I am looking at CR-39 films and etching in 6M NaOH to detect triple-tracks, which I believe are acceptable evidence of neutrons - but before I do this, I want to check to see what would be considered unquestionable evidence of neutrons? ....
I'm a physics department escapee, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt.
I'm guessing what sort of energy outputs you look for depend a lot on the configuration of your system. The U.S. Navy's SPAWAR lab did neutron detection but they worked with a process called codeposition, and I think they had their CR-39 sandwiched very close to where the action was, maybe had a mylar film or something to keep out the caustic electrolyte, etc. So you might want to check into the details of how the CR-39 is actually used. In any case, I doubt you will have to worry about shielding your apparatus from ambient neutrons. As far as I know, neutrons aren't commonly generated in a normal environment nor do they come streaming down from outer space.
My own sense of LENR is that if it's a real phenomenon, then it's something of a chameleon. Some experiments reportedly produce neutrons, others don't. Some experiments reportedly produce helium, but maybe not enough to account for the heat. Some experiments reportedly produce alphas, but maybe not at the right energy level. Other people report isotopic shifts. And so forth and so on. If it's for real, then it's a shaggy nuclear carpet on the dirtiest noise floor one could ever dare crawl upon.
Personally, I like your idea of using IR detection. But be aware of what wavelength your IR detector is working with. Not all wavelengths can make their way very far through all liquids, all glass, etc. For example, PIRs can't see through everyday glass. SPAWAR did some tests with IR cameras and got some interesting results, but I'm wondering if they didn't have to create an IR window made of some fancy-schmancy glass. I'm wondering, too, that instead of needing fully blown cameras, if you couldn't create some cheaper detectors that simply look for outputs of IR, etc. Some experimenters have reported hot spots on their electrodes, while the rest of the electrodes appear to be dead, so in the aggregate not much activity seems to be happening. So having a way to look for very local phenomena might be more informative than going after some macro-sized readout. Why might one tiny part of the electrode work while other parts don't? Maybe for the same reason bubbles form in a beer glass on one spot and not on the spot 2 mm over. The activity might require a very specific arrangement of crystals, impurities.... or pyramid power. At this point it's really just anyone's guess.
...a shaggy nuclear carpet on the dirtiest noise floor one could ever dare crawl upon.
I do love a descriptive phrase! :-) Yes, the FLIR camera to which I have access does seem to see well through the glass containers I have set aside, although I have not yet tried the test with a heat source in water inside the glass (I'm thinking soldering iron on low to test). I'd like to get a full-on picture of the cathode under the IR spectrum, full-screen if possible. This will show hot spots and anything else for that matter. It'll even show the Pt anode coil around the Pd cathode, so if that heats up I should see that as well. ANd by having a visual of the cathode surface, it might be suggestive of what features of teh cathode configuration, if any, suggest the presence of greater heat. Around the input wire? At the corners? Along the laser-etched lettering on one face of the cathode? On the smooth areas? It should provide SOME insight - whether it'll be of any value will only be found in retrospect, but if I can get it to happen - might as well try. But as I've said before - it'll be fun to try! :-)
The CR-39 can go right on the cathode apparently, although I don't want to block the smooth side, so I'll put it some short distance from it. The LiSO4 solution should not etch the CR-39 - as far as I can tell with my limited electrochemistry background, it should be fine in the solution and non-reactive.
I doubt you will have to worry about shielding your apparatus from ambient neutrons. As far as I know, neutrons aren't commonly generated in a normal environment nor do they come streaming down from outer space.
If you've read the peer-reviews that have been cited as reasons to discount CF experiments as bad science, you'd soon see a pattern: If it is even remotely possible that a single solar neutron could have passed by within 100 years of the experiment, then the neutron is automatically categorized as background and discarded. Detected phonons in conjunction with apparent gamma emission? Turns out a train carrying depleted uranium was travelling within 100 miles of the experiment. OK, I'm exagerating just a little, but it's brutal. If I say I see a neutron anywhere within the experiment, I had better be prepared to PROVE that it wasn't generated by anything in the neighborhood, or that it wasn't a neutron that zapped the CR-39 before the experiment began. There's a very, very high threshold of proof, so I'd rather take ridiculously unnecessary measures to preclude these possibilities, rather than have everything discounted just because someone can hypothesize some remote possibility that could, by some tiny chance, account for the neutron. In this field, you need to have an answer for EVERYTHING, or else you have nothing.
