LENR LIVE proposal 1: The neutron sparkler

Written by Robert Greenyer on 24 September 2016.

Titanium deuteride / palladium deuteride and a liquid nitrogen bath

At ICCF-17 in Korea, 2012, a Texas University researcher reported large production of neutrons when a transition metal, loaded with deuterium was dropped into a liquid nitrogen - but this was essentially an inspired interpretation of Francesco Scaramuzzi's 1989 work.

Since the MFMP will soon have neutron detectors in a range of locations and we have already shown the visual practicality of bubble detectors - thanks to our donors, we have now secured a hydrogen generator so that we can make D2 from heavy water.

This experiment is suitable for live presentation and whilst it would not demonstrate useful excess heat, it should end the rhetoric from those that say nuclear processes are impossible in condensed matter and are not willing or able to dig about for the evidence to help them understand where the story is going. Moreover, no one could argue about the temperature being low!

New Scientist - 29 April 1989

Suggestions welcome on design of the drop experiment apparatus, way of processing the material and research into the work of Scaramuzzi. Challenges are the pressures that Scaramuzzi used - but could it be as simple as dropping a heavily loaded transition metal into liquid nitrogen as the Texas researcher claimed?

Other than needing to get some fresh bubble detectors, we will soon have the means to find out.

View/Edit this document in full screen (depending on permission)

< Prev Next >

Add comment

Comments

0 #5 Fredrick Hibbs 2016-09-26 20:39

@Robert Greenyer" [/quote} Perhaps you missed this: UPDATE#3 - Bob Higgins published version 1.0 of his apparatus goo.gl/wuLWH8

Thanks, Bob, for bringing me up-to-date with the MFMP neutron detection apparatus. I didn't realize anybody could assemble a cheap 3He device! Better than using BF3 for sure.

Quote

+2 #4 Bob Higgins 2016-09-26 19:00

There is a version 1.1 of the paper available to correct a part call-out in the bill of materials. The latest paper can be found in this folder:

drive.google.com/.../

Quote

+1 #3 Robert Greenyer 2016-09-26 18:05

@Fredrick Hibbs

Perhaps you missed this

goo.gl/XFmrLi

UPDATE#3 - Bob Higgins published version 1.0 of his apparatus

goo.gl/wuLWH8

Quote

0 #2 Fredrick Hibbs 2016-09-25 21:32

Sounds like $450 well spent, but I suggest you arrange to have much better neutron detectors available - not just bubble tubes.

Quote

+2 #1 Ged 2016-09-25 16:56

This idea has some real power to it if it is used to do a Temperature Dependence Curve. As we see in the quote, in liquid nitrogen (-196 C) there is a 10-20 times above background neutron rate, but at room temp (22 C usually) 500 times above background. Then what would happen at a higher temp? If another temperature step of equal magnitude was done, so heating the apparatus to 240 C (coincidentally the point around where GS5.3 saw neutrons, though it is a very different setup and fuel), and the neutron rate measured, one could then draw a graph with the three points of Temperature versus Neutron rate and fit an equation.

A temperature dependence graph would vastly strengthen the evidence. A fourth point would make the graph even stronger (458 C), and five points would be optimal (676 C). The graph is doubtfully linear, and the reaction and thus rate may completely die above a certain temp, but showing the rate being impacted by temperature will give highly potent evidence to both the validity of the reaction and its parameters.

And people love equations. Measuring how T interacts with rate could allow a lot of mechanistic hypothesizing.

Just my two cents for this type of experiment! At the very least, I would argue that room temp should be measured as 500 times background isn't something one would miss. But even if it's just liquid N2 and room temp in a two point graph, it would be better than either by itself.

Quote

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

JComments