Monday, June 22, 2015

EARLY MONDAY SHOCK (first fast edition)


Bad, shocking surprises had been part of my life , both personal and professional(I was expert investigator of dust explosions for more years and have seen many accidents)

This morning at 6.15 I have read my e-mails and have found this one - seemingly from Bo Hoistad personal- address good:

Bo Höistad

12:25 AM (7 hours ago)

to meArikBrianCMNSDagmarDaviddougBrauneCatNewsGabrielGaryHaikojeffMarkNicolaiePeterPeterPierreRobertoRoySteveSunwonValeriovladVORTEX
Dear Peter

If  information is given in a  Norwegian newspaper  that we have confirmed the Lugano result  it is  unfortunately not true.


I answered instantly
Dear Bo,
Thank you for telling me this but it is very sad and bad- what is the truth?

However despite the correct address this can be some trick or bad joke- I thought
and for calming down I have listened this nice Swedish song which was so popular in 1979 when I made my unique visit in Sweden (Sundsvall and Stockholm)
Then I have asked my Swedish friends Mats Lewan and David Nygren if this message  comes really from Bo.

Then both Mats and Bo himself have answered- the Norwegian journalist made
an error- misunderstanding.  Bo Hoistadt wrote:

Dear Peter,

I sent the message to you yesterday evening. I don’t know from where the information comes that we have confirmed the Lugano results. It must be a misunderstanding. We are working on a test experiment in Uppsala as you know, but no results are available yet. The confirmations of the Lugano results  I know of are the two Russians  and one Chinese. Maybe these are the ones the article refers to?

Best regards


Conclusion (mine)
Creativity in journalism must respect the facts and what the interviewed persons
say. 100%!
Actually nothing has happened but the skeptics and ill-willed will have a good day.


1) Jim Sweeney is a fast blogger:
National Publication Headlines the Inevitable

2) Is Cold Fusion the energy source of the future:
Er kald fusjon fremtidens energikilde?
From Norway, again.


The Replicators of Parkhomov are following his one success out of ten tries strategy. To put up will all that failure takes a special kind of person. The Replications do not want to change the dogbone build formula. If they would just strengthen the reactor shell a tiny bit, more test reactors would get through the startup phase. At least the Replications are running multi-day tests in which the temperature of the reactor is increased very slowly. If someone would breakout of the Replications mind set and use a more blowout resistant reactor shell, the percentage of successful test would increase substantially.

"Parkhomov and the recent Chinese experiments contained the fuel in an inner container of stainless steel and nickle so that it was not in direct contact with the alumina container. This could keep an energy burst from damaging the alumina and allow the reactor to reach the stable phase."

Why hasn't MFMP picked up on this fine point of reactor construction. The Replications are working in a state of "malsolution". How can we help them out of the effects of this mind lock problem?

No one has tried to replicate the Chinese experiment. I do not understand this.

I would like to see someone run a test of a weak blowout proof Mouse stimulating a half dozen Cats. But that might be asking for too much at this early juncture.


  1. So far, there is no clear evidence of an "energy burst," and some evidence that there has been none. Both Parkhomov and Jiang experiments suffered from device failures, for rather obvious reasons. Peter, suggesting using heavier alumina: great minds think alike. Same internal space, heavier material outside. Use the Jiang approach with protected PtRh thermocouples to measure heat flow. It is possible to calibrate the Jiang Chinese box calorimetry with an internal heater in a dummy reactor. Heat the fuel samples with a protected heater, so that with no XP, the internal thermocouples will reach the same temperature. Look for temperature gradient between outer and inner thermocouples across a layer with constant thermal resistance.

    The paper I want to see: "Power generation in Nickel-Lithal mixtures vs amount of nickel and amount of Lithal."

    Ideally, the calorimetry should be able to see normal chemistry. XP, if any, should then stand out clearly. Stop guessing, start measuring, exploring the test setup in ways that build knowledge of what works and what doesn't work. With many trials, and only the fuel as a varied condition.

    The down side: this will take months of patient work. Is Open Science up for that?

