A LENR Explanation

[amdx]

I found this explanation of interest.

http://coldfusionnow.org/explaining-lenr/

There is a reference to resonance, I can't
figure out if this is a naturally occurring resonance or
external energy applied at a resonant frequency.
I f anyone has a clue, please let me know.

Mikek

NAE= Nuclear Active Environment

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/11/12 3:49 PM, amdx wrote:
>
> I found this explanation of interest.
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/explaining-lenr/
>
> There is a reference to resonance, I can't
> figure out if this is a naturally occurring resonance or
> external energy applied at a resonant frequency.

> If anyone has a clue, please let me know.

It's interesting, but I don't think the author has much of a clue - and
I'm inclined to the opinion that he's made unjustified assumptions.

I don't have much of a clue, either. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/LENR
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey

[Tom P]

On 06/12/2012 02:36 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 6/11/12 3:49 PM, amdx wrote:
>>
>> I found this explanation of interest.
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/explaining-lenr/
>>
>> There is a reference to resonance, I can't
>> figure out if this is a naturally occurring resonance or
>> external energy applied at a resonant frequency.
>> If anyone has a clue, please let me know.
>
> It's interesting, but I don't think the author has much of a clue - and
> I'm inclined to the opinion that he's made unjustified assumptions.
>
> I don't have much of a clue, either. :-)
>

If you read the Student's Guide on the website, you'll see what the
problem is - any nuclear fusion reaction must produce radiation,
neutrons or gamma rays. No such effect is observed - meaning there is no
nuclear reaction.

[Morris Dovey]

I haven't done any observations yet, but will be monitoring for beta
particles and gamma rays in close proximity to the containment vessel. I
recognize this won't cover the full range of possibilities, but (for
initial testing) these are what I'm most concerned about.

Since I don't have much of a clue and the discussion seems to involve
not-well-reported phenomena, I think I'll hold off comment until I can
offer something more solid than uninformed opinion.

[ Hmm - it just occurred to me that I should also monitor background
radiation while testing to minimize false counts. That's easily done,
but means I have to buy a second detector. :( ]

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/LENR/
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey

[Han]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in
news:jrvu82$52i$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

If you think radiation might be generated, it probably is better to make
up a radiation barrier of some kind. The best would be a small wall of
lead bricks, but anything (nonradioactive) with a high mass to volume
ratio would do. Then measure before you start up the reaction, from in
fron and from behind the barrier. Note data, and start the reaction.
With the reaction going, measure again same ways. Background radiation
(beta) should be in the range of 30-40 cpm/dpm, at least that's what our
scintillation counters showed. Geiger counters should click a few clicks
per minute to some that are still clearly separate. When it starts
rattling or buzzing, it's time to step back (exposure is inverse to the
square of the distance).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:jrvu82$52i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ...

> [ Hmm - it just occurred to me that I should also monitor background
> radiation while testing to minimize false counts. That's easily
> done, but means I have to buy a second detector. :( ]

> Morris Dovey

You could insert shielding between the detector and the reactor to
record the background.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/21/12 3:03 PM, Han wrote:

> If you think radiation might be generated, it probably is better to
> make up a radiation barrier of some kind. The best would be a small
> wall of lead bricks, but anything (nonradioactive) with a high mass
> to volume ratio would do. Then measure before you start up the

> reaction, from in front and from behind the barrier. Note data, and

> start the reaction. With the reaction going, measure again same ways.
> Background radiation (beta) should be in the range of 30-40 cpm/dpm,
> at least that's what our scintillation counters showed. Geiger
> counters should click a few clicks per minute to some that are still
> clearly separate. When it starts rattling or buzzing, it's time to
> step back (exposure is inverse to the square of the distance).

On 6/21/12 3:27 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> You could insert shielding between the detector and the reactor to
> record the background.

I'm thinking that I want to establish an average background count as
part of the start-up procedure, then trigger an automatic shutdown if
the unshielded count exceeds that average by some factor (x10?) or by a
lesser factor (x5?) through a 30-second period during the test.

The shielded counter should help to verify (after the fact) that an
increase in the unshielded count is due to reactor activity rather than
a transient increase in the background level.

