me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]

Quote from JAROVNAK

In the calibration published on june 14th, the internal temperature shows a large step at 280 C. Then I wrote "That seems a phase transition when something melts or evaporates", we see the same in MFMP and Parkhomov experiments. Perhaps these steps could be phase transitions when they are short and weak in 1 gram of matter, informing us on what happens. Or they are a begin of LENR and they could continue if the heater only stabilizes the temperature and even stops to heat in SSM mode.
Remember in the 2013 test (arXiv-1305.3913v3-20130607) "the E-Cat HT's average temperature was 438°C, vs an average of 302°C for the E-Cat HT2 in March".
Remember the heater cycle, 150 S on, 300 S off, gave divergent slopes (and not amortized slopes) page 27. This could be detected in live to drive the heater. Is Rossi doing this ?

Quote from Henry

JAROVNAK I repeat again these are your useless fantasy and speculation.
You like to speak of nothing but on JONP you will meet many fans can love your daily hoax.
Cheers.

Easy for you to criticize, cost you little, now do something, just maybe? I had a chance when I was younger & did many things, some worked out very well, others not, but I was never a good critic like you of others. I have always enjoyed doing something positive, don't you? Your friend Jim I've even walked away & said nothing when I new there was a problem that my harsh comment in truth could not fix.

Quote from me356

The reason is very different. I have described the reason few posts ago.

https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/613858156058411012

Quote from me356

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.

Hi
I did find some interesting information regarding lithium...

"The explanation for this was kindly provided by reader Yehoshua Sivan from Israel, who wrote as follows:
About 27 years ago I thought I would melt lithium in a ceramic crucible, and then suck it up into a glass tube (using a propipet, not my mouth!), to preserve a specimen, as I had already done with sodium and potassium [incidentally the specimens prepared then are as shiny today as when prepared originally; the oxide at the open ends of the tube acts as a plug preventing further oxidation, and the tube is kept in paraffin oil anyway]. Well, the lithium ignited, I beat a hasty retreat and watched the reaction through the crack in the door, and after some kind of explosion a piece of burning lithium fell on the brand new asbestos table (yes, they were still fitting asbestos tables then), where it also exploded, leaving a hole in the surface. I subsequently explained to my colleagues that now the table really looked as if it belonged to a chemistry laboratory.

I thought then, and I see no reason to think otherwise now, that this was a simple oxidation-reduction reaction, in which the lithium "steals" the oxygen from the silicon dioxide and other oxides in the ceramic (and in the asbestos). The reaction is analogous to the well known magnesium-sand reaction, or to the formation of a black silicon mark on test-tubes in which Mg or Na has been burned (e.g. in the classic magnesium burning in steam reaction, or when I burn sodium in a flow of chlorine)."

is this something that is known and being considered when building reactors with alumina oxides?

Quote from me356

One of my SiC element

I hope that in two weeks new reactor will be ready for the experiments.

What is the resistance of the heater element?

Quote from Condensed Matter

Hi
I did find some interesting information regarding lithium...

"The explanation for this was kindly provided by reader Yehoshua Sivan from Israel, who wrote as follows:
About 27 years ago I thought I would melt lithium in a ceramic crucible, and then suck it up into a glass tube (using a propipet, not my mouth!), to preserve a specimen, as I had already done with sodium and potassium [incidentally the specimens prepared then are as shiny today as when prepared originally; the oxide at the open ends of the tube acts as a plug preventing further oxidation, and the tube is kept in paraffin oil anyway]. Well, the lithium ignited, I beat a hasty retreat and watched the reaction through the crack in the door, and after some kind of explosion a piece of burning lithium fell on the brand new asbestos table (yes, they were still fitting asbestos tables then), where it also exploded, leaving a hole in the surface. I subsequently explained to my colleagues that now the table really looked as if it belonged to a chemistry laboratory.

I thought then, and I see no reason to think otherwise now, that this was a simple oxidation-reduction reaction, in which the lithium "steals" the oxygen from the silicon dioxide and other oxides in the ceramic (and in the asbestos). The reaction is analogous to the well known magnesium-sand reaction, or to the formation of a black silicon mark on test-tubes in which Mg or Na has been burned (e.g. in the classic magnesium burning in steam reaction, or when I burn sodium in a flow of chlorine)."

is this something that is known and being considered when building reactors with alumina oxides?