Busy few days in the Xanatos LENR world! Picked up some of my lab calorimetry equipment, and today I spent the afternoon with Peter Hagelstein, one of the top LENR researchers in the world. I learned so much it'll take me a week to integrate it all. Info and pictures to follow when I return home. I am currently having a late lunch at a pub in Cambridge called, appropriately enough, Miracle of Science!
OK, here's two posts to start with - first is some of the INCREDIBLE deals I got on necessary equipment for the proper calorimetry. Now - I am going to do two types of calorimetry - one is EITHER heat flow calorimetry, OR heat balance calorimetry. The other is Power Compensation calorimetry. I have an idea in mind for a temperature setpoint and maintaining that with thermionic junctions (Peltier Junctions) and using that drive data as a calorimetry signal. My reason for chosing this as one of my measurements is the ease of tracking EVERY parameter. The Parallax tie-in: The sesnor data for the thermometers and the current and direction sensing of the TJs will all be controlled by a BS2sx.
Below are photos of the Dewar Flask, which, for those unfamiliar with the terminology, is just a glorified vacuum thermos. A liquid bath fills the Dewar, which is maintained at a constant temperature. The actual "Cold Fusion" cell, is contained within another smaller glass "bottle", which is immersed in the bath in the Dewar.
The other photos are of the Experiment Enclosure, which is just a large insulated box which reduces ambient temperature changes due to local air movement, etc.
Why I love the MIT Flea Market: The Dewar Flask (Pope, 8600/0099, 350ml, aluminum jacketed) sells for $130.00 to $145.00 online. I got it for $15.00. The enclosure is a custom-built item. Quotes for similar items have run, for me, in the $200.00 to $250.00 range. MIT Flea Market: $15.00. Yes, I love the MIT Flea Market, it's a geek's dream.
Second Post: My consultation with Dr. Peter Hagelstein. Photo below is my geeky self with Peter.
During our approximately 2 hours of conversation, Dr. Hagelstein imparted to me an immense amount of very valuable and immediately useful information. Everything ranging from history of the various discoveries that contribute to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, aka Cold Fusion, to current theories, including his personal theories (which are truly elegant), to discussions of why this is SO hard to swallow, especially for those classically trained in particle, nuclear or condensed matter physics. Peter is not unsympathetic to their plight - and neither am I (localroger, leon...). The theories that LENR seems - *seems* - to contradict fly in the face of some of the most successful theories in the history of human science. QED has been shown to predict accurately to within 12 decimal places - you really can't argue with that. And yet, seemingly, we have a situation wherin two deuterons are brought together by (insert your theory of choice here, most of which involve vibrating SOMETHING - metallic lattice, plasmons, etc), and they form 4He (note I am not saying they fuse. They form 4He.... somehow.... which traditionally would mean fusion... but... well... )
None-the-less, really, really good experimental data, produced by researchers whose academic credentials were proven beyond question - prior to their acceptance of Cold Fusion as a possibility - have shown that somehow, by some unimaginable quirk of physics, 4He is produced at or near rest energy. That 24 MeV that should be present is simply not. Many, many theories - competing theories, I should add - abound, but the experimental EVIDENCE really is there. SOMETHING is happening. And traditionally, this would be cause for investigation and experimentation. But modern physics, with a track record that is truly, SO damn good - seriously, proven by the most extreme of tests, doesn't include a model that could include this as a possibility. Yet. And the way things are, we have become SO trusting of our (admittedly awesome) theory, that rather than the "old" paradigm of having experimental data trump theory, we have been taking the more convenient (and admittedly, seemingly logical) route of saying that the experimental data contradicts theory, and therefore dismissing the experimental data as being flawed or wrong. And yet the sum total of that data mounts daily.
