mixes less likely to 1. loft (i.e. reduce likely hood of particles in air after pressing, protecting operators) 2. react with moisture through the bulk It also makes them far easier to pre-package and distribute and easier to handle predictably insert into a reactor without distributing powder in other places inside the tube as we have previously encountered. This may make it more possible for the MFMP to send out kits. Lastly, it is affordable and accessible because it is about as 'garage' as you can do things - it is based on a car jack! http://youtu.be/10nStfVm8EQ]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5949</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5946</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, in my experiments with nickel powder the result of heating is a porous material that is solid in the sense no part falls off when moved about. I assume the surface area is much reduced but I do not have an electron microscope to prove the point. It is not soft it is quite strong. It takes a lot of human hand force to break the cylinder in two. If worked at it does not readily revert to a powder. Or more exactly it does not revert to a powder.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:19:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5946</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5943</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: my assumption was that the sintered nickel rod at room temperature is solid, but porous like a sponge and therefore that hydrogen would fill most of the apparent volume it occupies and not just or mostly the space between the rod and the tube's inner walls. Speaking of the sintered rod, what's its consistency? Is it hard and brittle or does it have a soft texture? And how was it in dr. Parkhomov's case?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:37:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5943</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5942</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All From Page 21 in live doc. Pressure estimate (PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO REVISION) that assumes no leaking from the cell and no ad/absorption by the nickel. It also assumes that all the hydrogen is free rather than being in an ionic molton LiH solution in a dynamic equilibrium.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5942</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5941</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco All of our experiments have shown this. My feeling is that the sheer intense gas dynamics keep everything pressed to the outside, when the reactor cools, then the core relaxes a bit and things like surface tension pulls everything in a little.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5941</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5940</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: with a 2.5 mm internal radius and 60mm length the internal cell volume would be just 1.18 cm3. There's barely enough room for the powder (active charge) and hydrogen pressure once the LiAlH4 fully decomposes, assuming no adsorption into the nickel powder, would be enormous. I still can't help but feel that mechanically stressing the active materials might be part of the LENR equation, though. On a related note, I wonder why the sintered nickel rod here appears to have a consistently smaller diameter than the internal one of the tube: http://i.imgur.com/rtF3i92l.jpg 1) Did something prevent it to expand? 2) Did it contract as it cooled down? 3) Did the tube permanently inflate with pressure and heat, like a balloon? 4) A visual artifact making it seem smaller than it is?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5940</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nicholas Cafarelli says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5939</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I needed that. Thanks.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nicholas Cafarelli</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5939</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5938</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Reactor core schematic now on page 7 of live doc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5938</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5937</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: I'm aware that I've just written that I don't want to engage in further speculations (really!) but I just found out that Lithium Aluminum Silicate can have a near-zero to negative (!) thermal expansion coefficient. I thought this would be worth mentioning, especially since that of Aluminum Silicate can be quite high compared to Alumina. Do you remember when I posted that reportedly, high pressures can form on the matching surface of two materials with significantly different thermal expansion coefficients? I am thinking that the usage of Aluminum Silicate in Parkhomov's reactor tube instead of pure Alumina might be more important than it seems.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5937</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5936</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Charlie Tapp: the molten lithium and aluminum from the LiAlH4 apparently do play a role in stripping oxides and residual oxygen from the nickel powder and the internal reactor environment once temperature gets high enough, which could be one of the key factors allowing excess heat to occur in these cells. I would agree that it might be desirable to remove oxides as much as possible and therefore a larger lithium/aluminu m quantity inside the cell might end up being beneficial. My calculation of the energy release caused by a hypothetical (if implausible) slow hydrogen combustion reaction ignored the oxygen gettering properties of the molten Li-Al alloy and that if a reactor breach were to happen it would probably be sudden and violent due to the (likely) pressure involved and reaction speed. However, since in Parkhomov's case there was no bang, assuming that: 1) The reactor did break at the indicated time, 2) Excess heat was indeed occurring, 3) There was little to no pressure inside the cell due to hydrogen absorption by the sintered nickel powder rod, 4) The active material must be clear of oxides for excess heat to occur (as per Piantelli's findings), Then, a slow decrease of excess heat production, perhaps due to oxygen contamination, might have happened without explosive events. To be honest though, I would like to confirm that excess heat occurred first, before engaging (more) on speculations on why it happens.