The project was originally intended to do no more than to determine if a
Ni/H reaction could be initiated, and has (predictably) undergone a fair
amount of "scope creep" since I'm now trying to capture and log
everything I can think of that might be useful to know at a 1 Hz
sampling rate - and am planning testing with additional metals (gold,
tin, cadmium, silver, and platinum) as well.

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:js0eu2$e0p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> On 6/21/12 3:27 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> >...

>> You could insert shielding between the detector and the reactor to
>> record the background.
>
> I'm thinking that I want to establish an average background count as
> part of the start-up procedure, then trigger an automatic shutdown
> if the unshielded count exceeds that average by some factor (x10?)
> or by a lesser factor (x5?) through a 30-second period during the
> test.

Radnet should give you an idea of the background level and the amount
of fluctuation to expect:
http://www.epa.gov/radnet/
They have a more thorough dataset collected after the Japanese nuclear
release:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/index.html

> The shielded counter should help to verify (after the fact) that an
> increase in the unshielded count is due to reactor activity rather
> than a transient increase in the background level.
>
> The project was originally intended to do no more than to determine
> if a Ni/H reaction could be initiated, and has (predictably)
> undergone a fair amount of "scope creep" since I'm now trying to
> capture and log everything I can think of that might be useful to
> know at a 1 Hz sampling rate - and am planning testing with
> additional metals (gold, tin, cadmium, silver, and platinum) as
> well.

> Morris Dovey

Try Rubidium and Krypton. If you can quietly slip in an extra proton
when they're not looking you'll have a valuable portable antimatter
source for medical diagnostics.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/21/12 8:36 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> Try Rubidium and Krypton. If you can quietly slip in an extra proton
> when they're not looking you'll have a valuable portable antimatter
> source for medical diagnostics.

Ok - let's tack that on the end. ;-)

At the moment I'll happily settle for a reliable source of heat at
400˚C. I suspect that if I can achieve that one simple objective,
there'll be no shortage of folks interested in improving on my
amateurish effort - and if there are medical applications, I would hope
that places like JHU would follow up with their own projects.

Of course, that "if" is still a mighty big factor. :-)

[mike]

When you "don't have much of a clue" and are trying
to create unknown reactions that have potential to release substantial
energy,
by the time you determine that you need to shut it down, you may already
be dead from radiation or being pinned between flying lead bricks and
the wall. And shutting it off may not stop it.

Certainly, instrumentation is good.
I'd invest in a video camera and a bunker some distance away.

I wonder how many mad scientists have achieved success
in the past, but never lived to tell about it.

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/21/12 9:55 PM, mike wrote:

> When you "don't have much of a clue" and are trying
> to create unknown reactions that have potential to release substantial
> energy,
> by the time you determine that you need to shut it down, you may already
> be dead from radiation or being pinned between flying lead bricks and
> the wall. And shutting it off may not stop it.

Well, I do have /some/ clues. :-)

At
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144793.ece/BINARY/original/Img+6+temp_graph.png

there's a time/temperature plot from one of Rossi's e-cat demonstrations
that leads me to believe that sudden, large changes in temperature (and
therefore pressure) are unlikely, especially since I'm using a lower
wattage heater (200W instead of 300W).

The Ni/H reaction (if it occurs) requires the presence of both nickel
and hydrogen, at some minimum temperature (which would appear to be
about 60˚C) and at some minimum pressure (around 25 bars). Shutdown is
accomplished by opening a solenoid valve to dump all the hydrogen to a
vacuum tank, which will do three things: (1) removes the hydrogen fuel
component from the reactor, (2) drops the pressure to well below
atmospheric, and (3) drops the temperature in the reaction chamber
precipitously. Any one of the three should be enough to stop the
reaction, and I'm willing to accept the risk that all three provide a
certain and immediate stop.

> Certainly, instrumentation is good.

Agreed - and the primary purpose of the sensors is to enable the
microprocessor to detect unexpected behavior and shut the reactor down
in at most a second and a half. By the time I recognize there might be a
problem, the microprocessor will already have completed the shutdown
process.

> I'd invest in a video camera and a bunker some distance away.

