me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]


  • You are definitely right, that the electrical resistance of alumina will decrease with increasing temperature. Good hint.


    However I would not suggest to bring electrodes into contact with the tube in order to apply an additional current.
    If me wants to continue to use a current source (fixed current, variable voltage) this means that at the points where there is higher resistance, joule power will be larger thus we will induce thermomechanical stress at these points. temperature differences should be as small as possible in order to prevent cracks at the tube surface.


    You could try to place swageloks at opposite sites of the tube and apply the electrode wires there.


    However, I think the transformer that me mentioned is the much better solution. You can generate strong magnetic fields with MHz to GHz frequencies and induce vortex current inside the tube. Without any contact between trafo and reactor tube.


  • However I would not suggest to bring electrodes into contact with the tube in order to apply an additional current.


    You could try to place swageloks at opposite sites of the tube and apply the electrode wires there.


    That might look good. But of course the Swageloks are connected to relatively cool parts of the ceramic tubing. The resistance across the whole length will likely be many megohms. With the "hot" 1000 oC + part offering only around 10 kilohms. Basically, this is not the way to apply electrical power to the reactor.



    However, I think the transformer that me mentioned is the much better solution. You can generate strong magnetic fields with MHz to GHz frequencies and induce vortex current inside the tube. Without any contact between trafo and reactor tube.


    But for MHz only if that is an air coil "transformer", it still is not likely at the GHz level. Curved conductors are strong radiators, sure enough. But the GHz power will likely never see the inside of the reactors, since it cannot conduct far along the wire of a curved "transformer" coil. So MHz, might be doable, if one knows the specifics of designing such electronics. Microwaves, that is say 1 GHz and up, are conducted without substantial loss by striplines, twin lead, coaxial cable and wave guides. They are not conducted by "coils". Coils immediately radiate the GHz energy--- whether any would go toward the "inside" of the curve, someone else will have to judge.


    Nothing prevents a microwave "horn" from being aimed directly at the reactor. The ceramic, even when hot, is still enough of an insulator to be largely transparent to the microwave energy in its path. The contents, as long as there is sufficient length to see 1/4 wavelength, being quite conductive will likely absorb a large portion of the microwave energy. Some attention to polarization of the microwaves with respect to the longitudinal orientation of the core might be important.


    Another approach would be to make the cylindrical reactor part of a microwave coaxial conductor. That is the energy would enter via a high power coaxial cable from one end, with the ceramic being a continuation of the the dielectric and the reactive core being a continuation of the central conductor. Naturally, a shield of say monel around the ceramic tube "dielectric" would act in place of the usual conductive shield in coaxial cables. The whole could be designed so the microwaves would see an impedance change on entry to the reactor and hence be effectively shunted on entering the reactor, delivering their energy (pulse, continuous etc) to the core. All dependent on good design, but experimentally accessible to amateur design using a GHz signal generator and GHz oscilloscope and perhaps attenuating probes.

  • From my point of view I don't accept conductivity of ceramic tubes as reason for success replication.


    As showed in Songsheng's replication there is very different construction. Fuel container is made from Nickel plate and this was attached in two ceramic rings. So theoretically current could flow from end to end of the fuel container.
    But nickel plate will be surely much better conductor than the fuel itself so the current will (if any) flow just there - not over the fuel.
    If there was really some electrical circuit through the fuel, then this flow was there all the time in higher temperatures. But nothing happened on its own. Until he started to change power level there was no excess heat. This behavior was very similar with Parkhomov experiments.


    Power level change in a coils will always create magnetic field. And this happened before LENR effect was observed always. Even one sharp spike could trigger LENR if the power is high enough.


    Do you know a linear induction flashlight? Even one fast shake will create charge that the light will be observed for a while.
    Do you know a FET transistors? Even very small current can cause, that you will "open the valve" and then transistor will be just opened all the time until there is input flow.


    And similarly it could be with LENR triggering. But a requirements must be fulfilled. So basically the requirement could be that we have to do 2 things simultaneously and correctly.


    I believe that Rossi found a signal, that is triggering LENR all the time. So then he do not have to make anything else than changing the temperature accordingly.


    My conclusion is that for Hot Cat only magnetic induction is used with a proper modulation and power. This will not require Mhz or Ghz frequency at all.

  • Is the purpose of high frequencies of alternating current/magnetic waves to induce lattice vibration waves through the reactants?
    Do we know what range of frequencies we're looking for?


    Is it possible that ultrasound could produce similar effects? possibly combined with piezoelectric materials?
    I don't think I know exactly how this would affect the reactants but I'm simply suggesting the idea.

  • With all due respect, whose points are you addressing here, me356? If you would kindly use the internal "reply" rather than the external red "reply" button, then it might be clearer who the "you" is that you refer to in your reply. Some here take great effort to break apart the post being replied to, so as to make it clear what is being addressed. I don't even know if you are responding to me (Longview) or to someone else here, and I certainly don't see exactly how your points apply as a reply to specific points made by others or to mine.Thanks

  • With all due respect, whose points are you addressing here, me356? If you would kindly use the internal "reply" rather than the external red "reply" button, then it might be clearer who the "you" is that you refer to in your reply. Some here take great effort to break apart the post being replied to, so as to make it clear what is being addressed. I don't even know if you are responding to me (Longview) or to someone else here, and I certainly don't see exactly how your points apply as a reply to specific points made by others or to mine.Thanks


    I am not responding to anybody particular. I am just telling what I am thinking about.
    I am sorry - I have accidently modified your message. But I have edited it back to its original form.

  • From my point of view I don't accept conductivity of ceramic tubes as reason for success replication.