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5936</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5935</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Parkhomov calorimeter assembly http://youtu.be/S4YU1IjCNLM]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5935</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5934</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ ecco when assembling these reactors they are not vacumed down so you would have ambient air inside right? does the aluminum when seperated out with heat play a role in soaking up the oyegen from ambient and does that oxidation add any specific heat? also the bangs are probably from oxygen and hydrogen recombining, so when makeing the mix would it be important to make sure there is enough aluminum to use up the available oxygen inside? if no oxygen inside no bang. if anything it would rupture from presure of everything thermaly expanding only which should leave a clean fresh crack /break all the way around with no burning. but should be no presure other than thermal expansion which should have a threshhold i would think]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5934</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5933</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: unrelated with the previous comment, but I feel it might be worth obtaining more information about the ceramic tubes used by dr. Parkhomov. Apparently, aluminum silicate ceramics have a maximum safe operating temperature of around 1000-1100°C. A couple examples: http://www.morgantechnicalceramics.com/materials/alumino-silicates-al2sio5 http://www.technicalproductsinc.com/pdf/Lava.pdf Synthetic zeolites are made of aluminium silicates too, btw. * * * EDIT: @Robert Greenyer: again unrelated with what I've just written, but I have a question about water measurements. How does Dr. Parkhomov determine when water has to be added and how does he ensure that this happens exactly when needed? I haven't found detailed information about this in the live document. I was thinking that a possible source of error which can affect short term COP calculations could be not waiting enough time between water refills, which might happen if the water level is not accurately checked. This would result in an apparently higher COP than normal. However, on the longer term one would have to wait more time for the next refill in order to avoid overflowing, and this would also lower the calculated COP for a brief time. So, such errors would get eventually averaged out for longer periods of time, but they can be a real concern for shorter ones. If I wear my skeptical glasses I can see indications of exactly this potentially occurring for the period of time I previously highlighted where there was a COP spike, before the possible reactor failure event.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5933</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5931</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Could you attempt two things please 1. Calculate the total energy released in the spike of COP 2. Calculate the theoretical maximum chemical energy]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5931</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5929</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Here is a 3D scan of the main control and DAQ setup shelf https://skfb.ly/DpMv]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5929</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5927</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco We have published Dr. Parkhomov's leakage calculation method in the live doc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5927</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5926</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thankyou for that. Dr. Samsonenko says that Dr. Parkhomov is normally conservative in his calculations. I have suggested an affordable automated system/recordin g of at the end of the live document.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5926</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5925</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: not actually related with the 3D scan, but interestingly, during the short period where apparently excess heat was being generated, the short term COP just before reactor breakage might have been greater than 1.4. It dropped quickly to ~1 just after reactor breakage (when a loss of heat seemingly occurred). The time period chosen by Dr. Parkhomov where the COP was ~1.1 was immediately after that event. The one where COP was about 1, included that event. I'm not sure if he's been unlucky or conservative with this choice. http://i.imgur.com/U4XC3Rh.png This could imply that to witness a relatively large amount of excess heat there's no need to keep increasing power all the time. Just increase power by relatively large steps a time and make it settle for a few hours, calculating the COP in real time (which can be done with a properly set up spreadsheet). I understand however that Dr.Parkhomov can't be there refilling water all the time. It would be best to employ sort of automated system for this task.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5925</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5924</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Here is a 3D scan of the calorimeter https://skfb.ly/Dp9I]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5924</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5923</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: thanks, that will be helpful too.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5923</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5922</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thanks for doing this. I have asked Dr. Parkhomov to add clarity to his leak rate calculations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5922</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5920</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Dr. Parkhomov has supplied his raw data, you can get it from the live doc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-5920</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
