Build Instructions for Pirelli Athanor Cell

A high school class in Italy, with extensive guidance, built an LENR reactor that works!  They published very detailed instructions for how to do so on the net here.

Unfortunately these instructions are in Italian. e-catworld.com published an English translation.  However, the English translation is very rough.  I thought it’d save experimenters a lot of headache if the translation were smoothed out.  I began the task, but it is taking more time than I have.  So I am asking you to help with the readability task.

To participate, search for “Call for readability”, post that you have taken on a block, then go to work.  When you have updated a section, post your update as a comment, and I’ll move it into place.

English Instructions:

It is with emotion that we are going to take this step: making the construction of ATHANOR available on the internet.  Forgive us for the quality of the image, we hope you’ll understand how busy we are. Send us all your questions and we will endeavor to reply quickly. Forgive the poor quality of the images.

For some reasons we are not yet managing the documentation fully effectively, but we’re categorizing everything.

PERFORM THESE EXPERIMENTS WITH THE GUIDANCE OF AT LEAST TWO EXPERTS.  USE APPROPRIATE PROTECTION.  FOLLOW ALL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LABORATORIES.   OPERATE UNDER A CLOSED INTAKE GLASS HOOD THAT HAS GOOD VENTALATION.

CAREFULLY GATHER ALL WASTE FOR SUITABLE LIQUID OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL.

THIS EXPERIMENT IS HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE.  THE HYDROGEN IS EXPLOSIVE.  IF THE FUNNEL SHOULD DRY INSIDE, THE MUD BECOMES DUST AND IS EXPLOSIVE.  DO NOT OPERATE IN THE PRESENCE OF INCIDENTAL SPARK OR FREE FLAMES.  DOING SO IS ABSOLUTELY NOT RECOMMENDED, AND WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

WE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY NOT FOLLOWING THESE RULES AND GUIDELINES!  WE CARE OUT YOUR HEALTH AS MUCH AS WE CARE ABOUT OUR LIABILITY.

FIRST TEST THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF YOUR SYSTEM.

WE RECOMMENDED THAT YOU SURROUND THE CELL WITH LEAD SHEET. PUT A THICK PLEXIGLASS PLATE BETWEEN THE CELL AND A WEBCAM WITH THE WIRE SHIELDED WITH ALUMINUM FOIL.  BUILD A WALL OF WATER USING RECTANGULAR CONTAINERS THAT SURROUND THE CELL COMPLETELY.  INSERT A GEIGER COUNTER CLEARLY VISIBLE BY THE WEBCAM.  OPERATE FROM A REMOTE STATION WITH 6 SQMM SECTION CABLES.

WHOEVER BUILDS AND OPERATES THE DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE EVEN AGAINST DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES, EXPRESSLY EXEMPTING THE AUTHORS OF THIS TEXT FROM ANY LIABILITY.

THE SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTATION, BOTH AS DESCRIBED HERE OR IN FREE FORM, IS AN ACT OF UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT IS ADVISED HERE.

WE FORMALLY WARN YOU NOT TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT IF YOU DON’T HAVE A TECHNICAL DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE.

GOOD EXPERIMENTATION, and may you soon achieve yields higher than those detected by us!

IN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION PLEASE REFER TO THE IMAGE


Call for readability 2

The apparatus, can be easily made and is absolutely not expensive, consisting of a suspended crew with a bar (27) to an external support, and of an open container (15), pyrex, with capacity of 1000 ml, containing a high splashguard (14). The support should allow the easy put on the same axis of the crew.

The container is on a scale (28) with collecting plate (19) of potential drops so they continue to weigh.

The display (20) is protected by drops; on the bottom of the container there is an insulator (23) (between dish and container). The reactor has a cylindrical removable insulation (17).

It is filled with about 900 ml of solution 0.1 – 0.4 molar of potassium carbonate in distilled water.

A set of thermocouples (10) measures the temperature range (which is not uniform).

