me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

Very good images!

So the coils were outside of the broken ceramic tube we see? The coils are not pictured at all? Or are somehow in there as well?

The blob inside and the longer melted thing with it, is that mostly fused nickel or what?

Quote from me356

4. fuel container was vaporized in central area while there was only small amount of the fuel inside.

That's some more supporting evidence that the heat came from inside. (IMO)

The TC could not detect it, may be because it was placed at some good distance from the spot, and so the power could not be cut off quickly until it was too late. The only solution I could think of is to increase the mass and length of the steel tube (container) and devise a way of detecting if its about to melt, which can then trigger an emergency power cut off.

Since we can't place a TC inside the core (it will fail before such high temperature is reached), we need other ways to detect it. One way is to monitor the resistance of the steel container by sending a small current through it, and if the current falls too low (indicating resistance increase at high temp), it can trigger a relay etc to cut off the power.
Other way is to put a fuse that breaks at a certain high temperature.

That should be an additional TC at the center. It will fail much before 1400C, but can be used to trigger a power cut off, where ever it fails.
It can also provide some additional data, like the sudden increase of heat at the center, while the heater is intact, providing even more evidence. (If runaway occurs).
You may need an extra data logger for that.

Some suggestions and food for thought for all replicators:

Brian Albiston explains that the fuel charge volume/area ratio may be critical to successful excess heat / self sustain...
https://www.facebook.com/Marti…ect/posts/978309728866393

Peter Mobberly finds reason for shorting/failing reactors
https://www.facebook.com/Marti…ect/posts/978305168866849

Just read the Mobberly Facebook piece. So at least the water glass is a definite issue. I still wonder about ZnO, which I posted on awhile back, with respect to its ability to "sublime".

Thanks

With regards to the Albiston piece. Interesting, and certainly correct with respect to the surface to volume ratio of any reactor. It's very important from a functional and safety standpoint to get that just right. Spheres are probably not practical at this point, but can become an ideal for down-sizing once the mechanisms are well understood.

It appears that they explicitly assume x-ray flux in LENR. That might be from "internal conversion" electrons to nucleus, known in at least one or two of the possible aneutronic modes. Who has a handle on that thinking? There are no x-rays in evidence or claimed in the Lipinski UGC patent application. Since the UGC app has lithium 6 present, there can be formation of Be 7, and hence internal beta decay to Li 7 over a 53 day T1/2--- but I have not seen any claimed gamma for that, maybe softer x-rays are there. But, surely the books say, I just don't have my isotope references at hand. [I will paste this into a Physics post at the Forum.]

Quote from Tarun

That's some more supporting evidence that the heat came from inside. (IMO)

The TC could not detect it, may be because it was placed at some good distance from the spot, and so the power could not be cut off quickly until it was too late. The only solution I could think of is to increase the mass and length of the steel tube (container) and devise a way of detecting if its about to melt, which can then trigger an emergency power cut off.

Since we can't place a TC inside the core (it will fail before such high temperature is reached), we need other ways to detect it. One way is to monitor the resistance of the steel container by sending a small current through it, and if the current falls too low (indicating resistance increase at high temp), it can trigger a relay etc to cut off the power.
Other way is to put a fuse that breaks at a certain high temperature.

Quote from me356

No, coil is not on the photos.
It was on another tube, very same as in Parkhomov experiment.

I dont know what it is, but in the photo it seems as part of the fuel was dried-on ceramic's crack.
Actually this material was on the heater tube too in the place where it cracked.

Looking at the excellent pictures and trying to interpret them. It appears the central ceramic "reactor" tube has cracked longitudinally, and early enough in, or before, the failure that one can see the gray deposit on the fracture surfaces. Playing the devil's advocate for the moment: Could the crack have occurred, then the potential difference from one end of the coil to the other end have been shorted through the core which then became even more highly ionized and then [further] melted nickel, (lithium and aluminum) in the interior of the reactor. Perhaps making the reactor a rather short lived "discharge lamp" and further melting the ingredients within the reactor. Also quite possibly driving the temperature well beyond the break even point for excess energy production while precipitating a rapid failure of whatever else failed (which I guess you are saying was not much else).

