me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

Quote from Longview

The reactions I mention are quite possibly present at some level in any lithium-containing LENR experiment-- regardless of the theory they are presumed to be built under. Watch for dust, fumes, "sweet tastes" or sweet smell -- diagnostic of a couple of bad metals, including beryllium. Note that BeO, the white solid oxide, even though very chemically inert, is quite insoluble in water and most other common solvents, BeO is perhaps even more toxic than Be metal. Inhalation of any form of either is to be absolutely avoided...

I purchased AlLiH4 from the net, recieved a sealed plastic bag of white powder. (50g) I have now placed it in a glas jar, tighly locked with pipe tape on the thread to secure air tightness. But when I handled the bag, I sensed a strong odouor, a bit on the sweet side.

What is your take on how LiAlH4 should smell like? Or could I have recieved something else? One never knows when buying from the net, receiving unmarked small plastic bags ...

Rest assure - as I have consulted with a lab chemist with more than 40 years of experience of work with LiAlH4 in lab environments - I will handle the compund and any fine powdered metals, in a dried, vaccum pumped, then Nitrogen flooded (slightly lower than 1bar), glovebox (DIY). Further, I will import needed chemicals, from distributers for which full documentation is readliy available henceforth.

Your caution goes to the sintered innards of the reactor as well. At any rate, I guess it will suffice to employ a face mask and quickly bag the contents (airthigt jars) for further analysis or storage?

Sorry, i have not to my knowledge smelled LiAlH4. Your plans are good, FreeThinker.

I would substitute argon for N2, just to be a bit safer. Ar is quite reasonably priced. As I understand it, when they liquify air it is a fairly early condensate and is nearly 1% of dry air. I suspect nitrogen might be expected to react, especially in the presence of catalysts, to form ammonia with hydride ions from LiAlH4 (that is just a guess, I have not looked at the thermodynamics).

At your local university library you might find :
Gaylord, N.G., J. Chem. Educ., "Reduction with Complex Metal Hydrides" 1957, 34 (8), p 367ff
DOI: 10.1021/ed034p367
Publication Date: August 1957
That article has a comprehensive, though likely outdated, listing of the many, many types of reductions
LiAlH4 can accomplish. It also reviews several other metal hydrides and their characterisitcs.

While nitrogen gas is not mentioned specifically, in the LiAlH4 listings given there is such a broad array of ntrogen compounds given, where
nitrogen is in many differnt oxidation states--- short of complete reduction to NH3, all are claimed to be reduced by LiAlH4--- my conclusion is definitely
use argon-- although "Fusionist" here, a retired spectroscopist aka OEL and GAR, would probably advise against Ar, since it can interfere with at least
his own observed and apparently well over unity reactions involving hydrogen with NiO on FiberFrax above 830 C-- apparently helium was OK as a diluent,
but Ar was not.

By all means possible, avoid any moisture, as I'm sure you know.

Quote from Longview

At your local university library you might find :
Gaylord, N.G., J. Chem. Educ., "Reduction with Complex Metal Hydrides" 1957, 34 (8), p 367ff
DOI: 10.1021/ed034p367
Publication Date: August 1957

By all means possible, avoid any moisture, as I'm sure you know.

Thanks for that ref, will make an effort finding it.

Argon was my first choice when looking into the problem and tried to lay down a path to go. However, the analytical chemist I mentioned earlier, whom has an extensive experience in the field, did most, if not all, his work related to LiAlH4 in pharmaceutical industry using N2.

As I am now committed investment-wise to N2, I will go with it. I guess it will have to be a matter of trial and error, and be sure to err on the safe side and not so it goes very wrong. If there are problems I will revise and go for argon. My understanding of He is that it is very difficult to contain, so opt to not use that.

Further, the fuel loading will be done in StainlessSteel tubes, the pressure being almost 1 bar, same as ambient. When loading the reactor the tube will be vented, carefully, (holes opened that will allow the hydrogen escape from the SS tube when the reactor is heated) before being inserted into the tube reactor. This means that the Argon would not be a part of the running reactor core, apart from quantities possibly adsorbed (likely very small amounts; how?) by the fuel or the inside of the SS tube, Thus Argon to me does not seem to be a problem.