On the plate, special locks (18) prevent the container to move with the strong action of the plasma.

The anode (8) is made of a stainless steel mesh of the approximate area of 13 sq. cm., interchangeable with grids of different sizes, positively fed from the connector (11) by means of insulated (or isolated?) stainless steel bar. The pyrex tube (9) allows the insulated (or isolated?) leakage of oxygen from the anode, through the outlet (24).

The cathode connector (12) feeds, by means of a stainless steel bar covered with Teflon tube surrounded by heat shrink tubing, the clamp (22) that blocks the bar cathode of tungsten interchangeable of 1.6 mm diameter.

Particular attention must be paid to the implementation of the protection of the terminal from the electrical contact with the conductive solution.

The cap (21) makes access to the screw for clamping the cathode (3) in the terminal.

The ceramic plate (alumina) (4), crossed by the cathode, and ‘glued to the Pyrex funnel (5) by means of high temperature epoxy resin.

On the plate is placed a mixture of tungsten needles (length 3 -5 mm and diameter 0.1 mm) of 2-5 grams and powders, in the form of mud, the grain size between 100 microns and 50 nanometers, in variable proportions, of the weight of g. 1 to 2.

It is therefore evident that it is necessary to keep the powder in the form of mud, opening the container of the supplier under water (distilled), wearing anti-dust and anti-smoke masks specifically suitable (ask the supplier of the filters), using however teaspoons of plastic to limit the triboelectricity ‘ , after building a plexiglass panel with holes and sleeves of manipulation to fit between the hood shutter and plane, with appropriate gaskets.

Call for readability 3

NEVER LEAVE ANY DRY DROPS OR SKETCHES OF MUD (PREVENT IN ANY CASE), PENALTY THE RELEASE IN THE AIR (THE FINE POWDERS ARE TOXIC AND SELF- INGNITABLE)!

STORE CLOSED THE QUANTITY OF MUD STOCKED.

NOTE: We never had any accident, not even the slightest, we broke a beaker by washing.

The funnel is supported by the support (32), fixed to the bar (27) from the retainer (13). The level of of electrolyte (16) must be maintained in the area indicated, with short reaction times (typically 90 to 240 seconds), so that the level does not vary too much, introducing changes in buoyancy, thus affecting the determination of the weight of the container, although initially calibrated .

A Teflon grid (69) and a housing encapsulating the cathode grid, protected at the bottom by a porous filter made of sintered pyrex (7).

The vertical distance between the surface dust and anode is typically (adjustable) between 30 and 45 mm.

The monolithic cathode (3) must protrude a few mm from the ceramic plate, just to give contact to the needles which, in turn, give it to the powders.

The operating voltages, typically between 60 volts and 240 volts, are obtained, with direct current, by means of rectifiers mounted on a finned base, downstream of a VARIAC connected to the mains.

The typical operating currents vary between 9 and 0.2 Ampere.

The solution may be preheated before entry into the container (enter it slowly into the funnel and allow the overflow into the container), or taken up to temperature of electrolysis.

Typical protocol suggested in early experiments (everyone will refine it or improve it):

Made a plan of combinations of parameter values, we fixed a set (nominal voltage, type and amount of dust, anode surface, interelectrode distance, electrolyte concentration (attention, it has pH> 11));

Make a calibration diagram by the introduction of the same amount of electrolyte at 100 degrees centigrade, without tension, noting, without insulation of the container, for each degree of descent, the corresponding time, so as to calculate the power lost in water by adduction from the walls to the outside, and by evaporation;
Trace the curve Lost Power (y) – electrolyte temperature (x);

after setting the shielded wire thermocouples, calibrated the scale, entered the liquid at least 85 degrees, turned on an ammeter (position 10 amps max) in series with the cell on rectified current, and a voltmeter in parallel, you can gradually increase the tension.