I wouldn't really mind that, but don't have those kinds of resources.

> I wonder how many mad scientists have achieved success
> in the past, but never lived to tell about it.

One would be too many - and I'm determined not to be nominated for a
Darwin Award. :-)

[mike]

I'm not convinced that Rossi's stuff is any more than smoke and mirrors.
You just couldn't keep something of this magnitude a secret for this long.
I HOPE it works, cause it would be great for mankind.

I have a rather simplistic view.
I believe that chemical/nuclear/any reactions that can occur
on earth are
currently happening and have been discovered...
OR
they used to happen, but are used up.
And by that, I mean that naturally occurring reagents in proximity
to naturally occurring catalysts and naturally occurring energy
sources have been consumed by natural forces over the last 14 billion years.

In order to create the reaction manually, we have to isolate the required
reagents, isolate the required catalysts, put them in proximity,
apply sufficient energy to get the system over the energy barrier
that's preventing spontaneous reactions and get out more energy than
it took to do all this.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Fusion reactors have been doing this
for decades. Lightning is a very potent naturally occurring energy
source that's been initiating reactions for billions of years.
Doing it with the energy levels available in one's garage
seems like a stretch.

I watch too many science fiction movies. I fear the reaction we seek
might be the same one that initiates a black hole or supernova or
some other mass destruction. That's one
experiment you don't want to work. ;-)
Don't mess with mother nature.

Publish as much detail as you can so we can see it happen here live...

[Tom P]

Beta particles are just free electrons and wouldn't even get out of a
paper bag.
The beta particles that the geiger detector registers are side
products from other ionizing radiation.
The serious stuff you have to worry about from any true nuclear reaction
are neutrons and gamma rays. Although the reactions listed at the LEWR
site don't mention neutron emission, if any nuclear reactions are
occurring at all then you have a very high risk of generating some
neutrons as a result of the inevitable trace contamination of the
materials with impurities. Don't forget that your radiation shield
itself as well as your monitoring instruments could become radioactively
contaminated if any neutrons react with the atoms inside of them. In
other words if the experiment is a success then you have created a major
health hazard for yourself.

[Han]

Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in
news:a4insc...@mid.individual.net:

I focused on beta radiation, because I had most experience with that.

Apart from that, I used a regular lab "geiger counter" to measure the
gamma radiation a family member emitted (therapy). I googled "radiation
counter" and clicked images. My counter was similar to the 3rd from the
left in the top row.

To "kill" a hyperactive thyroid gland, a classical therapy is an
injection of radioactive iodine (I-131, a high energy gamma and beta
emitter with 8 day half life). Spouse is advised to sleep in another
room for a day or so, children are advised to sleep elsewhere for a few
days. I was curious as to the radiation, borrowed a geiger counter from
work, and stood outside the house some 30 feet away. Counter still went
haywire, through windows.

Obviously, a few days of this radiation outweighs the risks of surgery,
as iodine 131 is classical therapy for otherwise untreatable Graves'
disease.

[Han]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in news:js0eu2$e0p$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> I'm thinking that I want to establish an average background count as
> part of the start-up procedure, then trigger an automatic shutdown if
> the unshielded count exceeds that average by some factor (x10?) or by a
> lesser factor (x5?) through a 30-second period during the test.

"Counts" have a statistical fluctuation. If you have a level of counts 10-
fold over average background (averaged over a few seconds, up to a minute),
it is really a very minimal amount. To exclude false positive shutdowns,
I'd start with at least 100-fold over background, averaged over a minute.

[j]

On 6/21/2012 8:40 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 6/21/12 3:03 PM, Han wrote:
>

<snip>

- and am planning testing with additional metals (gold,
> tin, cadmium, silver, and platinum) as well.
>

Surface area is important.The metal is a catalyst and you will need a
large surface area for the reactions.

Jeff

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/22/12 2:45 AM, mike wrote:

> I'm not convinced that Rossi's stuff is any more than smoke and mirrors.
> You just couldn't keep something of this magnitude a secret for this long.
> I HOPE it works, cause it would be great for mankind.

I've seen reports on the web that others have managed to produce the
reaction (but no credible reports that anyone has achieved the same
output levels).