I don't know if the central core cracks could even have accessed the potential across the coil, but if it could then at least there is something to consider.

I'm still a little fuzzy as to what exactly your structure was, and exactly what we are looking at there. I did look over the now English annotated Parkhomov diagram, and that helps some since you mentioned "like Parkhomov".

Quote from Longview

Looking at the excellent pictures and trying to interpret them. It appears the central ceramic "reactor" tube has cracked longitudinally, and early enough in, or before, the failure that one can see the gray deposit on the fracture surfaces. Playing the devil's advocate for the moment: Could the crack have occurred, then the potential difference from one end of the coil to the other end have been shorted through the core which then became even more highly ionized and then [further] melted nickel, (lithium and aluminum) in the interior of the reactor. Perhaps making the reactor a rather short lived "discharge lamp" and further melting the ingredients within the reactor. Also quite possibly driving the temperature well beyond the break even point for excess energy production while precipitating a rapid failure of whatever else failed (which I guess you are saying was not much else).

I don't know if the central core cracks could even have accessed the potential across the coil, but if it could then at least there is something to consider.

I'm still a little fuzzy as to what exactly your structure was, and exactly what we are looking at there. I did look over the now English annotated Parkhomov diagram, and that helps some since you mentioned "like Parkhomov".

What happened during the failure is not very clear to me but your suggestion that initial cracking would've resulted in the overheating makes sense. Would it be possible to use a material for the reactor tube that retains its strength at high temperatures such as inconel or certain steel alloys (AISI 310/316 that I mentioned a few posts ago)?
Also, the MFMP posts about avoiding water glass is interesting and hints to what could have initiated the failure. I think nickec said it well, this is like chipping at a stone wall and we're about to discover what's on the other side.

I think the inside-out design (see the picture) of reactor should be better in terms of heat exchange and temperature control.

Quote from me356

Thanks for your comments!

I am thinking about Pyrometer, something like this:
http://www.conrad-electronic.c…o-2200-C?ref=searchDetail

I think that it could eliminate any thermocouple issues. I have to check if this device allows continuous data stream to the PC so then it can be interfaced with my controller.
Then one major problem is eliminated while Parkhomov scheme may be still untouched.

UPDATE: it seems that the pyrometer is able to stream data in realtime. Whats more, it is using Serial interface so it can be connected directly to my Raspberry Pi. If this is true, then it is perfect. No more cables

Also I will get SiC element to play with that should handle approx. 1700°C continuously.

My idea is to build the simplest reactor with nearly no effort that will overcome all known failures and will allow longterm running. So I can get superior performance and nothing will block to play with fuel itself.

Display More

Excellent news!
Thanks me356 for your ongoing experiments and determination.
You are getting close to a breakthrough I am sure.........

I am far from a scientist, and am really just a fascinated observer who can see the importance of what you and this whole community are trying to achieve.

I definitely side with the view of being happy to fail in your experiments. For each failure provides valuable information and moves you closer to the actual success we are all looking for.
How many times did Edison fail before actually succeeding?

Anyway well done, I can't wait for the next experiment!

Quote from me356

UPDATE: it seems that the pyrometer is able to stream data in realtime. Whats more, it is using Serial interface so it can be connected directly to my Raspberry Pi. If this is true, then it is perfect. No more cables

That is good to hear, although looking at the link you posted, I can't see a serial interface, I only see a USB interface. While the USB might emulate a serial interface, would the provided drivers work on a Raspberry Pi? If the chip uses a common USB to Serial interface chip, you might be in luck but it would be nice to be sure. Just an observation from someone who has :dash: with USB to serial converters.

That Pyrometer should solve the problem, very good idea !
Its expensive, but a good investment, can be used for other projects.