It would be one thing if the people producing the experiments were of MY caliber - people operating outside their field of expertise, claiming extraordinary results and conclusions. Even I'd be highly skeptical of that. But these people are experts who have been literally at the TOP of their game - many from the Hot Fusion community, who have risked virtual crucifixion by taking the position that there could be anything to these claims. There are a number of incredilbly qualified researchers and experimentalists who have risked everything because they felt so strongly about what this technology offers.
So... This, and many more very technical topics are what Peter and I covered - codeposition of Pd, codeposition of Gold - which also has a similar electron configuration that is supportive of D2 formation at the "sweet spots" in the metallic crystal; use of PdCl for codeposition of pre-loaded PdD on the cathode, the issues surrounding the surface plasmon polariton theories, the possibilities of optical phonon mode functions on D D fusion, X-ray production by various bombarded metals.... and future experimental possibilities related to these phenomena - all in all it was a fantastic couple of hours.
And davejames - I truly hope we are all in the crowd that can say "I remember when this was just being discussed as a theoretical on the Parallax forum!", while we sit confident in our LENR heated/cooled house... :-)
Very cool. Did Hagelstein suggest any specific experiment for you to try? Perhaps you should utilize the forum's blog feature for this so you can keep us posted on the details of your progress.
Honestly, I don't understand why some physicists get so enraged about the possibility of LENR defying what's known about physics. Good grief, has any of them happened to look at the recent theories about dark energy, dark matter, multiple dimensions, multiverses, string theory, chameleon particles, etc.? Our models of nature most likely just scratch the surface of what nature is actually doing. And I think it's utter arrogance to think otherwise. It's not like there was a clean, serene, well-lit yellowbrick road to The Standard Model. The pathway to The Standard Model is littered with the corpses of hundreds, if not thousands, of tried-and-failed theories that, at one point, "made sense." Who's to say The Standard Model isn't getting a little senile in its old age?
I share your thoughts on this, but really, some sympathy is deserved. These folks are not embracing a cobbled together, "maybe theory" - this stuff is on a par with 1 + 1 = 2. If some guy came along and said, I can show you that if I put this particular apple with this other particular apple, taken together they will be 3.868 apples. So I am truly not without sympathy here, but - the experimental data cannot be discounted any longer. I don't necessarily believe that this stuff will invalidate anything we currently know - transistors will continue to work, nuclear reactors currently running will continue to do so. But there's SOMETHING ELSE - some other behavior we don't know about - yet. More can happen than we have accounted for.
ACtually Hagelstein suggested several things for me to look into. He feels (and I agree) that my initial cathode setup will leak deuterons like a seive. I will probably not be able to achieve the magic 95% loading required before excess energy effects start to show up.
There is a protocol that seems to be working 100% for everyone who properly prepares the experiment, and I will be researching that. One thing that also seems to be critical is the 75 micron foil thickness. My 0.5mm sample will have far too many internal "leaks" due to crystal misalignment, etc. At 75 microns, it's basically a single crystal thick, and so there is nothing BUT "surface", and so no possibility of internal leaks (if annealed at 850 C to homogenize the lattice). This seems to be one of the characteristics of the repeatable successes.
I will continue to keep folks posted. Curiosity - what's the advantage of the blog feature over just posting updates as I have them?
... Curiosity - what's the advantage of the blog feature over just posting updates as I have them?
It provides one-stop shopping for anyone wanting to keep up to date with your progress. Also, I think it allows you to personally moderate the comments people might leave and to control permissions, etc. Probably not much difference, but it was just a thought.
Interesting about the effect of foil thickness/crystalline properties. Is that why people starting going with the depostion process?
Interesting about the effect of foil thickness/crystalline properties. Is that why people starting going with the depostion process?
The co-deposition process is mostly about addressing the loading time. There is a given rate at which hydrogen or deuterons in the case of heavy water, are diffused into the lattice of the palladium. When dealing with bulk material, this loading time can literally be weeks before the magic 95% level is reached. When using a co-deposition method, the palladium is deposited pre-loaded, reducing the time to hours. One of the requirements for any commercial application of the Cold Fusion effect will be to address these lengthy time issues.