Raising the voltage, it is noted that the current is high, and the manual tension rise of the VARIAC knob must be adapted to maintain the current under 9 Amperes, while the solution is heated, you notice that you can raise the tension without exceeding with the current; at about 90 degrees, it becomes easy to have low currents (depending on the set of parameters, even only 0.3 amperes); Try to turn on the plasma by bringing the tension at about 120-160 volts; make practice with the adjustment of the Variac knob, not believing the indication of this, but to that of the voltmeter; bring, with the heating of the plasma on, the temperature of thermocouple visible by webcam at about 93 degrees, and “drive” the “wheel” of VARIAC so as to maintain the temperature in a very narrow range around 93 degrees, trying to have the minimum voltage which keeps the plasma stable, checking that the current is as low as possible.

Call for readability 4

Having taken confidence with the first preliminary tests, you can try an evaluation of yield:

conservatively, ignoring the precious hydrogen produced (and the energy that may be available), integrate in time with the details of the reaction duration (90 – 240 seconds) the measurements of electrical power input (V x I) frequently sampled for direct reading (in the orientation tests) and later with computerized reading, getting the energy input.

The energy lost is obtained by the calibration diagram, at a temperature kept constant, by integrating the power for the execution time of the test.

The difference between energy lost (big) and injected (minor) is the excess.

THE COP can then be calculated, but you must pay attention to the ambiguity. We invite you to calculate it as ratio between energy lost and the one you entered, as the energy lost will be the one to be recovered for use (we propose a standard calculation to compare the results of different experimenters).

It is recommended to cross these determinations with independent readings such as the calculation of sensible heat when the temperature varied, and always check the amount of the evaporated solution , counting the corresponding latent heat (DO NOT EVAPORATE TOO MUCH SOLUTION IN A SINGLE TEST!).

A digital power meter can be used, placing it between the network and the Variac, between the Variac and rectifiers, between the rectifiers and the cell, establishing a framework of reference and comparison with measurements made with simple ammeter and voltmeter continuously (I have a doubt, maybe they mean with direct current).

Call for readability 5

It should also be made a comparison with exercise, identical, of the reactor with a carbon cathode (without metal powders), inert with respect to the “alleged” fusions or other events catalyzed by transition metals, the mix of dusts, when used with metal cathodes, may contain iron micrometric catalyzing powder, to catalyze the presence of atomic hydrogen rather than molecular.

ONLY the evidences that overall show a coherent picture among the independent readings described can be considered.

We are immediately available to talk about the construction, materials, geometry, planning and execution of tests, the interpretation of results, on which the network will be updated in a realistic time.

LET’S START WITH PARTICIPATORY AND DISTRIBUTED SCIENCE!

(Some will say that this is the opposite of science [ed. Someone will tell for sure!])

A big thank you to all those who will collaborate in any form, and to Dr. Passerini, who will certainly liaison among experimenters and between us and the experimenters.

P. S. Forgive the prolixity … as a professor.

Rome, 3,30 a.m.

Ugo Abundo

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

37 Responses to “Build Instructions for Pirelli Athanor Cell”

  1. Roger Bird Says:

    I wonder where Craig Binns is? Perhaps he his changing his name at the local Scottish magistrate’s court.

  2. Mr. Moho Says:

    Keep in mind that these instructions are not final. I believe more detailed information (and test data, etc) will be released at a later time through 22passi.

  3. David Says:

    Forum Thread dedicated to ..

    Brillouin Energy
    http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=89

    Defkalion
    http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=87

    Rossi
    http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=86

    Nichenergy
    http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88

    After you have registered you can discuss,
    We need critical thinking people :)

    Create a network with others who share the same interests as you do.

    /David

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      David – isn’t that what Nickelpower is already doing? It’s been extremely useful to me in getting me information I wouldn’t have found on my own.

    • brucefast Says:

      Hi David,
      I am happy enough to let your self-promotion stand. I do not by any means think that the market is flooded by good quality LENR blog sites.

