me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

    Quote from Osmo Laaksonen

    If the experiment fails exactly at midnight, the first suspicion would be an error in the control program.


    But it was in the manual mode.
    I think the power was raised too soon in last hour of the experiment, causing the old and used wire to fail.


    Like Nickc said, two wires (optionally twisted) can solve the burn out problem. So if one burns, the second can continue. I'd suggest to avoid using the kanthal if you plan to test at 1200C. The ordinary Kanthal is not suitable for 1200C operation, its melting point is exactly 1200C (wikipedia). So doesn't make sense to drive it to 1200C.


    Lugano reactor had a special alloy (according to Rossi) and Parkhomov used some Russian variant of Kanthal (Super kanthal?), according to MFMP. Other option is to use SiC element.


    The type-K TC is not reliable after 1100C, thats its limit.(wikipedia). So of no use for high temperature tests. (That also throws light on why Lugano team did not use a TC directly on the reactor, its of no use). So we are trying to perform an experiment which is sure to fail with these materials. Almost all replicators are doing the same mistake. Whats the alternative ? Use water calorimetry, like Parkhomov's first experiment.


    For leak problem, the MFMP glowstick solution is the best. But it can also be solved by attaching a H2 bottle in the other end of the reactor to keep the H2 flowing even if there is a small leak. This should be in addition to the LAH. Of course, it will require additional hardware, like plumbing, gas detector, backflash prevention etc.

    JAROVNAK: there was no excess heat in my experiment that was measured by thermocouple. 500°C was mentioned in context of Parkhomov experiment.


    With respect to failure actually I expected it will happen sooner - same reactor was used for all my experiments. So it is not that strange. Kanthal wire should last 1400°C, similarly to thermocouple type K.
    Of course this is valid in ideal conditions. Soon I will inspect the reactor to check what really happened.


    I think that 1200°C is not necessary at all. As Parkhomov described in his report, excess heat should be noticeable from at least 700°C.
    Problem is that we don't know about the process too much information so we have to try everything.
    Even each failure mean success so we will try to avoid these problems in the future.


    For future experiments we have to make sure:
    - there is no leak so the pressure can be held until at least 900°C
    - pressure is not too high thus dead volume must be configured carefully.


    So we have to proceed in the following way:
    1. try all possible dead volume configurations to obtain ~5 bar peak
    2. make sure that this configuration is perfectly repeatable.


    If first step is not fulfilled we can try it thousand times without success. Remember that manometer and its connection can affect it greatly.
    So this is serious issue and can take few months to get correct pressure characteristics - not easy task.


    Moreover 5 bars could be not optimal and there surely is more ideal pressure range. So we have to make reactors as easy and reliable as possible. This will allow to conduct the tests in same conditions. Current model can vary extremely with all parameters. As Rossi said, the pressure is key factor.

    IF Parkhomov is right, its not necessary to go to 1200. Range of 700-1100 should show excess. But if there is no excess in this range, one must be ready to go to 1200 or above. Recall that Parkhomov himself reported that he saw excess only after 1150C (was it another experiment?). So even if there is chance to get the excess below 1200, the reactor should be capable of handling 1200-1400, just in case.


    Of course, you can restrict the protocol to only test in range 0-1100C, for which you will need a good calibration, and you can totally avoid the mess of 1200.


    Unfortunately, as you told in chat, this experiment did not show any excess even at 900C. (Considering the last run as calibration). This can be because of the leak. So I guess the leakage problem should be solved first and should be higher priority than the burnout problem.


    As I've said many times (and I know it can be totally wrong), the amount of loading of H2 into Ni is the most important factor, which is indicated by a good pressure curve (i.e. high at start and then very low as temperature rises). The absolute value of pressure is not so important, just the loading ratio. You may need to soak the Ni in H2 for many hours to get a good loading ratio. The low pressure will indicate if the loading is done. So that's why fixing the leaks and achieving a volume to get Parkhomov like pressure curve is important. But you have already said that, I simply agree. :)

    OK, reactor is in bad condition now.


    It seems that it produced extremely high temperature. Maybe due to local overheating?
    But maybe there was excess heat. I suspect that this temperature was far beyond 1400°C, thus heater failure must happen.
    For me it seems that the fuel container or nickel was so hot that it melted ceramic tube from inside and then damaged whole reactor.
    So this "bubble" on the bottom may be Nickel or melted kanthal or alumina sealing.


    It was so hot that even stainless steel cover was partially melted.

    Hello me, thanks for an exciting run! Can you share the free volume you had in this reactor? You can calculate it from your known data or sink all parts inside the reactor into a water tank to know the total volume of that stuff, then subtract that volume from the inner tube volume of the vessel, adding inner pipe volume going to the pressure meter. Well I guess there are a number of ways to know the free volume. <p> I have looked for, but not found, data on free space for Parkhomov reactor. If your pressure had the same path but 5x lower than Parkhomov then he might had 5x less volume than your reactor?<p> Hopefully just a few runs up to 200C are needed to find a free volume giving the same pressure path as Parkhomov reactor.