I will continue to keep folks posted. Curiosity - what's the advantage of the blog feature over just posting updates as I have them?
Please keep posting in the thread, as this is what I'm used to looking for. If you could put the instructions and result in the blog so we copy-cats can get to the juices parts and skip the conversation, (when we get around to duplicating your work) that would be very helpful.
The big advantage to using a blog, is that a reader can read the 'front page' and get everything you've written, og he can click on an individual article, see comments about that specific article, and when commenting be certain it ends up in the proper context(that is, it's together with the article it was about)
Thanks for the blog/posting clarification, for now I'll just keep posting here. Once the experiment is completed, I'll post a blog that will contain the pertinent data for replication. That said, I don't expect there will be anything anyone will want to replicate for my FIRST experiment unless just seeing the palladium fizz & load deuterium turns you on... :-) This first experiment is where I am "cutting my teeth" so to speak - getting my calorimetry right, acquiring the necessary hardware (including builds such as my 4-LM35 temperature sensor data monitor/recorder that also will control my peltier-junction thermionic heater/cooler elements), and just generally working out the kinks in my experimental setup.
It will likely be the second iteration of my experimental series where something interesting may happen. That is where I will be using 75 micron Pd foil, annealed at 850 C, using a co-depositioning method with LiOD .1M in D2O. My estimates for Pxs in experiment 1 are now around 40%. My estimates for Pxs in experiment 2 are up into the 90% range.
My estimates for me enjoying the living &^%* out of everything I am learning and doing to make this happen are 100%. I've learned stuff about Inverse Beta Decay/electron capture, Surface Plasmons, Optical Phonon modes, etc., that are fascinating in the extreme and that I would have NEVER encountered if I hadn't started playing with this stuff. We live in an amazing universe.... and it has a lot of fun parts to play with! :-)
Now that said - it'll probably be a few days before I post much else. I have been negligent in my money-making duties for the past few days due to this stuff, so I have to concentrate on the mundane issues of making money... If anyone out there knows any eccentric philanthropist millionaires who would like to finance my research endeavors such that I can concentrate on them entirely - feel free to put them in touch! :-)
4 LM34s on a 4066 analog switch through an ADC0801; 1 CT515 monitoring outputs from two BPW34 PIN PhotoDiode radiation monitors (just for fun). All data recorded every second to a 4G USB Memory Stick via a datalogger. NHD-0420D3Z-FL-GBW-V3 4 x 20 LCD screen. DS1302 RTC chip for date, time. Time set and probe calibration via 4 x 4 keyboard and EDE1144. BS2sx powered. Fun build!
The four temp probes record temperatures at different points around the experiment. T1 and T2 are placed just above and just below the Palladium cathode. They are averaged in data analysis. T3 is the temperature of the water bath in the dewar flask which is maintained at a constant temperature via a resistive heater. The current used to maintain the temperature is also recorded. T4 is the ambient temperature within the temperature controlled experiment cabinet (see pictures back a page or two).
Progress has been slow since I have to make a living in between, but it's moving along!
Another update in a week or so when more stuff gets ordered and paid projects are completed!
There are lots of articles about LENR calorimetry on the lenr-canr.org website. Be sure to do a search in their library so you won't jump to conclusions (one way or the other) about your test results.
I have been watching this story with interest... I'd be interested in any theories of how THAT distribution of mercury isotopes could be present when comparing a used bulb to a new one. Seems that contamination would be ruled out since the contaminants would have had to be present prior to the sealing of the glass. And to the best of my knowledge, mercury doesn't degrade into isotopes... this is very cool.
Comments
I'm a physics department escapee, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt.
I'm guessing what sort of energy outputs you look for depend a lot on the configuration of your system. The U.S. Navy's SPAWAR lab did neutron detection but they worked with a process called codeposition, and I think they had their CR-39 sandwiched very close to where the action was, maybe had a mylar film or something to keep out the caustic electrolyte, etc. So you might want to check into the details of how the CR-39 is actually used. In any case, I doubt you will have to worry about shielding your apparatus from ambient neutrons. As far as I know, neutrons aren't commonly generated in a normal environment nor do they come streaming down from outer space.