  2. Let us talk details...

    The part of the recent test results conducted by Denis Vasilenko is found here

    The video of the point of interest is found here

    Something happened at 16:30 at the end of the test where the temperature rose radidly and the pressure rose from a minimum level. The test point is labled as “unintentional bump??? The light variations or flicker (cyclic at one or two seconds) that was coming from the reactor did not corespond to temperature change in the data, but this might be due to a slow sensor responce time. This flickering indicates that a isothermal condition had not yet been established, Both the temperature and temperature spiked at this point in the test. A phase change was underway but the reactor failed before the new state had fully asserted itself. The reactor might have made it through this phase of the test is it had been more robust.

    An IR sensor might have helped. This IR sensor has a responce time of 5 milliseconds. The laser spot can be moved over the surface of the reactor to see where the hot spots are located.

    thermoMETER CTratioM1
    Glass fiber 2 color ratio thermometer for extreme temperature measurements.

    The ratiometric principle minimizes measurement errors caused by intensity
    change (e.g. contamination due to dust, fumes..), low emissivity and partial
    spot size coverage of the target.
    Temperature range from 700°C to 1800°C
    5ms response time for fast readings
    Short wave length 0.7 and 1.1µm
    Rugged sensor head withstands 250°C without cooling
    High optical resolution
    Laser target marker down to 1.3mm spot size
    Programmable 1 or 2 color mode
    Separate controller with easy accessible programming keys
    and multi color LCD backlit display

  3. An experiment could be designed to build a reactor with a sapphire IR optical access window to
    look directly inside the reactor core. This paper can show what can be done with that window.

    A high speed IR camera can locate the formation of hot spots to a high resolution. All we need is some money for equipment.

  4. Make up your mind(s) guys. My stronger reactor tubes have not failed in 6 test runs, nor have my properly designed heater coils. This is just careful engineering and iterative improvement, shared with other researchers in the practice of Open Science. Our joint progress is ongoing, so please be patient and thoughtful in your suggestions.


    1. Are you increasing your fuel load? Are you still at 1/3 grams? I want to see how much fuel you reactor shell can handle.

  5. IR seems a good choice for input of the control. Fastest to indicate?

  6. The current differential cell design can hold more fuel, but that should be accompanied by increased cell volume, to keep the pressure within safe limits. The current design showed a peak pressure of around 30 atm, and though the tube is very strong (0.125" wall thickness, 0.998 Al2O3), I consider that to be the safe limit at high temperature.


    1. What do you judge went wrong in the last test by Denis Vasilenko. I haven’t seen MFMP reactors flicker. I wonder what is causing that flickering? The nice thing about that experiment is that it came to a definite conclusion.

      Denis Vasilenko ran his test for a very long time. He used 7 hangout sessions to record this experiment. That means he ran his experiment for a little under 56 hours. That experiment must have required a large amount of pain to carry out. It seems to me, that enduring pain is an important requirement for LENR experimental success.

      One way to run a very long experiment is to give the control of the experiment to a control box. Skip attempted to design such an experiment controller. This would allow MFMP to run open ended experiments without the hardship that Rossi must have induced in his early development work where he stood in front of his reactor for hours adjusting the controls manually.

      MFMP should put out a spec to allow the invention and construction of a computer managed and driven experiment controller to off load the pain to a machine based on skips design. There are many computer hardware and software experts just hoping they can contubute the skills to MFMP. With that expertise these eger helpers could design the controller if its functionality was be specified. IMHO, it might be what Skip has now but with the operator inputs controlled by a laptop. A serial bus controller interface might be best to allow the laptop to drive the controller box. The laptop has all the scheduling logic needed in it thanks to the Microsoft operating system.

      With the laptop in control, you and Skip can go for a beer and some fun any time you want and leave the machine do all the work, When the experiment comes to a conclusion, the controller could send you a text message on your cell phone. Without the constants of time making unfair demands on the experimenter. The experiment will either blowout or stabilize into a gainful LENR reaction without the need of human nature getting in the way. Just think about how much pain that this type of device could save the LENR experimental community.