      A word of note, I have been rather involved in the dialog, urging the commenters to consider the data. I think this has been a key to the high quality of posters on this site. I have only banned one person, the infamous Mary Yugo. I have threatened to ban one other. However, I haven’t let rich comments like “I don’t think its for real” to go unchallenged.

      • David Says:

        I agree that there are many blogs on the topic, but I can not find a right forum that is completely dedicated to LENR, more than lenrforum.

        We are a small group of 8 moderators from 6 countries ( looking for more ).. We want to compile news / translate texts and try to be of critical thinking. (All volunteers) http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106

        Excuse me for the post. Understand what you mean.

  4. Simon Derricutt Says:

    A further word of caution – you won’t know what is in the nanopowders they supply, but pretty well all nanopowders are toxic or carcinogenic if you breathe them in. They are pretty safe when in water, but if allowed to dry out they can catch fire spontaneously and/or get into the air. If you’re not comfortable and safe working with this sort of material, then it’s better to not do it yourself. There’s no real radiation danger with this, but the chemical dangers are definitely there. I don’t know how much they will charge you for the nanopowders, but I would expect somewhere in the region of 30 euros. The rest of the kit will cost you maybe a couple of hundred to get a working system if you can bend metal yourself rather than expecting a complete ready-to-run kit. I expect some entrepreneur will indeed offer complete kits (minus the powders) in a few months. Mr. Moho is right that these will not be the final set of instructions, but that won’t stop the keen experimenters.

    This is the first of what I hope will be many ways of getting the LENR reaction to work at a commercially-viable COP. With enough replicators of this, and enough published results, mainstream science will have to admit that LENR is not pathological science. That will open the floodgates to sponsored research and a whole raft of new discoveries.

    • brucefast Says:

      Simon, the article is very careful to explain the dangers of this experiment. Specifically, they heavily discuss the toxicity and explosiveness of the nano-powders. I am not hoping that hacks will get hold of this post and injure themselves. However, if the precautions mentioned in the article are followed, I think it quite safe.

      This is probably more of a project than I am able to take on, but hopefully it won’t be too much for many others.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      from Axil Axil on vortex:
      “Since potassium is the not so secret sauce in this high school reaction, it lends credence to the speculation that potassium is also the secret sauce in the Rossi reaction.”
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg65367.html

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – currently they are keeping the composition of the powders secret. The potassium, in this case, is really just to provide conductivity. It probably has no part in the reaction or any catalytic properties, but it is a good electrolyte. Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) would probably work almost as well.

      • Axil Says:

        The solution to reliable LENR is to grow NAE in real time continuously. These renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points between nanoparticles in unlimited numbers. They are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.

        I believe this is what the chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors.

        Heat produces a metal rain of alkali metal nanoparticles that falls on the surface of metal micro particles.

        Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless, these potassium metal nano-drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice when the LENR reaction occurs in a renewable cycle. They eventually redeposit somewhere else. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing.

        This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Thanx Ax

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        Here is a detailed description of a LENR generator and formula that was producing energy over unity. In the March of 1994 US government contract F33615-93-C-2326 titled “NASCENT HYDROGEN: AN ENERGY SOURCE” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        deja vous all over again

  5. Simon Derricutt Says:

    A better picture is published in the Italian site at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qM-Yb3u8CHg/T5ZSpJD3UDI/AAAAAAAAGS8/qB5iXr3u-Mk/s1600/schema%2520equipaggio.jpg .
    This is diagrammatic rather than a full drawing, and shows just the heart of the process.

  6. Anony Mole Says:

    I think we just have to wait a week and someone will have produced a youtube video of the setup and the experiment. Why the students didn’t to this…

    Next we’ll see someone else come up with with a simple electronic pulse modulation of the input power and Brillouin will be sweating.

    So, this nano-powder mud, sounds like thermite, look at it sideways and BOOM! Any idea what’s in it? I went looking for pyrophoric elements and found Rieke metals and Raney nickel:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rieke_metal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel

    and others:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion

    Sounds like these powdered metals are dangerous (as the instructions and Simon have emphatically pronounced). Gee, can you ship me some of this stuff through FedX please?