I have some serious reservations about how great this might really be if
the technology saw widespread/general/prolonged use. It might be a good
"bridge" technology to use while we put in place more planet-friendly
technologies.

> I have a rather simplistic view.
> I believe that chemical/nuclear/any reactions that can occur
> on earth are
> currently happening and have been discovered...
> OR
> they used to happen, but are used up.
> And by that, I mean that naturally occurring reagents in proximity
> to naturally occurring catalysts and naturally occurring energy
> sources have been consumed by natural forces over the last 14 billion
> years.

That's not an unreasonable view, but keep in mind that the earth has an
abundant supply of nickel (and other candidate metals) and very little
/free/ hydrogen.

> In order to create the reaction manually, we have to isolate the required
> reagents, isolate the required catalysts, put them in proximity,
> apply sufficient energy to get the system over the energy barrier
> that's preventing spontaneous reactions and get out more energy than
> it took to do all this.
>
> I'm not saying it can't be done. Fusion reactors have been doing this
> for decades. Lightning is a very potent naturally occurring energy
> source that's been initiating reactions for billions of years.
> Doing it with the energy levels available in one's garage
> seems like a stretch.

It does seem like a stretch until you consider that free hydrogen
doesn't remain free very long in our planetary environment. For the most
part, it's been gobbled up to make all this water.

> I watch too many science fiction movies. I fear the reaction we seek
> might be the same one that initiates a black hole or supernova or
> some other mass destruction. That's one
> experiment you don't want to work. ;-)
> Don't mess with mother nature.

Since you enjoy SF, I'll make the suggestion that you also read "Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which isn't SF at all - but connects
(in a twisty kind of way) with all the good SF I've read with a brief
discussion of analysis on page eighty-something. You'll need to read the
entire book for intellectual context and for the concepts to gel, but
when that happens I predict your perceptions of nature will begin to
change in a most remarkable way.

Strange as it might seem, the more I've learned as I've worked on my
solar/alternative energy projects, the more I've come to appreciate how
very generous mother nature can be when we're willing to work with her.

> Publish as much detail as you can so we can see it happen here live...

If there's anything worth seeing, it'll probably be the real-time data
log - and those don't generally look very "live". Even a live video feed
of a successful reactor doing its stuff would be just frame-after-frame
of the same image... :-)

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/

http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey

[Morris Dovey]

The change to average over the past 60 seconds was quick and easy, and
I'll increase the safety thresholds to split the difference - but until
I have some data to work with (translation: "confidence") I'll live with
the false shutdowns, and adjust to suit my level of frustration with
interrupted tests. :-)

[Han]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in

news:js22m4$3gp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

I really do understand the better safe than sorry philosophy. OTOH, many
people live in (relatively) high radiation environments (subways, high
altitudes, frequent air plane flights). Therefore the background
radiation level in your neck of the woods is probably really low.

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/22/12 8:06 AM, j wrote:

> Surface area is important.The metal is a catalyst and you will need a
> large surface area for the reactions.

Yes - Rossi also made that same point about surface area.

I'm less sure about the catalyst aspect - an independent analysis of
some of Rossi's 'used' nickel fuel showed 10% copper (which breaks down
to 7% copper-63 and 3% copper-65) and 11% iron. If that analysis is
correct then it would seem reasonable to conclude that at least some of
the the nickel is actually transmuted rather than just serving as a
catalyst.

That analysis was first reported at

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

(scroll to bottom of article) and as the article points out, there is
clearly more to be learned and understood.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:js20kk$u28$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ...

> It does seem like a stretch until you consider that free hydrogen
> doesn't remain free very long in our planetary environment. For the
> most part, it's been gobbled up to make all this water.

> ...

It's had over a century to react with nickel powder inside closely
monitored industrial apparatus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

And may have done so for all I know. If it has, I wonder if anyone would
have thought to notice that along with the "strongly exothermic"
chemical reaction of interest (catalysed hydrogenation) there may have
also been a parallel/coincident low energy nuclear reaction?

I don't know enough to guess, but wouldn't it be a hoot if there had
been and no one recognized it as such? :-)

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/LENR
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:js286e$hfm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 6/22/12 11:13 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>> ...