My own sense of LENR is that if it's a real phenomenon, then it's something of a chameleon. Some experiments reportedly produce neutrons, others don't. Some experiments reportedly produce helium, but maybe not enough to account for the heat. Some experiments reportedly produce alphas, but maybe not at the right energy level. Other people report isotopic shifts. And so forth and so on. If it's for real, then it's a shaggy nuclear carpet on the dirtiest noise floor one could ever dare crawl upon.
Personally, I like your idea of using IR detection. But be aware of what wavelength your IR detector is working with. Not all wavelengths can make their way very far through all liquids, all glass, etc. For example, PIRs can't see through everyday glass. SPAWAR did some tests with IR cameras and got some interesting results, but I'm wondering if they didn't have to create an IR window made of some fancy-schmancy glass. I'm wondering, too, that instead of needing fully blown cameras, if you couldn't create some cheaper detectors that simply look for outputs of IR, etc. Some experimenters have reported hot spots on their electrodes, while the rest of the electrodes appear to be dead, so in the aggregate not much activity seems to be happening. So having a way to look for very local phenomena might be more informative than going after some macro-sized readout. Why might one tiny part of the electrode work while other parts don't? Maybe for the same reason bubbles form in a beer glass on one spot and not on the spot 2 mm over. The activity might require a very specific arrangement of crystals, impurities.... or pyramid power. At this point it's really just anyone's guess.
I do love a descriptive phrase! :-) Yes, the FLIR camera to which I have access does seem to see well through the glass containers I have set aside, although I have not yet tried the test with a heat source in water inside the glass (I'm thinking soldering iron on low to test). I'd like to get a full-on picture of the cathode under the IR spectrum, full-screen if possible. This will show hot spots and anything else for that matter. It'll even show the Pt anode coil around the Pd cathode, so if that heats up I should see that as well. ANd by having a visual of the cathode surface, it might be suggestive of what features of teh cathode configuration, if any, suggest the presence of greater heat. Around the input wire? At the corners? Along the laser-etched lettering on one face of the cathode? On the smooth areas? It should provide SOME insight - whether it'll be of any value will only be found in retrospect, but if I can get it to happen - might as well try. But as I've said before - it'll be fun to try! :-)
The CR-39 can go right on the cathode apparently, although I don't want to block the smooth side, so I'll put it some short distance from it. The LiSO4 solution should not etch the CR-39 - as far as I can tell with my limited electrochemistry background, it should be fine in the solution and non-reactive.
If you've read the peer-reviews that have been cited as reasons to discount CF experiments as bad science, you'd soon see a pattern: If it is even remotely possible that a single solar neutron could have passed by within 100 years of the experiment, then the neutron is automatically categorized as background and discarded. Detected phonons in conjunction with apparent gamma emission? Turns out a train carrying depleted uranium was travelling within 100 miles of the experiment. OK, I'm exagerating just a little, but it's brutal. If I say I see a neutron anywhere within the experiment, I had better be prepared to PROVE that it wasn't generated by anything in the neighborhood, or that it wasn't a neutron that zapped the CR-39 before the experiment began. There's a very, very high threshold of proof, so I'd rather take ridiculously unnecessary measures to preclude these possibilities, rather than have everything discounted just because someone can hypothesize some remote possibility that could, by some tiny chance, account for the neutron. In this field, you need to have an answer for EVERYTHING, or else you have nothing.
However, I wish you success and pray for safety.
It would be cool to be part of the crowd that says "I remember when this guy on a forum..."!
What kind is it?
I'm guessing that's meant for his drive out of Boston?
Below are photos of the Dewar Flask, which, for those unfamiliar with the terminology, is just a glorified vacuum thermos. A liquid bath fills the Dewar, which is maintained at a constant temperature. The actual "Cold Fusion" cell, is contained within another smaller glass "bottle", which is immersed in the bath in the Dewar.
