planning stage for a replication

    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?

    @WishfulThinking.null
    A few ways to measure the temperatures, but an easy one is to use a monochrome camera to image the tube(s) with a diffraction grating in the optical path. this will give you a coarse spectra which can give you a very good temperature estimate. Calibration (Qe response of the camera to wavelength) can be done using sunlight (which is very very well calibrated) or other well known hot sources.
    In the 1000 to 1200C temperature range, the slope of the spectra between 700 nm and 1000 nm would be an accurate measurement.

    http://www.hexoloy.com/high-temperature-ceramics


    http://www.hexoloy.com/hexoloy-sic-physical-properties


    I have found that a number of companies seem to sell hexoloy branded products. A real time-saver would be phoning several of them and describing the challenge in detail - the pressures, the temperatures, the contents. With some luck you might find an engineer who has the material science knowledge necessary to give good advice. No need to share what the true goal of the experiment is - unless you sense that might be helpful.


    I have looked at sapphire tubes and other materials, yet because substitutions complicate comparisons with Parkhomov I have not invested in the many possible alternatives. This is not meant to dissuade you. It may prove out that interesting new things are learned from varying apparatus designs.

    Just a thought about the interaction of hydrogen with SiC. If the conditions are right in pressure and temperature and the atmosphere is rich in H or H2, then one might expect the formation of silane (SiH4) and methane (CH4). Anyway, easy to test this concern. Take SiC powder, weigh it, place in a reaction vessel of say monel metal, heat it at several relevant temperatures with hydrogen for varying lengths of time. Weigh the residual solid SiC for loss of mass. Gas Chromatography for methane and silane could follow on to confirm yes or no to this question of the suitability of Hexoloy. There are work arounds to passivate the SiC surfaces, or so I imagine, but that might be in another discussion.

    Longview. which would be your choice for temperature < 1200C ? The choices would be


    - Graphite -> high temperature, but low strength
    - Stainless Steel -> 1400C, I need to check the strength as a function of temperature
    - SiC
    - Al2O3
    - copper tungsten
    - Titanium
    - TUNGSTEN CARBIDE


    They are all pretty easy to obtain.

    I am not a materials scientist by any means, but I have paid some attention to the field over the years. Here are some thoughts in random order regarding some of your choices above, and a couple of others that come to my mind. Please see my advice at the end. Minimize explosion risks, please. Very small is particularly beautiful when it comes to unexpectedly energetic exothermic reactions!


    I would have to research your material choices more deeply to be certain, but for some and off the top we are looking for strength and chemical inertness in addition to the high temperature tolerance. The driven rotors of gas turbine engines are often exotic ceramic and metal composites with internal cooling passages. Deposition of diamond-like coatings, pyrolytic graphite, alundum, borazon onto the inner surface of whatever the strength temperature choice might be, could provide enough of a chemical barrier. I suspect it is wise to consider redox chemistry for at least the inner coating, that is if the environment is reducing (as it may be in some Widom Larson inspired systems) then metals that don't form hydrides might be good. If the environment is instead electron poor, then the natural choices are likely oxides since they are already terminally oxidized. To me, these are what we often think of as ceramics. Recall Corning Corporation's ceramic cookware, if my recollection is correct it is essentially lithium aluminum silicate (spodumene?).... it was first used as missile nose cones... has a name that seems to be censored as a trademark here. In the mid- to late 1950s before being marketed for cooking... very high melting point and thermal ruggedness against fracture with sudden temperature changes. For a bit of background on this Corning material see: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7891#1


    Ceramic coatings are used on exhaust systems today, and are readily available, perhaps even to do-it-yourself applicators. I believe some may well be rated to orange heat, but perhaps not to 1400 C. They can be extraordinarily well bonded to metallic substrates.
    I liked Nickec's spark plug insulator idea. Interestingly, I understand those ceramics are also chosen for dielectric properties that essentially allow the pulse front to pass with a sharp front edge to the tip. That cannot hurt, and might help in "superwave" systems and other approaches where the pulse shape may well be considered important --- that is by sharp charge delivery to the target atoms, nuclei, protons and electrons, such particles might be "shocked" into femtometer distance, and hence fusion proximity. And if you think this is implausible, recall that some models suggest "heavy electrons" may result from relative velocities a substantial fraction of c. I would not let our beloved pioneer Peter Hagelstein's J of CMNS debunking of heavy electrons in Widom-Larson be taken as the complete story-- but even if it is there still at least one good way to create heavy electrons with no reliance on relativity (IMHO).


