planning stage for a replication

  • I am pretty quickly putting together the pieces to do a simple replication. I would like the feedback from this forum on roadblocks, dangers, suggestions.


    Design is:


    - Multiple quartz/silica tubes with in ID of 2 mm, OD or 5 mm.


    2 tubes are filled with pure nickel (3 micron power).
    2 tubes are filled with a mix of TiH3 (titanium Hydride) and Ni 3 microns.


    The tubes are sealed with a high temperature (2000 F maximum temperature).


    The heating is done by direct joule heating of the power by providing direct current with two electrodes reaching across the seal. (think arc furnace).


    The tubes can run in parallel and share the power source.


    The temperature is measured with 3 cmos monochrome cameras with 3 bandpass filters to fit a black body.


    The entire setup is in a polycarbonate enclosure.


    So questions for the group:


    Did anybody consider microwave heating ? simple and consistent for differential tests.
    Any opinion on the need for Lithium ? I do plan for the simplest initial test with just the Ni + H
    Would the demonstration of a reproducible higher temperature for the Ni + H compared to pure Ni be a meaningful test?
    How long does a test really has to last?
    Does vacuum or other neutral gas purging needed?

  • I have a number of questions, if you will indulge me, Benoit?


    What are the sources of your tubes and what are the wall thicknesses?


    How are the tubes sealed?


    How thick is the polycarbonate? Is the "box" vented?


    What material comprises the electrodes?


    I note that we have a mutual interest, telescope construction. Did this inspire your temperature measurement approach?

  • for the sealing, I do plan to use :


    Mcmaster
    http://www.mcmaster.com/#high-temperature-glue/=vt7x1p
    They do have a single part glue which can hold to 4000F (!) in the High-Temperature Adhesives.
    Polycarbonate is 0.5 inch thickness, this is basically just a safety box if I overpressure.
    The quartz tubing


    http://www.technicalglass.com/…/fused_quartz_tubing.html


    Electrode are still a question. They do need to be a very good conductor obviously so that most of the restive heating takes place in the Ni.


    Copper is tempting but is borderline for these temperatures, I do need to check how the resistance of different metal will change with temperature.


    Astronomy -> yes, astronomers are good at figuring out the temperature and other aspects of a physical process as long as they can get the photons strait from the reaction, not hidden under layers of heating elements and other insulation.

  • The 4.1x10 and the 6x13 look to be among the stoutest.


    Will the locus of heat then lie between the electrodes with the nickel lying between the electrodes? Does this mean two seals? One at each end of the open tubes? I apologize if this seems already clearly outlined. It is easy to misinterpret text.


    You have likely heard of the phrase "Belt and Suspenders". I advocate a fire control of expedient design: a bagful of sand atop a hinged plank above the experiment. Easily rigged to be quickly deployed - dumped on the "reaction".


    I also advocate baby steps: gradual pressure test of trial seals; gradual increase of "reactants" - particularly hydrides. The advantage of baby steps is you fall from a lower height. Careful and patient increase of temperature seems prudent and too slow is NOT possible.


    The temperatures and pressures involved lie far beyond everyday life experiences. The habits formed from life can thus greatly endanger any experimenter. While I feel you know this, I feel it cannot be overstated. Our frail and limited human senses easily fall short when science strains to advance.

  • yes, it will need two seals, but then the tubes will be arbitrarily longer than the active area, which means that the plug+electrode section could be 5 inches on both side for a 1 inch active area.


    Yes, going slowly, I do not have a good idea of the actual pressure this will produce and a big sand bag is a good advice (also keeping distance from the experiment).


    The titanium hydride is, I think nice, since it is stable to water and air below 500F, way less worrisome that the LiAlH4


    -- benoit

  • thanks-what do you wish to tell?
    TiH3 is a great idea- despite the fact that it was so much about Li-6
    serving as source of neutrons for Ni; who knows what will Ti do
    Take care - as you perhaps know Piantelli has verified his process with many
    transition metals not only nickel and with Ti he has obtained stronger radioactivity. Just a possibility.
    If I write about you- you want to stay anonymous.
    Wish you great success,


    Peter

  • I can be public Peter. this experiment is so outside of my normal work that I do not have any issue with it.


    I guess I better have some radiation monitoring added up the setup, do you have a reference to the Piantelli paper?


    If I do get a negative result, I will add Li-6, but that's way down the road.


    -- benoti

  • Yes, some simple radioactivity measurement would be welcome, I thinkSo should I write about "Benoit" who works with quartz tubes and titanium hydride instead
    of LiAlH4 in the orienatation, explorations stage? Is this comme il faut?
    peter

  • I like a lot of the ideas you have for your test. I would add a pair of thermocouples to your polycarb enclosure. One on the inside and one on the outside wall surfaces. Put them roughly opposite the center of your quartz tube. When you run your calibrations see if the plot of delta T across the poly wall vs input power is linear. If so you might have a rough conduction calorimeter to work with.


    If you could make your polycarb enclosure a tube with insulated ends with the quartz tube on the centerline and centered longitudinally the symmetry should help with accuracy.