    Now we need someone to build a LENR demo the size of a cement mixer. “Uh Sir? We can’t get to Cincinnati”, “What are you lost?”, “Um, no Sir, um, Cincinnati is no longer there.”

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Anony – generally it seems people shipping such things will use dedicated shippers who have the necessary qualifications and systems to handle them. The transport costs tend to be pretty high as a consequence.

      There are hints that the particular powders in use here are a mixture of Nickel and rare earths, but no real data. If this gets to be a kit, they could be shipped and used in a microporous ceramic or Teflon package which would reduce the associated problems dramatically and reduce the qualifications/experience needed to be able to run it safely. In the same way, a catalyst to safely recombine the Oxygen and Hydrogen, that will tend to be produced by this system, should be used in a closed system (à la Brillouin wet boiler) to avoid the problem of Cincinnati’s disappearance.

      It may take a bit more than a week for the YouTube video – they’d need to get the powders shipped from Italy….

  7. Brad Arnold Says:

    Robert Mockan on April 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    Use a nickel wire in hydrogen gas and you can do the same experiment. In fact it even works with Nichrome resistance wire, that is a nickel and copper alloy.
    You can demonstrate LENR by putting a resistance heater using Nichrome heating elements, that you buy at the store, into a container of hydrogen gas at low pressure, and turn it on. Measure the temperature on the outside of the container filled with air and you get one temperature. Measure it filled with hydrogen and you get higher temperature. You can get an accurate measure of the LENR generated power by measuring the power into the heater, and measuring the heat generated by the heater with a flowing water calorimeter about the container. All the nickel hydrogen LENR products do is go to small size nickel particles to increase surface area, add ingredients to increase more spillover of atomic hydrogen onto the nickel particles, and increase hydrogen diffusion through the interstitial spaces of the nickel lattice by hydrogen gas pressure and temperature cycling, with or without the presence of an external magnetic field, and with or without additional lattice and hydrogen stimulation with ultrasonics, radio waves, AC magnetic fields, and so on. If you want proof of LENR, just do it. It is not rocket science.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      This is true. Rossi and Defkalion seem to be producing somewhere around 2.5W per square metre of surface area. If you are using a wire, then it will take a lot of it to make a square metre of surface area, and it’s difficult to measure the resultant power gain until you have a lot of wire. You can thus demonstrate that it’s real for yourself, but being certain of how much extra energy is produced and getting to a reasonable COP is difficult as a back-shed experiment.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      After trying gaseous H, why not test the rumored “secret sauce”, potassium, by replacing H gas with a small amount of potassium hydride? Potassium hydride is also pyrophoric.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydride

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – it may well work, but it’s going to be a tricky substance to handle. The containers would need to be fool-proof, to stop people taking them to bits.

    • Bob Says:

      Brad – have you ever seen specifics as it relates to radio waves. Its mentioned often on the blogs, but I haven’t seen any examples of what people are thinking. It would be great to have an example or a frequency range. To me this is one of the most open ended comments about LENR. Just curious if anyone can put this into something more concrete.

  8. johntobey253 Says:

    I think the paragraph under “Call for readability 2″ means:

    “The apparatus, easy and inexpensive to build, consists of an assembly suspended with a bar (27) to an external support, and of an open container (15), pyrex, with capacity of 1000 ml, containing a high splashguard (14). The support should allow the assembly to be put in place easily.”

    (I’m not fluent, but to translate “equipaggio” as “assembly” or “device”, note that Google translates English “equipment” as “equipaggiamento”.)

    Call for readability 3, my guess:

    “NEVER ALLOW ANY DROPS OR SPATTERED MUD TO DRY (OR TO OCCUR AT ALL IF POSSIBLE). THE FINE POWDER MUST NOT ENTER THE AIR (IT IS TOXIC AND MAY SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST)!