    Volume of dead space was roughly estimated to 600mm^3 or 0.6ml without manometer itself. So it could be even around 1ml.


    My alumina cement was rated for 1500°C while ceramic tube for 1800°C. Melting point is surely higher so temperature there was quite high.

    The crowd in the chat kept goading me356 to push for 1200 degrees and to vary the current.


    The image of the hot spot glowing blue through the metal shield made me wonder if this wasn't a runaway reaction.


    Dude - If your heart is correct, you built a nuclear reactor. Be gentle and patient with it.


    Try again, but this time tune out the crowd. Come up with a plan. Personally I would like to see it soak a few hours at 1050 degrees C to allow H time to infiltrate the Ni lattice. Watch for temperature excursions that might indicate a sputtering "flame". Then take it up in 50 degree steps an hour per step. If you need to reduce the current to stay at the target temperature, you'll know you have something.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Tarun

    Alumina's melting point is 2000C. Surely the heater cannot provide that temperature before burning out itself, so the source must be inside.


    You made a very good point.


    What was the pressure shortly before meltdown? This could have changed alumina melting point (probably not much).


    But otherwise you are completely right.


    The wire could have never reached this temperature, but obviously the alumina melted so....


    excess heat? Or some kind of a nuclear chain reaction ignited at 1200°C?

    Majorana, everything blacked out just before the failure. I don't think anyone got the pressure reading. You can assume it was 0.8 bar, the last reading, which is almost atmospheric, so no influence on alumina melting point, I guess. But the situation is complex inside with Li and Ni alloying with alumina etc.

    • Official Post
    Quote from hendersonmj

    Try again, but this time tune out the crowd. Come up with a plan. Personally I would like to see it soak a few hours at 1050 degrees C to allow H time to infiltrate the Ni lattice.


    You are right!


    Maybe at the next experiment, me356 can write a description of his planned procedure before he starts.
    If then someone wants to increase temperature faster, me356 can just refer to this plan. ;)

    I am now 80% convinced that there was excess heat but it was not possible to measure it as the reaction is happening in a different place always.
    Thermocouple was not mounted exactly at the center of the reactor.


    From the previous run there was similar scenario where the fuel container looked like it was partially melted (only 1/3). So the temperature was significantly higher there too.
    If there was excess heat then it mean that there was used fuel from the first run and it worked - same as Parkhomov reported.


    So for the future it will be better to get at least good pyrometer or to make calorimetry test or to place more thermocouples around the reactor or to use materials that are conducting heat much better.

    Quote from me356

    Volume of dead space was roughly estimated to 600mm^3 or 0.6ml without manometer itself. So it could be even around 1ml.


    My alumina cement was rated for 1500°C while ceramic tube for 1800°C. Melting point is surely higher so temperature there was quite high.


    Well at about 5 amps at 320 volts rms, thats about 1.1 watts at around 1000 C or about the equivalent of a household toaster with probably less mass, IMHO the response time is about a 4 minute time constant in the resulting graphs above so something else seems to be powering the fuel element as well as TRIAC input & just maybe we are seeing the New Fire or LENR in the system dynamics. The heat of vaporization or condensation of the LiAlH4 would not add much to that time constant is my guess. Let see if there are any other post test results calculated out!
    ^^

    Parkhomov placed his fuel in a long thin steel tube for exactly this reason, to avoid the hot spots. (Slide#3 of his presentation). Probably, you may want to implement it too, now that the old reactor is destroyed and you have a first hand experience that hot spots do happen.
    Others can also learn from this and take precautions to avoid the local heating. Parkhomov has found solutions through extensive hit and trial, lets not re-invent the wheel. Replicate exactly.

    Quote from me356

    I am now 80% convinced that there was excess heat but it was not possible to measure it as the reaction is happening in a different place always.
    Thermocouple was not mounted exactly at the center of the reactor.


    From the previous run there was similar scenario where the fuel container looked like it was partially melted (only 1/3). So the temperature was significantly higher there too.
    If there was excess heat then it mean that there was used fuel from the first run and it worked - same as Parkhomov reported.


    So for the future it will be better to get at least good pyrometer or to make calorimetry test or to place more thermocouples around the reactor or to use materials that are conducting heat much better.


    I also thought you had something generating additional heat in your last run by just observing the extended time constants in the thermal shutdown profile. I think I am more than 80% sure we have witnessed the presence of "The New Fire" in your work! Great job I really had fun watching the last experiment & being able to comment on your manual & automatic control moves as well as the thermal response I observed. In my working career which ended about 10 years ago I have simulated the dynamics of fossil, nuclear & petrochemical plants including Nuclear Rockets ;) & compared result with test data as well as tuned controllers & to me I think I could see "The New Fire" in your results Great job me 356 had great fun yesterday & tried to get Andrea Rossi involved also but he has some restrictions! The process is pretty straight forward & a simple themal model with the radiant heat transfer & themal masses could easily be constructed to follow your temperature curves with a predicted value & and attribute large deviations to LENR action.

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.