Regarding the moisture. Yes. my DIY glovebox (not complete yet) will have drying materials such as Al2O3 and Bentonite at the bottom of the box, and I will make effort in determining the level of moist inside using a meter.

I appreciate your methodical approach, FreeThinker. If the experienced
chemist always used N2, then it must be OK, under those conditions at
least. As the hydrogen begins to evolve it will purge out most other
gases, or so I think. If you are going with SS, you might instead consider Inconel
of one number or another. See the article at our "Never to be trusted for
controversial issues" online encyclopedia.

Here is another
little hint I see in the article I cited (I don't own the source, but
access to a modest number of articles comes with my ACS membership, I
don't want to cloud that so I am just quoting here-- I myself normally
just go to a major U library to get such items.)

"
LiAlH₄ reacts vigorously with water with the evolution
of hydrogen:

LiAlH₄ + 4H20 --> 4H₂ + LiOH + AI(OH)₃

This reaction is used as a basis for the analysis of LiAlH₄
as well as for water analysis." [end quote]

So, you can quite readily assay your own LiAlH4,: cautiously react with water in a system where the evolved gas
bubbles into a small inverted water filled graduated cylinder where you can see the water displaced and hence
read the approximate volume of gas-- works fairly well as long as the water pressure is close to atmospheric pressure.

{Warning double check all my off the top of the head figures, which are guidance and examples only]

So in practical detail, weigh a modest sample of your presumed LiAlH4, using the molecular weight
you can calculate millimoles to be reacted. For each millimole of solid tested
you should evolve 4 millimoles of H2 gas (as above). 22.4 milliliters of gas would be one millimole of gas at
STP. One thousandth of a mole (about 38.0 mg. of LiAlH4) or 1 millimoles should evolve on the order of 4 X 22.4 =
89.6 mls of H2.

You could at least test the flammability of such modest quantity of hydrogen, simply take the graduate, still inverted
since as you know the H2 is very lightweight, then cautiously invert near a flame, far from any other flammable items and with
the safety googles on, gloves etc. Remember the Hindenberg, almost all the flame rose rapidly upward.... one reason a fair number of
people survived, we are told.

If you are cautious and technically adept you can slowly burn
that H2 which should completely disappear leaving only
H2O. That complete transformation back will verify
that you have generated hydrogen and the weight of the
condensed water can be used to deduce the millimoles of water,
and hence double check your H2 production and hence the
quality of the LiAlH4.

But be very careful, hydrogen handling labs have very special rooms for the purpose. Essentially it
is much better for the amateur to do any hydrogen work in an open metal shed-- never indoors.
If you think you are likely to evolve a lot of hydrogen make sure the ventilation is good, and
keep in mind the type of motor on the fan or hood or whatever. Spark proof, explosion proof,
antistatic discharge and so on. MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration in USA) rated for "explosive
atmospheres" is the minimum mandatory standard for lanterns, lamps, motors, switches and so on.

I would assume AR and now [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have met all those standards, but who knows... perhaps not the State
of Florida, where some of the work is now done. Such regulatory hurdles may have been the reason
the Lipinski duo did nearly all their work in US government accelerator labs.

In the previous runs, when i display the "LENR Live Camera 1 minute refresh", it do not automatic update, I must reload the page.

ME365,

PArkhomov attributes the success of his tests to the use of a chopped sine wave and the more complex harmonics that it creates. Do you plan on using such a signal?

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…who-are-also-replicating/

Thanks for your hard work on this.

Replicators:

If you are doing a "replication" isn't it important to have all the parameters as close as possible to those in the experiment being replicated?

I have seen very little discussion of the replication details in the respect of "EM" fields.

Since the essence of the Parkhomov implementation may not to be dependent on anything other than heat, as I have mentioned before, the replication experiments can be constructed quite easily to use the EM character as sets of variables. Straight DC, straight AC, half wave AC, rectified double half AC, chopped AC, and chopped DC (unipoloar and bipolar, square waves) can all be readily tested with a single reactor layout. By "counter coiling" which is a slightly different coil layout, one can easily see if magnetism itself is likely to be a variable or not. In that situation there would be two strands wound in parallel, not touching, and the counter coil setup is simply implemented by series or counter parallel terminations of the two co-wound coils.

It would be possible to have a magnetic field that is "chopped", keeping in mind the inherent inductance of the coil(s) and perhaps even the magnetic permeability of the core contents (Nickel is one of few elements that is ferromagnetic at ordinary temperature) can skew the rise time. Looking at electrostatic variables; much more rapid rise and fall time chopping might be realized via an impressed electrostatic field, but that would not be so easily delivered via the coil, but by concentric plates or external plates. Possibly the reactor can be fed as a internally loaded coaxial cable.

And another safety issue, I reluctantly give here since the last (Be toxicity) brought out undeserved paranoid speculation: An additional concern here is that arbitrary or untested choices during design and/or construction might have strong effects on the results, and not necessarily ones that lower COP, but perhaps ones that improve COP way too much for the excess energy to be dissipated safely.

Thanks for your efforts,
Longview

If we place the reactor inside a steel container and if we want an EM effet, to transmit it, we can place inside: the heating coil, or another coil, or a central conductor, or nothing if we use the steel as a wave guide. Perhaps that creates contractions and extensions of the inner coil. These movements could be positive or negative for the result. To separate the study of these effets, we could maintain the conductor coil with an isolant coil interlaced. Also, the powder, or a part, will be in contact to the inner coil, more heated, with more different temperatures for some parts, that could also be positive or negative for the result.

My wife is a non-native speaker of English. As an older grad student I was frequently sought out by foreign students to "tune up" their English in papers for publication, even though I did not speak or write their home languages. I see some possible issues arising here, and fortunately can recognize a bit of ambiguity in English scientific vernacular that may, or may not be shared in other Indo-European languages such as French etc.

With all due respect to Rical's interesting post, there may be an example of the specifics of English language usage regarding "EM" ---that is electromagentic field propagation, as for example the photons of radio waves, light X-rays etc. But quite distinct, although related, is the much nearer field propagation of what in English is sometimes called "electromagnetism" (if it is a coil and a magnetically susceptible core) that is the often moving magnetic field associated with transformers, solenoids, electric motors, ear phones and so on. Sometimes the products of magnetic or electrostatic drivers may be called phoNons. Phonons can give rise to phoTons, and vice versa, but the concepts, the mechanisms and the characteristics are different.

EM in the first sense "the electromagnetic field" (light, radio, x-ray etc.) has both magnetic and electrostatic components that are intimately correlated. It can propagate immense distances. In English we refer to "radiant heat" which is essentially the Bolltzmann distribution of photons from a hot object. This can cause coils to melt, to expand and contract from thermal motions.

The other "EM" is the electromagnet, which is typically just a magnet created by current flow often as a coil around a magnetically susceptible core, often with a moving magnetic field (in motors, or from cores of transformers etc. under AC power). Those moving magnetic fields are typically quite short range. It could cause coil movements as forces seen between the fields of separate conductors with opposing magnetic fields. And this type can also generate a lot of heat, if one considers the "induction cooktop". These are like a transformer, but the secondary is not there, instead the oscillating magnetic field induces a current which is effectively short circuited in the magnetically susceptible bottom of the cookware.

Both types of "EM" should be distinguished and both are likely to have effects on LENR. Replication (and possible patenting) will become very difficult if we all don't have clear terminology and unambiguous language to describe the systems, to describe any innovations, to explain clearly the likely functional significance of any novel engineering and so on.

Hopefully the theory does not get squashed out of the engineering discussion by imprecision in terminology.

In any case, Thanks for your continued efforts in LENR. Once again I truly appreciate all the enthusiasm and sincere efforts of the Replicators.

Quote from me356

OK it seems that my reactor was leaky in second and maybe in first fueled test.
At this time I am improving sealing of the tube and embedding pressure meter so then we can be sure what is happening.
Also new fuel mixture will be loaded.

From chat sesson at endme356 00:32:37
artefact: yes, but excess heat was noticeable from 500°C

Also do you know what themal sysstem time constant is below 500C, thought I remember you saying ounce it was about 30 seconds. If so then 4minute time constant at 1000 C today indicates presents of LENR decay time also roughly 3.5 minutes would be my guess?

Experiment chat text from may 23.
me356 may-23 experiment chat.txt