    KEEP ALL OF THE MUD CONTAINED.”

    (Google translates “spatter” to Italian as “schizzo”, singular of “schizzi” in the original.)

  9. argent47 Says:

    Here is my amateur-copy-editor take on the whole thing.
    For Section 1, I put the corrected phrase after a copy of the original phrase; for the other sections, I simply present them in their entirety but with my re-spellings/re-wordings within them.
    (The efforts of Google Translate, though generally good, often give quirky (or even wrong) results; and I don’t translate Italian, myself, so this is just my refinement of the English version already provided here. Note also that Variac, a brand name, is not ordinarily written in all capitals; and that ‘tension’, in the electric sense, is a chiefly older or European word for ‘voltage’.)

    So, here goes (nothing? )….
    ============================

    Section 1
    ————
    GLASS HOOD THAT HAS GOOD VENTALATION.
    –> GLASS HOOD THAT HAS GOOD VENTILATION.

    WE CARE OUT YOUR HEALTH
    –> WE CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH

    OPERATE FROM A REMOTE STATION WITH 6 SQMM SECTION CABLES.
    –> OPERATE FROM A REMOTE STATION WITH CABLES OF AT LEAST 6 SQUARE MM CROSS-SECTION.

    WHOEVER BUILDS AND OPERATES THE DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE EVEN AGAINST DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES,
    –> WHOEVER BUILDS AND OPERATES THE DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE EVEN FOR DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES,

    THE SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTATION,
    –> SIMPLY IMPLEMENTING THE EXPERIMENT,

    GOOD EXPERIMENTATION,
    –> GOOD EXPERIMENTING,

    Section 2
    ————
    The apparatus can be easily made and is definitely not expensive, consisting of a bar (27; connected to an external support) to suspend the equipment, and of an open container (15), Pyrex, with 1000 mL capacity, containing a high splashguard (14). The support should allow easy assembly on the same axis as the equipment.

    The container is on a scale (28) with collecting plate (19) for the potential drops so they can be continually weighed.

    The display (20) is protected from drops; on the bottom of the container there is an insulator (23) (between dish and container). The reactor has a cylindrical removable insulation (17).

    It is filled with about 900 mL of 0.1–0.4 molar solution of potassium carbonate in distilled water.

    A set of thermocouples (10) measures the temperature range (which is not uniform).

    On the plate, special locks (18) prevent the container from moving due to the strong action of the plasma.

    The anode (8) is made of a stainless-steel mesh of approximately of 13 sq. cm. area, interchangeable with grids of different sizes, positively fed from the connector (11) by means of an insulated stainless-steel bar. The Pyrex tube (9) allows the insulated leakage of oxygen from the anode, through the outlet (24).

    The cathode connector (12) feeds, by means of a stainless-steel bar covered with a Teflon tube surrounded by heat-shrink tubing, the clamp (22) that blocks the interchangeable 1.6 mm-diameter tungsten bar cathode.

    Particular attention must be paid to preventing electrical contact of the terminal with the conductive solution.

    The cap (21) gives access to the screw for clamping the cathode (3) in the terminal.

    The ceramic plate (alumina) (4) is crossed by the cathode, and glued to the Pyrex funnel (5) by means of high-temperature epoxy resin.

    On the plate is placed a mixture of tungsten needles (length 3-5 mm and diameter 0.1 mm) of 2-5 grams each; and powders, in the form of mud, with grain size between 100 microns and 50 nanometers, in variable proportions, weighing 1 to 2 g.

    It is therefore evident that it is necessary to keep the powder in the form of mud. First, build a plexiglass panel with holes and gloved sleeves to fit between the hood shutter and plane, with appropriate gaskets; in essence, build a glove box. Then open the supply container under (distilled) water, wearing anti-dust and anti-smoke masks specifically suitable (ask the supplier of the filters), using, however, plastic teaspoons to limit triboelectricity.