    Titanium is very reactive chemically, but is generally protected by its extremely tough oxide, TiO2 or rutile. Ti metal itself is tough and makes good lightweight exhaust systems. The cost is usually quite prohibitive except in racecars. Titanium is difficult to machine, often requires a inert gas glove box for good welding. But on the other hand tubular preforms are readily cut from stock tubing and with suitable endplates and external compression rods a really good chamber could be fashioned without any welding or Ti thread cutting. Just what to use at the endplate lands for gasketing? Surely something good exists, perhaps in exhaust manifold gasketing materials for the auto industry. The TiO2 must be able to resist moderately strong reducing atmospheres since racing engines are nearly always run "rich" and hence their exhaust is hot and reductive... that is electron rich. Titanium appears to be supplying its own internal ceramic coating of rutile in may applications such as nautical hardware. In spite of the tolerance for hot reducing atmospheres we must remember that titanium has high H2 storage capacity and itself has been the subject of F-P like CF experimentation (If I recall correctly). Look at the Titanium monograph in the Merck Index for an idea of other specific reactivities of Ti... at elevated temperatures they are considerable.


    I must assume that "copper tungsten" is a bronze. Sounds like an interesting alloy, but I don't know anything about it at this point. Monel is typically 75% nickel and 25% copper. It is exceedingly tough and corrosion resistant but the thermal tolerance may not be high enough for gas / powder LENR work (?).


    Besides Al2O3, I would suggest attention to zirconia. These are extremely strong ceramics, now used for tooth crowns. It is very resistant chemically as well, at least at the ranges of mouth pH and in the presence of food acids. Further it is clearly very non-porous since it does not stain as ordinarily tooth enamel and conventional porcelains. Look at zirconium carbide used for tool bits, its melting point is over 3500 C. Or zirconium nitride at 2980 C mp. Or Zirconium oxide 2715 C mp. Zirconium hydrides do exist, and while not volatile, can well be expected to weaken or alter the structural characteristics of the parent zirconial refractory. I'm not recommending beryllia even be considered. Great properties but even greater toxicity to those breathing berylliated dusts.


    It appears, for example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal_hydride, that transition metals generally form hydrides. This might be good for CF / LENR, but not so good for say a runaway and explosive outcome--- "proving" CF while doing a lot of damage. BE CAREFUL. Think widely of the possible outcomes. Pay attention to Mitchell Swartz' tiny experiments in the form of Phusors / Nanors. This makes a runaway self limiting and makes the experiment cheap to build and replicate as well.

    Just a word to the wise about LiAlH4 ordering. Many years ago, an acquaintance related to me that he was investigated by some State or Federal enforcement agency for ordering said hydride, or perhaps it was sodium borohydride. Anyway, for some reason at that time around 1970 [and perhaps to this day] orders of such reductants were considered suspect enough to look into. If I recall correctly, the ultimate accusation was that he had not licensed his research facility as a bona fide "laboratory". Typically any application for "Doing Business As" or other bureaucratic business registration will pass by other regulators within and above that particular jurisdiction. Wage and Hour, health and safety, taxation, zoning, local business registration and other ordinances can all be issues to trip up the garage entrepreneur scientist. Any online source of suspect materials may very well be an investigative front operation itself. Be aware of what other things and processes beside LENR any particular reagent might be used for. This may require some diligent searching, of course.

    • Official Post

    One idea could be to write a logbook of all research activities, of chemical orders, delivery, consumptions, losses, and keep evidences for checking, so that said authority can check the regular usage of chemicals.


    I don't feel it can satisfy any regulators if a law is infringed, but at least it can prevent SWAT to be called, and it can make a judge more indulgent.


    having good log books, chemicals consumptions books, and keeping samples, is good scientist practice.
    some question may be answered laters simply looking into books or old samples.


    I don't know the precise lab procedures , can someone with laboratory experience tell us what are the common best practices ?

    And, I should mention: the very act of online searching for those other applications can easily trigger unwarranted regulatory interest. Remember the VP with bad firearms skills, his "Total Information Awareness" program, [not his other frequent TIA, transient ischemic attack]... it is surely more "total" today, if only by bureaucratic and technological evolution.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.