Display More

Well, molten lithium will not take kindly to water or vapor in the air, but as far as alumina is concerned I think it is ok to use it as crucible to melt lithium in an reasonable atmosphere. Found one reference on this at http://luxel.com/wp-content/up…ible-Selection-Rev2.2.pdf

At any rate, the energies found surpass by order of magnitude(s) anything produced by any chemical reaction, the duration of the successful runs is not indicative to a sudden, short lived and violent production of energy (like you describe the event) and there is also the isotope changes in composition that point in another direction than an oxidation-reduction reaction.

Also, I imagine, when he had that lab accident, it was likely more Li there than would be produced by heating 100mg of LiAlH4.

Quote from me356

It is Kanthal Globar SR, I have graph already for the heater.

I assume you mean you have run your own graph from your own readings of your own heater element. Someone will ask for that someday, once you get to your publication here or elsewhere.

I guess you have at least two elements in two reactors, one as a control, structured and run exactly as the experimental, often in the same circuitry, within which there is a substitution of some equivalent thermal mass of a presumed non-reactive matrix and perhaps running argon only, although helium would be closer to ideal, if it weren't for other issues.

Good controls are hard to do. Having many of them with different variables locked up or locked out is/was standard procedure in forensic style DNA-PCR work, for example. Non-parallel running is the less expensive and less immune to criticism. But having one reactor and one set of circuitry that goes through a whole series of interior conditions is at least good for your preliminary examination-- especially if you can return to the "hot" parameters at three or more times in your series {lot of work!].

Once you know what all the behavior is, you can settle on the most divergent, call them condition A and condition B. Even then some sort of a null condition is good "in theory", but hard when mechanisms are still murky.

Best of luck, and thanks for ALL your efforts.

Quote from me356

Resistance is 2,5 Ohms at 1000°C.

Well, for my own situation and considerations.... I do not know your electrical power situations...

I have a limit (self imposed; true max is 10) of 8 A driving my reactor. Considering a direct drive via a transformator, 0-260 V, a resistance of 2.5 ohms would give you a max voltage over the coil of 20V, which in turn implied as maximum deployed power of 160W for heating. I used a 1mm diam coil (with generous turn separation) of 2.2 ohms, and I never managed to get the outside shell temperature over 450C. I had full duty cycle on my SSR, and landed somewhere about 130W. I switched to 0.5mm Kanthal A1, and have a resistance of about 30 ohms in my coils, with this I reached desired temperatures. In the case of SiC, naturally, you have some 2-5 times higher resistance at the onset, but at operational temperatures it will be 2.5 ohms.

I am just thinking: Will you be able to deploy ample electrical power to reach 1000C and more with your setup?

Alan Goldwater, at MFMP, report that Alumina becomes a conductor at high temperature there.
20000 ohm*m at 1000°C. Could this explain alumina melt at 1200 or 1300 because it is near the coil current ?

Quote from me356

Next week everything needed for the calibration test should arrive.
I am really curious how it will work.

In two weeks Swagelok fittings should arrive too, so this time reactor could be really leak-free.
I hope that with this setup it will be possible to perform many experiments. Failure possibility should be minimal now.

I am using Swagelok fittings too on my tubes. I have found it to be less than easy to apply the fitting to the pipe using the SS ferrules. This is likely more related to my ineptitude handling this equipment, than it is the fault of the fitting.To date I have not been able to get my (rather crude, 1-250bar) transducer to present data that seem indicating that the pressure is holding. I have also received a few aluminum ferrules, but being as it is with the melting point for that element, they seem more appropriate to apply a bit away form the hot spot of the reactor, where I attach the transducer. In the other end I have a fitting with a SS ferrule, a stop plug with a TC and ceramic paste plugging it the TC pass through.

At any rate, just my 25 cent worth:

Be very careful when mounting the fitting on the ceramic tube, and by all means, get a small stock of ferrules, aluminum too, if applicable. You may need to reuse the fitting a few times. With that said, I like the Swagelok products, and will continue to use them. Just a matter of getting used to applying it and to not force the wrench too hard, while following the guidelines of mounting ....