Conjectures and Questions

  • I have started this thread to provide a place for ideas, possibly untenable ideas, that could be investigated relating to amateur CMNS/LENR/LANR/FPE/Cold Fusion. This thread is meant to motivate experimenters and inspire protocols.

    First conjecture: An aquarium heater can serve as an LENR Testbed.

    Some aquarium heaters use quartz tubing. Could any such heater be converted into a testbed? Perhaps merely to test hydrogen uptake of various materials. Or to investigate material decomposition in heat cycles.

  • Conjecture 2: MILN objects can be repurposed as LENR reactors.

    Could a spark plug insulator be gutted, filled with powders, sealed, and sufficiently heated to imitate the processes of AGP's reactor?

    Could another common ceramic object, manufactured in large numbers (MILN), serve as a reactor body?

  • Conjecture 3: Amateur LENR experiments can be conducted without common temperature measurement tools.

    If you had no thermocouple, no IR thermometer, no temperature sensing system at all, could you calculate the maximum temperature of a given reactor body and contents - knowing their materials, sizes, and shapes - for a given heating wire system?

    Example: 100mm long, 10mm OD, 5mm ID, alumina tube, filled with 1.0g nickel powder and 0.1g LAH, wrapped with 150mm of nichrome type XYZ wire, fed with sufficient power (voltage and amperage measured in real-time during experiment) to reach maximum possible temperature of wire.

    Logic seems to indicate that if there is enough heating wire, and sufficient heating time has been given, then a reactor body will reach a temperature near the maximum of the chosen heating wire.

    Is there a way to look for heat after death *without* a thermocouple or an IR thermometer?

    Reading old books about how experiments were conducted inspired this conjecture.

    Imagine if the reactor continued to glow brightly enough and long enough, whenever heating power was cut, that visual inspection, that the naked eye, appropriately safeguarded by brazing goggles, could discern whether a given reactor system was an example of anomalous heat.

    Such a reactor could be cycled by applying and cutting heating wire power for a very impressive demonstration at very low cost.

    If a control reactor, an empty reactor, a reactor with "inert" contents were simultaneously fed with the same heating wire power supply the demonstration would take on a very interesting perspective indeed.

  • Conjecture 4: A quartz tube can serve as an LENR reactor vessel.

    Can a reactor body, useful for LENR investigation, consist of only a quartz tube? Can metal powder prevent tube failure by absorbing hydrogen and preventing high pressure inside the tube?

    Can an experiment show whether alumina is required in an AGP-like reactor?

    Can common insulation like fiberglass batting wrapped around a quartz tube conserve enough heat inside the tube to allow LENR exploration?

  • Conjecture 5: A steel tube filled with nickel powder can help analyze the consequences of hydride decomposition inside an LENR reactor.

    Can the materials used by A.G. Parkhomov be placed in a metallic tube and heated to investigate the pressures which might be seen inside the alumina tube of an AGP-like system?

    Imagine a short common steel pipe with two pipe caps fitted with an inexpensive pressure gauge heated by torch.

    • Official Post

    today I read something about quartz that melt and is leaking H2 at some not so huge temperature... have to check. Alumina is better but have to be made sealed.
    Metal also leaks then collapse at quite low temperature.

    a spark plug looks a good idea, because it is made for high temperature and violent pressure, but the metal part may not be sealed enough for H2. lool also at Diesel heating plugs.

    one technique to make very good calorimetry, as di McKubre and as someone else did recently and was cheered for it is to , is to maintain temperature constant by providing heat depending on a control loop.
    The measure of temperature does not need to be exact, but just stable.

    for example it to maintain a reactor at 800C to put 800W, and then suddenly you only need 700W, all other parameters equal (eg outside temp, convection...) then you know 100W appeared somewhere.
    you can also measure the impact of other parameters like room temperature or wind or box opening to answer skeptic attacks.
    This is much used in many metrology context, like in MEMS sensors.
    To measure power, you can use (recording) wattmeter, but also a stabilized current or stabilized voltage supply with simple (recording) voltmeter/ammeter which average. add some HF filters matching what you stabilize to please the skeptics, or simply HF meter. if you coordinate that with a temperature regulation, you can have a very solid bench on the electric side.

    then you will have to make the exit side of the calorimetry bullet proof, like with stabilized water bath, or stabilized room temperature.

    look at how did F&P and McKubre, and just think more garage.