    Section 3
    ————
    NEVER LEAVE ANY DRY DROPS OR SPATTERS OF MUD (PREVENT BY ALL MEANS). PREVENT RELEASE IN THE AIR (THE FINE POWDERS ARE TOXIC AND SELF-IGNITABLE)!

    STORE THE STOCK OF MUD IN A CLOSED CONTAINER.

    NOTE: We never had any accident, not even the slightest, though we did break one beaker while washing it.

    The funnel is supported by the support (32), fixed to the bar (27) from the retainer (13). The level of electrolyte (16) must be maintained in the area indicated, with short reaction times (typically 90 to 240 seconds), so that the level does not vary too much. Excess variance introduces changes in buoyancy, thus affecting the determination of the weight of the container, even though initially calibrated.

    A Teflon grid (69) and a housing encapsulating the cathode grid, protected at the bottom by a porous filter made of sintered Pyrex (7).

    The vertical distance between the surface dust and the anode is adjustable, typically held between 30 and 45 mm.

    The monolithic cathode (3) must protrude a few mm from the ceramic plate, just to give contact to the needles which, in turn, give contact to the powders.

    The operating voltages, typically between 60 volts and 240 volts (DC), are obtained by means of rectifiers mounted on a finned base, downstream of a Variac connected to the mains.

    The typical operating currents vary between 9 and 0.2 amperes.

    The solution may be preheated before entry into the container (pour it slowly into the funnel and allow the overflow into the container), or taken up to the temperature of electrolysis.

    Typical protocol suggested in early experiments (everyone will refine it or improve it):

    Make a plan of combinations of parameter values. We established a set (nominal voltage, type and amount of dust, anode surface, interelectrode distance, electrolyte concentration (attention, it has pH>11)).

    Make a calibration diagram from the introduction of the same amount of electrolyte at 100 degrees Celsius, without applied voltage. With insulation removed from the container, note the corresponding time for each degree of temperature drop, so as to calculate the power lost in water by conduction from the walls to the outside, and by evaporation.

    Graph the curve of Lost Power (y) vs. Electrolyte Temperature (x).

    After setting the shielded wire thermocouples, calibrating the scale, pouring in the liquid (at least 85 degrees C), connecting an ammeter (position 10 amps max) in series with the cell on direct current, and a connecting a voltmeter in parallel, you can gradually increase the voltage.

    Raising the voltage, it is noted that the current is high, and the manual voltage increase via the Variac knob must be adapted to maintain the current under 9 amperes. While the solution is heated, you notice that you can raise the voltage without causing excess current; at about 90 degrees, it becomes easy to have low currents (depending on the set of parameters, even as low as 0.3 amperes). Try to turn on the plasma by bringing the voltage to about 120-160 volts; practice the adjustment of the Variac knob, not relying just on its reading but on that of the voltmeter. With the plasma heating active, and the temperature of the thermocouple (visible by webcam) at about 93 degrees, adjust the dial of the Variac so as to maintain the temperature in a very narrow range around 93 degrees. Try to have the minimum voltage which keeps the plasma stable, checking that the current is as low as possible.

    Section 4
    ————
    Having gained confidence with the first preliminary tests, you can try an evaluation of yield:

    Conservatively, ignoring the precious hydrogen produced (and the energy that may be available), multiply the reaction duration (90–240 seconds) by the measurements of electrical power input (V × I), frequently sampled by direct reading (in the orientation tests) and later with computerized reading, so as to compute the energy input.

    The energy lost is obtained by the calibration diagram, at a temperature kept constant, by integrating the power for the execution time of the test.

    The difference between energy lost (big) and injected (minor) is the excess.

    The COP can then be calculated, but you must pay attention to the ambiguity. We invite you to calculate it as ratio between energy lost and the amount you input, as the energy lost will be the one to be recovered for use (we propose a standard calculation to compare the results of different experimenters).