The other photos are of the Experiment Enclosure, which is just a large insulated box which reduces ambient temperature changes due to local air movement, etc.
Why I love the MIT Flea Market: The Dewar Flask (Pope, 8600/0099, 350ml, aluminum jacketed) sells for $130.00 to $145.00 online. I got it for $15.00. The enclosure is a custom-built item. Quotes for similar items have run, for me, in the $200.00 to $250.00 range. MIT Flea Market: $15.00. Yes, I love the MIT Flea Market, it's a geek's dream.
During our approximately 2 hours of conversation, Dr. Hagelstein imparted to me an immense amount of very valuable and immediately useful information. Everything ranging from history of the various discoveries that contribute to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, aka Cold Fusion, to current theories, including his personal theories (which are truly elegant), to discussions of why this is SO hard to swallow, especially for those classically trained in particle, nuclear or condensed matter physics. Peter is not unsympathetic to their plight - and neither am I (localroger, leon...). The theories that LENR seems - *seems* - to contradict fly in the face of some of the most successful theories in the history of human science. QED has been shown to predict accurately to within 12 decimal places - you really can't argue with that. And yet, seemingly, we have a situation wherin two deuterons are brought together by (insert your theory of choice here, most of which involve vibrating SOMETHING - metallic lattice, plasmons, etc), and they form 4He (note I am not saying they fuse. They form 4He.... somehow.... which traditionally would mean fusion... but... well...
None-the-less, really, really good experimental data, produced by researchers whose academic credentials were proven beyond question - prior to their acceptance of Cold Fusion as a possibility - have shown that somehow, by some unimaginable quirk of physics, 4He is produced at or near rest energy. That 24 MeV that should be present is simply not. Many, many theories - competing theories, I should add - abound, but the experimental EVIDENCE really is there. SOMETHING is happening. And traditionally, this would be cause for investigation and experimentation. But modern physics, with a track record that is truly, SO damn good - seriously, proven by the most extreme of tests, doesn't include a model that could include this as a possibility. Yet. And the way things are, we have become SO trusting of our (admittedly awesome) theory, that rather than the "old" paradigm of having experimental data trump theory, we have been taking the more convenient (and admittedly, seemingly logical) route of saying that the experimental data contradicts theory, and therefore dismissing the experimental data as being flawed or wrong. And yet the sum total of that data mounts daily.
It would be one thing if the people producing the experiments were of MY caliber - people operating outside their field of expertise, claiming extraordinary results and conclusions. Even I'd be highly skeptical of that. But these people are experts who have been literally at the TOP of their game - many from the Hot Fusion community, who have risked virtual crucifixion by taking the position that there could be anything to these claims. There are a number of incredilbly qualified researchers and experimentalists who have risked everything because they felt so strongly about what this technology offers.
So... This, and many more very technical topics are what Peter and I covered - codeposition of Pd, codeposition of Gold - which also has a similar electron configuration that is supportive of D2 formation at the "sweet spots" in the metallic crystal; use of PdCl for codeposition of pre-loaded PdD on the cathode, the issues surrounding the surface plasmon polariton theories, the possibilities of optical phonon mode functions on D D fusion, X-ray production by various bombarded metals.... and future experimental possibilities related to these phenomena - all in all it was a fantastic couple of hours.
And davejames - I truly hope we are all in the crowd that can say "I remember when this was just being discussed as a theoretical on the Parallax forum!", while we sit confident in our LENR heated/cooled house... :-)
Honestly, I don't understand why some physicists get so enraged about the possibility of LENR defying what's known about physics. Good grief, has any of them happened to look at the recent theories about dark energy, dark matter, multiple dimensions, multiverses, string theory, chameleon particles, etc.? Our models of nature most likely just scratch the surface of what nature is actually doing. And I think it's utter arrogance to think otherwise. It's not like there was a clean, serene, well-lit yellowbrick road to The Standard Model. The pathway to The Standard Model is littered with the corpses of hundreds, if not thousands, of tried-and-failed theories that, at one point, "made sense." Who's to say The Standard Model isn't getting a little senile in its old age?
