OPEN SOURCE DIY LENR

[amdx]

Here's a site that discusses an open source LENR design.

http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/25/athanor-open-source-lenr-steps-forward/

Here are the google translated (with someones translation corrections)
instructions to build one. (can be found in the link above)

http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/athanor-instructions1.pdf

Mikek

 

[amdx]

Here's a site that discusses an open source LENR design.

http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/25/athanor-open-source-lenr-steps-forward/

Here are the google translated (with someones translation corrections)
instructions to build one. (can be found in the link above)

http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/athanor-instructions1.pdf

Mikek

Don't ya just hate it when no one responds to your post?
Even if it's just to call you a %$##&@ drip!
Mikek

 

[mike]

Don't ya just hate it when no one responds to your post?
Even if it's just to call you a %$##&@ drip!
Mikek

you provided ON-TOPIC information.
you did NOT ask a question.
you got no reples.
BEST NEWSGROUP EVER!!!

Be careful what you wish for ;-)

 

[j]

you provided ON-TOPIC information.
you did NOT ask a question.
you got no reples.
BEST NEWSGROUP EVER!!!

You don't always need a reply. Many of the "worst" threads are full of
replies!

The experiment is interesting, but beyond my means or desires. And there
is little practical I can add. It appears that since this doesn't even
have nickel that the reaction is totally within the hydrogen gas and the
nickel in the LENR or the tungsten here is either a catalyst or a
conductor.

So,thanks. But I have nothing to add that would be helpful. Even my
level of speculation is speculative!

Like most here, I'm standing by.

Jeff

 

[amdx]

So,thanks. But I have nothing to add that would be helpful.
Like most here, I'm standing by.

Jeff

Yes, "I'm standing by" is correct, I think I've been
watching the E-cat/LENR saga for about 8 months now.
I hope it is the new technology that drives the future.

Mikek

 

[mike]

I'm not standing by, but neither am I exactly zooming. The ancillary
stuff needed to control pressure and temperature is still evolving, and
every time I manage to complete some part of it, I find a better way to
get the job done. Already the (updated) drawing on the web page has been
obsoleted (replaced by a simpler design that eliminates one of the
steppers and allows use of "wet" hydrogen).

I've improved the pre-ignition heating algorithm to allow the software
to dynamically adjust the degree of "aggressiveness" of the heating, and
recently posted a plot of the family of heating power curves (shown as
duty-cycle percentage vs reactor temperature) and have been working on
smarter heat control.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are going to have something working
before I do, but when I do get there I think my design will be less
expensive, safer, and more scalable in both directions.

I appreciate the links. I don't really know enough yet to comment
meaningfully on other designs - but so far nearly everything I've seen
has been encouraging for me.

I just can't believe this stuff works.
It's such a GAME CHANGER that anybody with a working system should/could
provide a credible demonstration.

Put it in a black box in my garage with armed guards.
Power comes out in some form, heat, electricity, radiation.
Any idiot with a stopwatch, thermometer and a milk jug of water
can tell if it puts out more energy than known processes of the same
mass. We're talking about HUGE relative energy output.
Shouldn't be hard
to measure at all. Accuracy is irrelevant if it's huge.

All this obfuscation smells, but it don't quack.

 

[j]

If you're really all that impatient, why don't /you/ give it a try?


Agreed - but when it comes right down to it, only an idiot (or a
suicidal maniac) would do what you describe.


Duck soup: All you need is a 5" piece of 1" steel pipe with a
hydrogen-tight cap for each end. Drill and tap the pipe for a
hydrogen-tight fitting for attachment of a hydrogen supply line. Install
one of the caps, put an ounce and three quarters of filamentary nickel
nanopowder inside the pipe, and install the other end cap.

I see this somewhat differently. It looks to me that it requires a
current flow. There are anodes and cathodes in all these that you see
details for.

Here is something from a dozen years ago:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanomalousp.pdf

As far as being a useful device, it depends on what for and how
efficient it is. A low COP is useful for heating, but not useful for
generating power. If the efficiency of your thermal engine/generator is
25%, you would need a COP of 4 to break even. And electricity is not a
cheap energy source. Figures I saw ran around a COP of 6 for the best
models.

On the other hand, I think that you Morris, will make the most progress
of us all. I'm excited...

Jeff

 

[mike]

There appear to have been a whole train of "hints" along the way that
some kind of LENR is possible. The Arata and Zhang report would appear
to fall into that category - but, until Rossi, I didn't see anything
that looked as if it might be other than a lab curiosity.