> And may have done so for all I know. If it has, I wonder if anyone
> would have thought to notice that along with the "strongly
> exothermic" chemical reaction of interest (catalysed hydrogenation)
> there may have also been a parallel/coincident low energy nuclear
> reaction?
>
> I don't know enough to guess, but wouldn't it be a hoot if there had
> been and no one recognized it as such? :-)

> Morris Dovey

Research chemists are thoroughly trained to notice and record
EVERYTHING, and to expect the unexpected, which if they are lucky will
make them famous.
http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/workbooks/laboratory.html
http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/OrtizLaboratoryManual.pdf

The professors made the point that as one ages the inclination (and
energy) to explore odd things you might have noticed fades, until you
become unlikely to make unexpected discoveries unless you make a
conscious effort to pursue anomalies.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/22/12 12:27 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> Research chemists are thoroughly trained to notice and record
> EVERYTHING, and to expect the unexpected, which if they are lucky will
> make them famous.
> http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/workbooks/laboratory.html
> http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/OrtizLaboratoryManual.pdf

Yuppers. True for most folks in all disciplines who work in research. I
spent seven years working in IBM R&D labs, and some years working in an
assortment of other labs ranging from medical to aerospace, which is
exactly why I suggested the possibility. :-)

It's also true that programmers are thoroughly trained to write bug-free
programs, and that for a good part of my career I traveled from one
Fortune 100 company to another cleaning up the messes that those
thoroughly-trained professionals managed to concoct.

We like to think these folks are all above-average - but in the real
world 50% of them just aren't.

> The professors made the point that as one ages the inclination (and
> energy) to explore odd things you might have noticed fades, until you
> become unlikely to make unexpected discoveries unless you make a
> conscious effort to pursue anomalies.

No argument - although I did notice that different researchers looked
for different particular kinds of anomalies, just as different
programmers seemed to be attuned to different solution strategies.

I've also observed that it isn't at all unusual for a project manager to
tell people to disregard possibly interesting finds because of
schedule/budget constraints. More than one project manager has referred
to keeping his team focused on the department's mission as being "like
herding cats."

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:js2eij$2b6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ...

> I've also observed that it isn't at all unusual for a project
> manager to tell people to disregard possibly interesting finds
> because of schedule/budget constraints. More than one project
> manager has referred to keeping his team focused on the department's
> mission as being "like herding cats."
>
> --
> Morris Dovey

I was sucked into the Army before I could go on to grad school, so I
know of only academic research in Chemistry. I received NSF research
grants and worked in the lab all summer after my freshman, sophomore
and junior years. Then they ended grad school deferments and I spent
the senior year summer in the theatre program, learning to boss an
unwilling set-building crew.

In academic research at least the professors saved up strange findings
for future grad student research projects.

Later I ran R&D labs at MITRE and saw the tighter, more disciplined
focus you described. However some people pursued promising ideas on
their own until they could raise support.
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/gps-modernization/the-origins-gps-part-1-9890?page_id=1

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/22/12 4:55 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> Later I ran R&D labs at MITRE and saw the tighter, more disciplined
> focus you described. However some people pursued promising ideas on
> their own until they could raise support.

At one time I decided to do an informal survey to find out how many of
my lab mates at IBM East Fishkill were pursuing "under the bench"
projects of their own. Everyone who was willing to answer (probably
about a third "took the 5th") said they had one, two, or three projects
they worked on "at lunchtime" - and many of those projects were well
ahead of what was considered the "bleeding edge".

Good memories! :-)

[mike]

On 6/22/2012 11:46 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
snip

>
> We like to think these folks are all above-average - but in the real
> world 50% of them just aren't.
>

And the bar for "average" is set VERY low.

I show people the bell-shaped curve and ask,
"from which part of the curve would you select your
brain surgeon?" Nobody ever picks the middle.

[Tom P]

I-131 decays to Xenon first by emitting a beta particle (ie an electron)
leaving the electron shell of the Xenon atom in an exited state which
decays by emission of gamma rays.
What you are detecting at a distance of 30 feet is the gamma ray radiation.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iodine-131-decay-scheme-simplified.svg

Inside the body the beta particles never get further than a few
millimeters before they interact with body tissue. That is why I-131 is
used for thyroid radiotherapy.

