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

 

[Tom P]

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.

 

[Han]

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.

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. ]

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).

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...
[ 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

 

[Jim Wilkins]

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

 

[mike]

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.

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. ]

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.

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.

Then measure before you start up the reaction, from in

 

[mike]

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 60ËšC) 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.


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


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

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]

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.

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. ]

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).

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]

On 6/21/12 12:11 PM, Tom P wrote:
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.

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. ]

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).

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.

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]

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.

 

[Han]

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.

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.

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...
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

 

[Jim Wilkins]

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

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...
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."

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

 

[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]

On 6/21/12 12:11 PM, Tom P wrote:
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.

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. ]

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).

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.

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.

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]

On 06/21/2012 10:03 PM, Han wrote:

On 6/21/12 12:11 PM, Tom P wrote:
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.

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.
]

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).



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.

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.

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.sv
g

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.

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.

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...> 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

 

[Jim Wilkins]

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

 

[Han]

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.

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