    Here is a link to a paper we wrote for MFMP on a numerical simulation of this concept
    http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…propose-a-new-calorimeter


    Good luck. Look forward to hearing about your results.

  • For an arc you need some level of vacuum or a very high voltage (about 1000V/mm at normal air pressure). It helps when the nickel is evenly spread over the full length of the tube. I am not sure how good you can control this HV source. In case of an arc you need very short response times and no capacitors at the output of your source.I have proposed using a microwave for heating elsewhere, but I have no idea how effective that is with nickel powder. Besides that, it is not easy to control the microwave output other than by on-off. On the other hand it might enhance LENR.Maybe it is easier to use an internal molybdenium heating wire?

  • Benoit, I'm currently planning a microwave heated replication attempt. I've been working for months attempting to replicate the Peery/Ahmad results of microwave heating in a hydrogen atmosphere without much success. I'm now going to attempt a Parkhomov style reactor inside my microwave reactor to see if the increased pressure possible in the Parkhomov style improves my results. My reactor can vary microwave energy smoothly from ~200-~1200W and is heavily armored. The main thing I've been lacking is a chemical source for hydrogen. LiAlH4 is pretty much impossible to get unless you are an institution. Your suggestion for TiH2 is an excellent and welcome one.

  • @wishfulThinking
    one thing you should consider is the numerous experiments where RF and magnetic field have helped


    recent paper by ENEA
    http://www.enea.it/it/produzio…on-and-anomalous-heat.pdf

    Quote

    Two coils, producing both a short period magnetic pulse (in the order of a Tesla) and an acoustic shock wave (due to the magnetic pulse), are outside the cell.


    this seems related to previous work of Dennis Letts
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…etic-Triggering-2011-pdf/


    few articles there
    RF detection and anomalous heat production during electrochemical loading of deuterium in palladium


    a recent from navy NRL in Currentscience...

  • Thank you all for the input. I would think that at this point, no lithium in the reaction will be my first step and ramp up the temperature and pressure up to the limit of the test setup. Then in the future, Lithium and maybe other excitation mechanisms (magnetic and/or RF).


    I am second guessing my initial choice of using a quartz/silica tube, I did underestimate the potential pressure and also do now think that at temperatures sufficient for a potential reaction, the emission of the silica tube will anyway hide the reaction itself, so maybe back to stainless steel or similar ?


    Is there a good estimate of the real world pressure reached in the current experiments, Alumina tubes do not seem to have that much tensile strength from what I do read (at least compared to stainless steel).


    Any comment on atomic hydrogen vs. H2 molecule. I remember reading that high voltage discharges were the standard way to dissociate hydrogen. Is temperature (~1000C) enough for at least a small number of dissociation or is the critical temperature a steep cliff?

  • Alain, thank you for the information. I'm hopeful that the 2.4 GHz will have a stimulative effect on the reaction, although it is obviously well below the THz that was observed.
    Nickec, I haven't found LiAlH4 on ebay yet, but I'll keep looking. I did manage to purchase Titanium Hydride and Lithium Hydroxide. I will try those until I can find a supplier for LiAlH4.
    Condensed, I'm approaching this assuming that I don't want the tube to absorb the energy. I believe I want the nickel to absorb the energy and the tube is merely to contain the pressure. That is why I plan to start with alumina since it is microwave transparent (until it gets really hot). It's possible that you are right and heating the tube is more effective. At this point we're all just going on hunches, but with so many people trying out there someone is bound to figure something out.

  • Alain, I'm still contemplating how to do calorimetry. There is no doubt it is going to be tricky. You have power losses in the high voltage power supply to the magnetron and then power losses in the magnetron itself. The Parkhomov/Rossi tube will likely absorb the RF variably with temperature, so knowing how much energy you are putting into the system is tricky.


    Initially I think I will load a tube with everything but the hydrogen source and measure the reactor waveguide (which is basically a steel pipe) external temperature rise vs. time. I will then do the same measurement with a hydrogen loaded tube and compare results. If that shows promise I can submerge everything but the magnetron and power supply in water and do boil off measurements. Ideally I would extend the calorimetry box to include the magnetron and high voltage supply, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. Suggestions are welcome.

  • @wishfulThinking, how about have two tubes at the same time and check if there is any difference of temperature for the dummy and active ? Maybe the magnetron heating has some un-evenness which would prevent using a simple differential test ?
    What are the dimensions of the heating area in your setup, I was thinking that a simple oven going at 1000C +. could be a good way to get multiple reactors going at the same time to do some comparison of active/inactive mixes.

  • @bschill, that is a good idea as long as I can devise a way to measure the temperature of each tube while it is in the heating area. The heating area consists of a steel pipe, 24" long by 3" diameter so there is room for multiple tubes.


    It would be interesting to see if the effect can be reproduced in an oven/kiln or if there is some interaction between the heating wires and the nickel powder mix that is required. Brillouin seems to be able to create an effect by using electromagnetic stimulation without chemical catalyst (other than nickel and hydrogen as far as I understand). Do you plan to use DC for your direct heating or are you going to try AC stimulation?