The physics folks are now guessing that a Ni/H LENR /should/ be able to
produce something like 3,000,000 times as much energy as would be
produced by burning that same amount of hydrogen in an oxygen-rich
environment. I have no way of knowing whether that's true, but if it is
I think all discussions of COP become irrelevant.


Everyone needs at least a little excitement in their life; and I'm
flattered that you would say that - but I sincerely hope that, once the
real physics folks gain a little traction, my own efforts will fade to
insignificance.

From my perspective, the trial Mike wanted has already been done in
Italy. Rossi has not been as forthcoming as any of us would have liked,
but that's his choice, and his alone, to make.

It was pure coincidence that just as I needed a compact, high-output
heat source for testing a new solar generator design, Rossi announced to
the world that he had a new <drum roll, please> compact, high-output
heat source...

Rossi has provided (sometimes unintentionally) a fairly interesting
trail of hints. Some of these have been explicit, and some have to do
with what he doesn't do. He said at one point that he had an explosion
at start-up and in all of his demonstrations that I've seen on video, he
connects up the hydrogen supply and brings the system up to pressure -
and then disconnects the hydrogen line before applying heat. If you've
been following his work, you may have noticed that the demonstrations
have been limited to about four and a half hours - which I'm guessing to
be the amount of time that initial charge of hydrogen lasts before the
system is (literally) out of gas.

I don't think Rossi would disconnect the hydrogen supply without having
good reason for doing so.

I may be reading too much into this, bit I'm not very enthusiastic about
having even a low-energy nuclear reactor explode right beside me. I'm
pretty sure that I can design (and maybe build) a combination control
and data acquisition system to eliminate the danger of an explosion and,
at the same time, acquire the most detailed reactor behavioral data yet.

I apologize for being a bit rough on Mike - I really don't think we can
yet do a safe garage test - and if it turns out that these things
actually can produce 3,000,000 times the energy of a small chemical
explosion, you'd taking some serious chances - and for what gain?

There's always an excuse to follow the previous excuse that follows.....
Ok, I'll grant you some slack on the risk. But the concept is the same.
You don't need a megawatt demonstration behind the curtain.
All you need is a small scale that continuously produces a LOT more
power than
you can get from any known combustion process of the same mass.
It can be in a black box, but I gotta see all around it and measure
what goes in and out. You don't need to know anything about what's
going on inside the box.

But what do we get??? A HUGE pile of pipes and tanks. A test that
runs for a very short time with no oversight on the ins and outs.
And the big elephant in the room...that boxcar sized generator running
next to it.

If you had a credible demo, you'd have to hire an army to keep away
the investors with boxcars full of development cash.

This is a GAME CHANGER. Whoever makes it work will make a bazillion
dollars and possibly save the world. Statues will be erected.
Yet, we still got nothin' but excuses and futures.

I have this recurrent dream of the ghost of Stanley Meyers driving
his water-powered car in the free-energy parade with Rossi ridin' shotgun.

I hope it works.
I expect something like this will eventually work.
I wouldn't invest a dime in the current crop of people telling tall tales.

This testing whether it works is not rocket science. Any idiot can
do it. I'll supply the thermometer and the water. All you gotta
do is show up with the demo.
Convince me it works, and I'll break out that dime and 10e7 more of 'em.

 

[Jim Wilkins]

.. I may be reading too much into this, bit I'm not very
enthusiastic about having even a low-energy nuclear reactor explode
right beside me. I'm pretty sure that I can design (and maybe build)
a combination control and data acquisition system to eliminate the
danger of an explosion and, at the same time, acquire the most
detailed reactor behavioral data yet.

I apologize for being a bit rough on Mike - I really don't think we
can yet do a safe garage test - and if it turns out that these
things actually can produce 3,000,000 times the energy of a small
chemical explosion, you'd taking some serious chances - and for what
gain?

You might consider exposing this project on rec.crafts.metalworking to
gain the benefit of the participants' very considerable experience in
metal fabrication and computerized industrial controls, and science
and technology in general. Read it first, though, as r.c.m can be MUCH
nastier than this group.

jsw

 

[Jim Wilkins]

On 5/1/12 11:23 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
I'm not quite sure when it happened, but at one point I realized
that if I ever had to do a software project bigger than I could
handle alone, my dream team would be made up of the nastiest of the
bunch. Funny how that works.
Morris Dovey

You should see me bash neo-nazi myths of the secret technology that
coulda/shoulda won them the war.

Brilliant curmudgeons:
http://www.tinaja.com/
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/jerrypournelle.c/chaosmanor/
And the creator of "The Big Bang Theory"
http://www.chucklorre.com/

jsw
Still an amateur curmudgeon.