    It is recommended to cross these determinations with independent readings such as the calculation of perceptible heat when the temperature varies, and always check the amount of the evaporated solution, accounting for the corresponding latent heat (DO NOT EVAPORATE TOO MUCH SOLUTION IN A SINGLE TEST!).

    A digital power meter can be used, placing it between the network and the Variac, between the Variac and rectifiers, and between the rectifiers and the cell, establishing a framework of reference and comparison with measurements made with simple ammeter and voltmeter continuously (apparently so as to compare digital and analog versions of the energy measurement).

    Section 5
    ————
    A comparison exercise should also be made, with identical setup of the reactor, except with a carbon cathode (without metal powders), which should be inert with respect to the “alleged” fusions or other events catalyzed by transition metals. The mix of dusts, when used with metal cathodes, may contain catalyzing powder of micrometre-sized iron particles, to catalyze the presence of atomic hydrogen rather than molecular.

    ONLY the evidences that overall show a coherent picture among the independent readings described can be considered.

    We are immediately available to talk about the construction, materials, geometry, planning and execution of tests, and the interpretation of results, on which the network will be updated in a realistic time.

    LET’S START WITH PARTICIPATORY AND DISTRIBUTED SCIENCE!

  10. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Using mud, it would seem that John Downs’ idea of using
    a solution of potassium formate (plus nickel nano-powder)
    would be worth pursuing.

  11. argent47 Says:

    Anybody there? I’m not asking for a ticker-tape parade for my efforts at rendering the translated instructions more clearly understandable, but it’s been a year now with no response at all.
    Should I have bothered to try to help, then?

    • Craig Binns Says:

      argent

      This thing is supposed to be “a high school class in Italy, with extensive guidance, built an LENR reactor that works! They published very detailed instructions for how to do so on the net here.” why don’t you build one “that works!” That would earn you a ticker tape parade. And a Nobel Prize too.

      • argent47 Says:

        Yes, I read the description at the top of the page, a year ago.
        Also, the person who posted this said, “I thought it’d save experimenters a lot of headache if the translation were smoothed out. I began the task, but it is taking more time than I have. So I am asking you to help with the readability task.”

        So, I helped with the readability task. A fair bit of work it was, too. Just looking for a bit of acknowledgment, that’s all.

        (I’m also looking for indisputable evidence that LENR devices work as claimed. How many houses, for instance, are being run “off-grid” because of these reactors? Just how practical is it?)

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      Just an observation: often times you can “help” a whole bunch of people, and nothing comes of it. OTH, you can help just one person, and they can make a gigantic contribution (which they don’t attribute to your help, but you were an important contributor). Which is it? Who knows – but your translation help is potentially very useful, and you ought to be proud (I donate my blood, and only get a drink for my time and dedication).

  12. Craig Binns Says:

    argent47

    Good points. I think we can state with certainty that no such machine is in existence anywhere, producing useful power from LENR; and that no bunch of Italian kids have constructed one “that works!” What’s worth more: heating a house off-grid with some obscure device, or becoming the richest person in the history of the human race, simply by publishing the invention?

  13. Craig Binns Says:

    Argent47

    From your translation:

    WE RECOMMENDED THAT YOU SURROUND THE CELL WITH LEAD SHEET. PUT A THICK PLEXIGLASS PLATE BETWEEN THE CELL AND A WEBCAM WITH THE WIRE SHIELDED WITH ALUMINUM FOIL. BUILD A WALL OF WATER USING RECTANGULAR CONTAINERS THAT SURROUND THE CELL COMPLETELY. INSERT A GEIGER COUNTER CLEARLY VISIBLE BY THE WEBCAM. OPERATE FROM A REMOTE STATION WITH 6 SQMM SECTION CABLES.”

    You’re saying Italian school kids made one of these, and it “worked”. Anyone here believe that?

  14. argent47 Says:

    Note that I make no claims myself! I merely assisted in clarifying the presented material, per the request of the originator of this piece.
    (I see no good reason to believe it, out of hand. Independent, verifiable data would be invaluable.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: