me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

  • I do not see your discussions from yesterday.


    Each time the current change, the temp drops down, else it rises, why ?
    * Contacts could change on surfaces between particules in powder? Is it sign of LENR?
    * Perhaps the change of heat induce external vortex then vibrations could isolate particules one from each other and limit the heat output, and after 1 min particules return to softer/melt state a bit and the heat rises.
    * The issue is it mecanic, electric, magnetic, nuclear ... ?
    * The issue is it in the lab, in the power cabling wires and plugs, in mesures, in the power limits, in the reactor ... ?


    Could me356 show to us some other images to look at all these aspects ?


    Could me356 describe the reactor for us ? Design, images inside, detail pieces, old realisations, ideas to perfect it ?


    Could me356 Verify the reactor, outside, inside, connections, mobile parts ? Strongly fix it in all parts ? If you modify anything you must update the calibration.


    Could me356 publish a page dedicated only to informations and images about the reactor and its environment ? Updated sometime, with links to all other pages of mesures, forum...


    me356 test run 2 result:
    * Better results began from 940 C. Is it sign of LENR?
    * At 1100 C the rise of all the power output is at 250 / 200 a COP at 1.25 . Is it sign of LENR?
    * Calibration mesures stop at 760 C, theoric continue until 1111 C.


    Could me356 mesures calibration until 1100 C ?


    me356 test, mechanical and thermic effects:
    The reactor seems in a strong place but:
    * The fixation of the reactor is not visible, is it the metal wire which attach the table ?
    * The reactor is at the same time on the central bloc and on the lateral blocs, this triple support could change with heat, then change the thermic flux.
    * The central bloc reduces the air flow, then isolates the reactor which become hotter.
    * The central bloc induces some vortexes which disturb the thermic exchange.
    * These external thermic effects are they greatly changing the power/temp curve from some temperature? A question for heating specialists.
    * The speed of the air around the reactor makes very unstable vortexes which could move the reactor, or make vibrate it, if it is not strongly fixed.


    Could me356 show to us some other images to look at all these aspects ?


    Could me356 make smoother the changes of current to never disturb the temp? There is 2 way to smooth it:
    * simple: change the slope of the line without jump, changing only the slowrate between +5 to -5 A / minute.
    * better: change slowly the slope rate, 3 A maximum along 1 minute in normal situation.


    Comparaison of test methods and options:


    Air or water?
    * Heat radiation in air like in Lugano test, limits the output energy because air is isolant, precise but complex in cautions and computing. For scientists.
    * Water circuit like in Rossi 2011, for 1 or many tests, precise if an exchanger condenses the vapor. Nearest the final use.
    * Water evaporation like Parkhomov, for 1 or many tests. Easier but less precise.
    * Calibration without LENR, like MFMP and me356, compare tests / calibration, less precise in air. Simple to build and compute.

  • @me356, show in line an indicator of COP, named iCOP could be fine. How ?
    * instantCOP = approximate instant COP = calibration output power( W(temp) ) / live input power( V * A )
    * assuming that V is appromative now but you could mesure it. And you manage the current.
    * iCOP5 = the mean of the last 5 minutes of the instantCOP.
    * show 1 - on the 10 minutes graph, add a curve with the iCOP5, (only on the left half)
    * show 2 - on the synthesis page (graph + image + chat), add another graph comparing the power/temp from 3 sources: the calibration, the best precedent test and the present test updated in live.


    Where to see your (graph + image + chat) page ?
    Now it is replaced by the "Thread Denis Vasilenko" "Live LENR Experiment".

  • You folks are doing great service. I know you are intensely focused on the work, I appreciate that very much. But, I don't want anyone ending up with lung or other cancer from inadvertent beryllium exposure. most especially in this great group of true visionaries.


    Please read and understand why any lithium-containing LENR, CANR, CF etc reactor once in operation may produce a well characterized IARC highest risk carcinogen: That is beryllium. And that is without ANY measurable radiation or ready detectability!


    [If you are skeptical of the beryllium presence, then read critically but carefully the recent United Gravity Corp, Lipinski WIPO patent application, linked here:


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…il.jsf?docId=WO2014189799


    And please realize strategic wording may be there, inserted by the IP law firm, to modestly deceive for patent law purposes--- such as their assertion that their invention is not CF, not LENR, read and see that it is exactly that, and with COPs eventually in the later experiments reaching thousands--- all with a hundred eV, up to around 2000 eV protons} and various lithium targets with and without target bias voltages, various apparently square wave or oscillating bias voltages impressed, and so on]. Do not be fooled by their indication that its all perfectly safe. If they don't open the reactor for 2 years, then perhaps so. Their Be7 behavior is at odds with that described in the wider literature.... they could be right, but most likely they are mistaken, or may be strategically avoiding mention of that particular beryllium issue. And note they did nearly all that work in US National accelerator labs: Florida, Louisiana, Texas]


    Consider that beryllium 7 is created anytime lithium 6 takes on a new nuclear proton. Unlike Be 8, ----which immediately splits to give MeV alphas, harmless inside a steel reactor vessel, and makes lots of MeV heat, and leaves essentially no radionuclides {note the resemblance to Rossi etc.]--- the product from nuclear protonation of Li 6 (which is 5% to 10% of most all lithium today, unless "depleted") is Be 7. Be 7 has a widely reported 53-day half-life. It does not decay by giving any readable signal, the transformation is apparently a "silent" internal electron to nucleus transfer or "capture". Once it is Lithium 7 by this path, no problem. Two years (nearly 14 half-lives, ~ 1/10,000th the original Be level) surely should make it very safe to open a reactor of this sort. If not waiting that long (and who would) then extreme care, glove box, face mask, HEPA AND ultrafiltered hood etc. would be the standard for handing beryllium oxides, salts, alloys, their dusts, powders, fumes, contaminants on other dusts, powders, surfaces etc.


    One very destructive alternative way is to glove up to the elbows, bib up and open the reactor in a suitable bucket under water. But that water then cannot be given up to until decayed out (two years before pouring down the drain), and don't let the dog, cat or anyone else drink it please. And remember once again that Be 7 to Li 7 decay cannot be detected other than with special analytical techniques not often used today. Most analytical lab mass spectroscopy, apparently, cannot see the difference of little more or less than an electron between Li 7 and Be 7, that is a mass difference of 78 ppm for one electron, and it MAY not be anywhere near that much!


    Stable natural beryllium, is an IARC Category I carcinogen. Apparently we, and future LENR replicators, don't have to even consider the several very short lived Be isotopes. But Be 7 is the sole exception that can hang around long enough to act chemically and biologically exactly as the natural stable isotope.


    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...


    My Ph.D. is just about as close as you can get to expert in this area. The only closer would be an "uncorrupted by nuclear industry association" radiation bio-physicist. I suspect there are very few of those still alive, in the US anyway. Or someone with three extensive graduate level radiation safety courses and a relatively recent biomedical Ph.D. in say mammalian lung cancer, and more chemistry than they ought to know. When they step up, I'll consider shutting up about this risk...


    BFC! I love and respect you all!


    Longview

  • About "Safety Warning! Beryllium in LENR":


    In this post there are many uncertainties on the reality of the alert, and that is perhaps the begining of a strategy to publicly destabilise the research on LENR or at least the big wave of replications by many people. The begining of a war from the hard business against the people and their liberties.

  • About "Safety Warning! Beryllium in LENR":


    In this post there are many uncertainties on the reality of the alert, and that is perhaps the begining of a strategy to publicly destabilise the research on LENR or at least the big wave of replications by many people. The begining of a war from the hard business against the people and their liberties.


    I thought exactly the same. We don't know exactly what is the reaction and how it is possible. If Li7 reacts with H to make Be8 (Probably the case), then it doesn't assume automatically that Li6 reacts with H with the same mechanism! It is just a quick shortcut that it is too early to make. I don't say that it will not happen, just we don't have any clue yet. In my feeling, I think it could be Li6 + D that could successfully happen (Just an assumption).


    In the Lugano ash, the LI6 isotope was at ~90% where the natural abundance is 7%. One could assume that Li6 doesn't react with H1.


    Anyway, safety first! Don't breath the dust after a long run reaction until we know better what is ahppening. Tritium might well be present as well. And for me Tritium is more a concern than Be7.

  • AlainCo : 10 minutes ago, I clicked to "Like" the bloger Arnaud about "Safety Warning! Beryllium in LENR".
    Then a pop up appears as if YOU have "Like" the bloger Arnaud.
    Just after, the post of Arnaud was marked with a "Like" from You as if you and me have the same "Like" account... ? ? ?


    Have you "Like" the bloger Arnaud less than 20 minutes ago ? Near 2015/05/15 15:05 ?

  • I also think that there will be many people that will try to discredit LENR and find any possible reason why it is dangerous and harmfull.
    But of course we should study each possible hazard and then we can be sure.
    All in all we must be very carefull.


  • I thought exactly the same. We don't know exactly what is the reaction and how it is possible. If Li7 reacts with H to make Be8 (Probably the case), then it doesn't assume automatically that Li6 reacts with H with the same mechanism! It is just a quick shortcut that it is too early to make. I don't say that it will not happen, just we don't have any clue yet. In my feeling, I think it could be Li6 + D that could successfully happen (Just an assumption).


    In the Lugano ash, the LI6 isotope was at ~90% where the natural abundance is 7%. One could assume that Li6 doesn't react with H1.


    Anyway, safety first! Don't breath the dust after a long run reaction until we know better what is shppening. Tritium might well be present as well. And for me Tritium is more a concern than Be7.


    Thanks for pointing out this, lithium 6 issue Arnaud. I simply knew too little when the Lugano results were first released to make this same deduction. If this is correct, and everything is legitimate about that ash analysis, then it is very good news, not only for replicators but for the long term prospects of Parkhomov, Rossi and any other lithium fueled or catalyzed reactors. It makes it very simple. [But still be careful everyone!, we don't want to lose any researchers in this area!]


    The link at lenrftw.com appears to give the Lugano ash data, but also seems to raise considerable question about some aspects of the analysis. I don't think those questions would necessarily apply to the lithium isotopes and their ratio to the overall sample. That may have been done, with a mass spec technique ICP-IMS.


    But if anyone is using nuclear activation techniques, then there is a lot of "issues" we now get a hint at. Of course the good analytical labs are all supposed to be running all kinds of "controls. But when time is money and the technician may not have deep experience with controls and their purposes.... [Who here may know?]


    A "work around" in the future for Li6, if it were an issue, would be to separate it at the outset. For us it is not easy. But if there were a large LENR industry it would really be quite trivial, as I mentioned some time ago, the atoms differ by about 17% in mass. and have been commercially or governmentally separated before. Either purified Li7 or pure Li6 may well have useful applications distinct from each other, I had seen reference to the issue decades ago, and posted at this Forum mentioning it.

  • 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.

  • 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.


    @me356


    I think adding carbon and the other elements that were found in parkhomovs sample would be good. And even if not necessary won't do any harm.


    The leakage of Hydrogen is however probably the more important issue. Do you think you could get a Tantalum or Tungsten tube that can be sealed? Just in case there will be leakage again.


    First we should of course try to use the same tubes Parkhomov did.


    The rest of your setup is fine I think. We should be able to see HAD if it really exists. If not probably Parkhomov was not as honest as we think.

  • Problem was in the end of the tube. I think that my alumina tubes are very good, much better than Parkhomov have.


    New fuel is loaded again in the container. I hope that next fuelled test can be started in 2-4 days.

  • What kind of pressure gauge did you have in mind? How were you planning to mount it? I am always concerned that tubes to measure pressure get blocked by debris from inside the reactor, especially when everything starts gassing or melting.