 

[j]

On 5/1/12 11:23 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Before that I spent close to a decade as a regular on comp.lang.c -
which is/was useful precisely because there was no tolerance for error
or failure to RTFM / STFW, etc.

All of the comp.lang don't suffer fools. I would imagine that
comp.lang.c would be the toughest. comp.lang.perl had an insult bot
, so I can imagine what c was like!

Jeff


I'm not quite sure when it happened, but

 

[j]

There appear to have been a whole train of "hints" along the way that
some kind of LENR is possible. The Arata and Zhang report would appear
to fall into that category - but, until Rossi, I didn't see anything
that looked as if it might be other than a lab curiosity.

The physics folks are now guessing that a Ni/H LENR /should/ be able to
produce something like 3,000,000 times as much energy as would be
produced by burning that same amount of hydrogen in an oxygen-rich
environment. I have no way of knowing whether that's true, but if it is
I think all discussions of COP become irrelevant.

As long as you have to put energy in COP is important. After a certain
point it won't matter much.

Everyone needs at least a little excitement in their life; and I'm
flattered that you would say that - but I sincerely hope that, once the
real physics folks gain a little traction, my own efforts will fade to
insignificance.

From my perspective, the trial Mike wanted has already been done in
Italy. Rossi has not been as forthcoming as any of us would have liked,
but that's his choice, and his alone, to make.

It was pure coincidence that just as I needed a compact, high-output
heat source for testing a new solar generator design, Rossi announced to
the world that he had a new <drum roll, please> compact, high-output
heat source...

Rossi has provided (sometimes unintentionally) a fairly interesting
trail of hints. Some of these have been explicit, and some have to do
with what he doesn't do. He said at one point that he had an explosion
at start-up and in all of his demonstrations that I've seen on video, he
connects up the hydrogen supply and brings the system up to pressure -
and then disconnects the hydrogen line before applying heat. If you've
been following his work, you may have noticed that the demonstrations
have been limited to about four and a half hours - which I'm guessing to
be the amount of time that initial charge of hydrogen lasts before the
system is (literally) out of gas.

Wikipedia has hydrogen burning as 61,000 BTU/lb multiply that by 3
million and you have an enormous amount of energy for even a tiny amount
of hydrogen.

I don't think Rossi would disconnect the hydrogen supply without having
good reason for doing so.

It would seem that more hydrogen would be unneeded.

I may be reading too much into this, bit I'm not very enthusiastic about
having even a low-energy nuclear reactor explode right beside me. I'm
pretty sure that I can design (and maybe build) a combination control
and data acquisition system to eliminate the danger of an explosion and,
at the same time, acquire the most detailed reactor behavioral data yet.

I think the key is to keep the oxydizers out.

I'm thinking the pressure is not key. From the outline posted at the top
of this thread, it looks like a fusion vacuum tube. The heat is there
for similar reasons that you have a heater in a tube's cathode.
Alternatively it could be a strong magnetic field. The containment
appears to be glass.

I apologize for being a bit rough on Mike -

Didn't bother me at all. Of course, I'm not Mike!

I really don't think we can

yet do a safe garage test - and if it turns out that these things
actually can produce 3,000,000 times the energy of a small chemical
explosion, you'd taking some serious chances - a

nd for what gain?

Form what I can gather this is a heisenberg uncertain kind of thing. You
have a normal pattern of probabilities and then you have the low
percentage one that is at the edge that "fuses". The key is to ratchet
up the low probability... so more rare fusions take place. I don't see
this as a runaway event. It doesn't look like fission where it multiplies.

Now adding pressure has it's own risk, but I don't think you will need
as much as you expect.

Jeff

 

[j]

All of the comp.lang don't suffer fools. I would imagine that
comp.lang.c would be the toughest. comp.lang.perl had an insult bot
, so I can imagine what c was like!

It was strict enough for one of the regulars to call Dennis Ritchie out
for being off-topic, although there was a smiley attached to the post.

[ For non-programmers, Dennis designed the C language and wrote its
first compiler - which was then used to produce the first version of
Unix. ]

That is very funny!!!!

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...
Any moisture in the system could be a problem, since water's vapor
pressure skyrockets when heat is added - and I don't have any
control over how "dry" my hydrogen is going to be. This becomes an
entirely different problem from eliminating oxidizers.

Only if liquid water is present. The vapor acts about like any other
gas.
Calcium Chloride (sidewalk deicer) is an effective dessicant after you
heat-dry it to constant weight. You can buy pressure-tight dessicant
cannisters to screw into air hoses for spray painting.

jsw