[Han]

Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in

news:a5el5q...@mid.individual.net:

Thanks. I got as far as realizing that there was beta and gamma ray
emission involved, and that I was reading gammas. But the scheme makes
things much more clear to me.

My daughter's case went well. It took a while to get the synthetic
thyroid hormone calibrated to the right level, but now she is on yearly
checkups only.

[z]

Han <nob...@nospam.not> wrote in
news:XnsA07A74B86...@216.151.153.41:

It's amazing how low background can be in certain places. Once we were
using a gieger counter as a true random seed for a hardware RNG and
couldn't get enough hits. Went down to this clock repair shop and the
old guy had a radium dial clock face .. bang.. plenty of randomness :)

[Morris Dovey]

On 6/22/12 2:45 AM, mike wrote:

> Publish as much detail as you can so we can see it happen here live...

Ok - but there will probably be some kind of proportional relationship
between support received and detail given out until I have some solid
test data in hand. Fair's fair. :)

Update:

I wandered over to the metalworking newsgroup to see if I could interest
any of those folks in helping with the hardware (for pay) - but struck
out when someone raised the possibility of a lawsuit if the damn thing
were to blow up. I waited a couple more days, thanked those who had
offered constructive things to think about, sighed, and unsubscribed.

Next stop was a local manufacturing outfit who advertise that they're
able and willing to build prototypes. They've suggested turning the
reaction chamber/containment vessel from 1" 316 stainless rod stock on a
lathe - I'm waiting for their quote and hoping I can afford to give them
the go-ahead.

Meanwhile I've added a web page with some of the (still evolving) source
code for key Arduino control modules - for anyone geekish enough to find
program code interesting. I'll add to it as I have time and feel the
inclination.

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/LENR

Perseids tonight!

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:k062g3$4sk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ...> Next stop was a local manufacturing outfit who advertise that

> they're able and willing to build prototypes. They've suggested
> turning the reaction chamber/containment vessel from 1" 316
> stainless rod stock on a lathe - I'm waiting for their quote and
> hoping I can afford to give them the go-ahead.

Good, glad you found someone close enough to discuss and sketch the
design. In my experience electrical engineers can turn a $30 machining
job into a $3000 one far too easily.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 8/11/12 1:05 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> Good, glad you found someone close enough to discuss and sketch the
> design. In my experience electrical engineers can turn a $30 machining
> job into a $3000 one far too easily.

I scheduled a half-hour meeting for 2:30, and ended up talking with the
GM until 6:30. He seemed to think it was all very exciting - and I'm
hoping it isn't. :-/

He suggested that the weld areas would be the weak points, and that it
would be possible to leave small fillets to improve the strength
characteristics of even the one-piece body. It'd never have occurred to
me to turn this thing.

Nearby is good, but the positive "can do" attitude is great! :-)

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:k06845$j7o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 8/11/12 1:05 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> He suggested that the weld areas would be the weak points, and that
> it would be possible to leave small fillets to improve the strength
> characteristics of even the one-piece body. It'd never have occurred
> to me to turn this thing.
>

> Morris Dovey

I doubt I could have bored the inside and especially radiused the
blind end smoothly enough to eliminate stress risers. Antique
leather-belt-driven lathes like mine don't handle carbide inserts very
well.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 8/11/12 5:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
> news:k06845$j7o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/11/12 1:05 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> He suggested that the weld areas would be the weak points, and that
>> it would be possible to leave small fillets to improve the strength
>> characteristics of even the one-piece body. It'd never have occurred
>> to me to turn this thing.
>

> I doubt I could have bored the inside and especially radiused the
> blind end smoothly enough to eliminate stress risers. Antique
> leather-belt-driven lathes like mine don't handle carbide inserts very
> well.

Not a problem. I haven't seen the shop area yet, but I'd guess from the
looks of the front office area that they'll use a CNC lathe for the job.

I'm kinda hoping to watch. :-)

[Han]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in

news:k06qde$h4$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

I'm still following your progress with baited breath. Pushing tongue
back in ...