    I imagine :

    a regulated DC current stabilized according to a PID controller trying to stabilize temperature according to some temperature sensor (even if it is not a TC, but a diode or a NTP, calibrated with a thermometer).

    put a big ceramic pot inside a big air, oil or water tank with temperature stabilized and mixing with fan. problem is to close the top. one possibility is to put a transparent but insulated top that is conducting heal much less than the cooled pot. possibility is also a long narrow insulated neck (see F&P experiment) with some lens to see inside and bloc heat leaks.
    the bottom of the pot should be covered with ceramic pebbles (and foam?) to protect the pot from thermal shock

    in a way it looks like a big version of using a bottle of wine inside a basin of cool water, with just a telescope to look inside (beware of burns).
    by the way a bottle have the good size for a sparkplug experiment...
    I was imagining a parkhomov size...

    problems is to choose the fluid (need computation). Air accept higher temp but is harder to stabilize.

    one smart idea maybe to use stabilized boiling water, instead of a thermostated bath (and why not measure mass losses like Parkhomov)

    you may even put a stirrer inside the central pot, or design the shape (think of using cigarette/wood smoke to see air convection) so that like F&P cell it is self stirring. it will make the calorimeter have a better bandwidth.

    after that, it seems more complicated to avoid H2 leaks and explosions...

    ask Michael McKubre and others experts. you life is in the balance by the way.

    Just my two cents, I was just inspired by F&P, McKubre, Parkhomov, and by MEMS.

  • today I read something about quartz that melt and is leaking H2 at some not so huge temperature... have to check. Alumina is better but have to be made sealed.
    Metal also leaks then collapse at quite low temperature.

    I seek experiments that definitively answer questions. Therefore, in the context of hydrogen leakage, a measurement is required.

    Inexpensive sensors which are used with Arduinos can detect hydrogen leaks. See MQ8 at the link.

    It is one thing to suppose that a system acts a certain way. It is a completely different thing to perform an experiment to substantiate the system's behavior.

    To make the dream of LENR real requires action in the real world. That action is well thought out experiments.

    See here for some melting points of materials we are discussing. I quote the page in part below:

    Aluminum 660c 1220f
    Nickel 1453c 2647f
    Carbon Steel 1540c 2600f

    Clearly a steel tube can serve to investigate Hydride pressures during decomposition. As Brian Ahern mentioned, quartz is a marginal material, though it may be useful. It is possibly too early to judge its utility.

    Please understand that my aim is to clarify, and accept my apologies if this seems to attack. We are all on the same team.

    As Alexander Parkhomov has stated, it is notable that he detected no hydrogen leakage, and that his reactor stayed intact - it did not burst.


  • Conjecture 6: Nichrome heating wire fails when restricted under a coating of ceramic paste. If the wire is wrapped at a low enough tension and allowed to expand and contract without pulling against itself, then the wire will fail less often.

    To explore heating wire failure two reactors can be compared in real-world heat cycles to test the conjecture.

    AGP has noted in his most recent report, the "second report", that hotspots are slowing development - shortening experimental run times. Longer run times are critical to progress and to short-term "validation". In a recent 2 hour video Alexander showed broken reactors - failed due to hotspots.

    If you make a comparison between free-to-move and under-cement wire please report it to where other information useful to experimenters can be found.

  • Conjecture 7: Since reactant compounds in AGP-like reactors decompose to elements, these elements can be placed inside a reactor using a wide variety of compounds resulting in LENR effects.

    Experiments need doing to determine which compounds might demonstrate LENR. Since aluminum, alumina, hydrogen, lithium, and nickel reside in AGP's testbed it makes sense to investigate compounds which are constituted of the same elements - avoiding other elements. While the ratios of elements will vary with different compounds, nevertheless much might be learned from a series of experiments involving the listed elements.