ACtually Hagelstein suggested several things for me to look into. He feels (and I agree) that my initial cathode setup will leak deuterons like a seive. I will probably not be able to achieve the magic 95% loading required before excess energy effects start to show up.
There is a protocol that seems to be working 100% for everyone who properly prepares the experiment, and I will be researching that. One thing that also seems to be critical is the 75 micron foil thickness. My 0.5mm sample will have far too many internal "leaks" due to crystal misalignment, etc. At 75 microns, it's basically a single crystal thick, and so there is nothing BUT "surface", and so no possibility of internal leaks (if annealed at 850 C to homogenize the lattice). This seems to be one of the characteristics of the repeatable successes.
I will continue to keep folks posted. Curiosity - what's the advantage of the blog feature over just posting updates as I have them?
It provides one-stop shopping for anyone wanting to keep up to date with your progress. Also, I think it allows you to personally moderate the comments people might leave and to control permissions, etc. Probably not much difference, but it was just a thought.
Interesting about the effect of foil thickness/crystalline properties. Is that why people starting going with the depostion process?
The co-deposition process is mostly about addressing the loading time. There is a given rate at which hydrogen or deuterons in the case of heavy water, are diffused into the lattice of the palladium. When dealing with bulk material, this loading time can literally be weeks before the magic 95% level is reached. When using a co-deposition method, the palladium is deposited pre-loaded, reducing the time to hours. One of the requirements for any commercial application of the Cold Fusion effect will be to address these lengthy time issues.
Please keep posting in the thread, as this is what I'm used to looking for. If you could put the instructions and result in the blog so we copy-cats can get to the juices parts and skip the conversation, (when we get around to duplicating your work) that would be very helpful.
Thanks for doing all the hard parts!
It will likely be the second iteration of my experimental series where something interesting may happen. That is where I will be using 75 micron Pd foil, annealed at 850 C, using a co-depositioning method with LiOD .1M in D2O. My estimates for Pxs in experiment 1 are now around 40%. My estimates for Pxs in experiment 2 are up into the 90% range.
My estimates for me enjoying the living &^%* out of everything I am learning and doing to make this happen are 100%. I've learned stuff about Inverse Beta Decay/electron capture, Surface Plasmons, Optical Phonon modes, etc., that are fascinating in the extreme and that I would have NEVER encountered if I hadn't started playing with this stuff. We live in an amazing universe.... and it has a lot of fun parts to play with! :-)
Now that said - it'll probably be a few days before I post much else. I have been negligent in my money-making duties for the past few days due to this stuff, so I have to concentrate on the mundane issues of making money... If anyone out there knows any eccentric philanthropist millionaires who would like to finance my research endeavors such that I can concentrate on them entirely - feel free to put them in touch! :-)
4 LM34s on a 4066 analog switch through an ADC0801; 1 CT515 monitoring outputs from two BPW34 PIN PhotoDiode radiation monitors (just for fun). All data recorded every second to a 4G USB Memory Stick via a datalogger. NHD-0420D3Z-FL-GBW-V3 4 x 20 LCD screen. DS1302 RTC chip for date, time. Time set and probe calibration via 4 x 4 keyboard and EDE1144. BS2sx powered. Fun build!
The four temp probes record temperatures at different points around the experiment. T1 and T2 are placed just above and just below the Palladium cathode. They are averaged in data analysis. T3 is the temperature of the water bath in the dewar flask which is maintained at a constant temperature via a resistive heater. The current used to maintain the temperature is also recorded. T4 is the ambient temperature within the temperature controlled experiment cabinet (see pictures back a page or two).
Progress has been slow since I have to make a living in between, but it's moving along!
Another update in a week or so when more stuff gets ordered and paid projects are completed!
Dave
There are lots of articles about LENR calorimetry on the lenr-canr.org website. Be sure to do a search in their library so you won't jump to conclusions (one way or the other) about your test results.
See for example:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcalorimetr.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcalorimetr.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/14/tiny-nuclear-reactions-inside-compact-fluorescent-bulbs/