    Poster to vortex-l mailing list, Axil Axil, advocates sodium and potassium as compliments to nickel in AGP-like reactor experiments. I am unaware of any experiments following his advice - as yet. He postulates that nanoparticles can form inside a reactor and that this formation is key to success.

  • Conjecture 8: Temperature is more important than pressure in AGP-like reactors.
    Conjecture 9: Pressure is more important in AGP-like reactors.

    These two may seem confusing. I am trying here to underline that temperature and pressure influence each other but are separate. Therefore, by sizing the reactor vessel and the reactor contents, experiments might demonstrate that lower pressures at operating temperatures work just as well as higher pressures at operating temperatures.

    In other words, 1200C at 100 bar might prove workable and easier than 1200C at 300 bar.

    Conjecture 9 is what we, at this juncture, hope against. A requirement for both high pressure and high temperature makes engineering more daunting.

  • A great series of ideas Nickec. I would caution that carbon steel above rather modest temperatures becomes quite weak. Just a recollection that steel framed buildings often have far poorer fire time ratings than timber framed buildings. The transition to soft is well below 800 degrees C.

    But there are plenty of other materials that retain strength at "orange" heat. Nichrome itself may well be such a material. For inexpensive candidate materials one can look at exhaust system components for performance autos. I recall that some 400 series stainless steels are used in performance headers by Honda for example, although they don't say that is what it is... seeing an exhaust installer completely fail to drill through it with a premium bit was enough to convince me that "work hardening" typical of stainless steels was present.

  • Conjecture 10: Inexpensive gas sensors coupled with an Arduino can determine if hydrogen is leaking from a reactor.

    Searching ebay turns up MQ-8 gas sensors. About $2 USD.

    The MQ-8 detects hydrogen at parts per million levels.

    To check my thinking I posted to where one reader replied with a calculation. Summary: in a 36 liter container 10 milliliters of hydrogen is needed to reach 300 PPM.

    Clearly we have very little hydrogen generated when 0.10 grams of Lithium Aluminum Hydride is heated. Yet it may be possible to detect if it is trapped in a simple conical hood above the reactor. The hope is that it will linger long enough under the hood to exceed the sensor threshold.

    How to do it?

    Find additional official Arduino MQ help here. Note the need for a burn-in procedure before using.

  • It's good to read back over Nickec's list of conjectures... nice continuity of focus.

    I checked that calculation, 10 ml H2 in 36000 ml air reaches 277 ppm.

    I don't know if someone else has done the calculations for LiAlH4
    before on the Forum. But here are mine with a modest amount of double checking:

    LiAlH4 has a molecular weight of 37.954 (give or take a little if the Li is off of the 6.94 atomic wt. by isotopic variation).

    100 mg = 0.1 g so the moles of LiAlH4 there are 0.1 g / 37.954 g/mole = 0.002635 moles of LiAlH4

    Since each LiAlH4 mole could conceivably release two moles of H2, we double the moles above to get 0.00527 moles H2

    The Ideal Gas Law says one mole of any gas at STP occupies 22.4 liters. While idealized, it is very close to reality. So:

    0.00527 moles X 22.4 liters/mole = 0.118 liters H2, or 118 mL

    Taking that over 36000 mL as at the beginning, or 118/36000 = 0.003277... or 3278 ppm

  • [I wish there were a "Safety folder" for everything related to safety].

    My last post here landed at something over 3000 ppm for H2 in 36 liters of air from 110 mg of LiAlH4.

    The flammability limits for H2 in air are anything between 4% and 75%.

    The detonation limits are 18.3% to 59% [all 4 numbers are "volume %"]

    So by either criterion the level of hydrogen at a little over 0.3% (3000+ ppm) is not particularly risky in and of itself. I would not want to encourage
    any experimenters to get reckless.

    The H2 detector recently posted by Nickec, seems like an affordable and easily used addition to any research setting doing hydrogen work.