    As showed in Songsheng's replication there is very different construction. Fuel container is made from Nickel plate and this was attached in two ceramic rings. So theoretically current could flow from end to end of the fuel container. But nickel plate will be surely much better conductor than the fuel itself so the current will (if any) flow just there - not over the fuel.


    Interesting. Depending on the details, essentially no potential difference is transmitted through to the core materials. That is the metallic sleeve makes the whole container the same potential, and no differential is seen at least longitudinally inside it.


    If there was really some electrical circuit through the fuel, then this flow was there all the time in higher temperatures. But nothing happened on its own. Until he started to change power level there was no excess heat. This behavior was very similar with Parkhomov experiments.


    Power level change in a coils will always create magnetic field. And this happened before LENR effect was observed always. Even one sharp spike could trigger LENR if the power is high enough.


    Actually, power itself will create a magnetic field. Power level change will create a moving magnetic field. Both static and moving magnetic fields can be important. In ferromagnetic metals such as nickel, a static field could serve as a catalyst by orientation effects. And the other situation, a moving magnetic field can do work, and that also may be of potential importance. Spiked triggering might be operative, but that would likely show a correlated spiked output. I don't know if we have seen that yet.



    And similarly it could be with LENR triggering. But a requirements must be fulfilled. So basically the requirement could be that we have to do 2 things simultaneously and correctly.


    I am certain that at least 2 things have to be done simultaneously and correctly. That is certainly true of the whole history of CF / LENR. In fact, it could be argued that more than 2 things are required. For example, in a classic F&P experiment, one has to have the potential difference across the surface of the electrode, one has to have the Pd at less than perfect purity, and that it be packed to at least 88% deuteride, one has to have certain temperature parameters satisfied, and one may have to have the presence of alkaline conditions. That is 5 things, and I have read of the addition of another one or two more that make it even more energetic or reliable.


    But if I read you more carefully, perhaps you are saying 2 electromagnetic things must be done simultaneously and correctly. So for F&P that would be potential difference and what else? I suspect, from seeing other similar experiments, that a coiled electrode might be necessary, which might imply a magnetic field.
    (Or, alternatively, perhaps the coil, causes a stress on the surface structure of the electrode, forming "cracks" or other NAE type regions.) And there have been reports of phonon/magnon enhancement of the performance of what are close to F&P cells.


    For a nickel hydrogen system, since AR has not been transparent, we have to guess a lot. Oscillating or moving magnetic fields could be in the mix. Sharp pulses might be required as well. Heat is clearly required, and a threshold seems to be present. Hydrogen may have to purge out the active sites on nickel. Lithium may be active participant in at least the Parkhomov types.



    I believe that Rossi found a signal, that is triggering LENR all the time. So then he do not have to make anything else than changing the temperature accordingly.


    My conclusion is that for Hot Cat only magnetic induction is used with a proper modulation and power. This will not require Mhz or Ghz frequency at all.


    So you are saying that rather than two electromagnetic things, basically one is all that is necessary(?) "Magnetic induction" is required ? So is there a current induced in the core by the "primary" winding of the heater coil?


    Whether that is exactly what you meant, it certainly brings up a very nice possibility. That is of induction heating of the core. Such would allow high heat without damage to heater coils, since the resistive element would be the core itself. The "coils" in that case would be copper conductors, or even hollow copper tubes with coolant circulating to prevent them from overheating. The oscillating magnetic field would heat the core just like a cast iron pan is heated on an induction cooktop. All the nice electronics and controls could be taken from one of those "seen on TV" induction cooking units, that range from $60 to $100 now.


    Once one was using induction to heat the core, it might be easier to manipulate other variables, that is microwaves, ultrasound, laser stimulation, superimposed DC potentials and so on. The core could be suspended in a near vacuum, by say quartz threads, so that little conductive heat was lost. The outer container could be pyrex since it would not have to be in contact with the core-- it could be a vacuum jacket with aluminized or silvered surface inside the vacuum, so that it would conserve the input heat by reflection very well, making higher COPs much easier.

  • Another approach would be to make the cylindrical reactor part of a microwave coaxial conductor. That is the energy would enter via a high power coaxial cable from one end, with the ceramic being a continuation of the the dielectric and the reactive core being a continuation of the central conductor.


    That is how the Brillouin "Hot tube" appears to work. Look at pages 9-11 of patent application US20140332087. Nickel or another metal is sputtered or electroplated onto the inner surface of a ceramic tube. Paragraph 75 of the image descriptions states "The central portion of the core....defines the electrodes of a coaxial transmission line."


    AlanG

  • In ferromagnetic metals such as nickel, a static field could serve as a catalyst by orientation effects. .


    No, it can't. As we have seen, the critical temperature of the transmutations lies somewhere above 700 °C. There is absolutely no magnetization of solid state nickel at these temperatures.
    The reason why external magnetic fields do play a role is more likely due to the nuclear spin polarization of the H and Li nuclii in the external magnetic field. Spin orientation can increase or decrease the tunneling rate due to the exchange interaction potential.

  • No, it can't. As we have seen, the critical temperature of the transmutations lies somewhere above 700 °C. There is absolutely no magnetization of solid state nickel at these temperatures.
    The reason why external magnetic fields do play a role is more likely due to the nuclear spin polarization of the H and Li nuclii in the external magnetic field. Spin orientation can increase or decrease the tunneling rate due to the exchange interaction potential.


    Your point must be that Ni is not able to exhibit ferromagnetic behavior at high such temperatures. Fair enough. But that was not exactly what I meant. A ferromagnetic element has unique nuclear properties even above its Curie temperature. That does not necessarily prevent an external magnetic field from influencing their catalytic behavior-- as you go on to suggest above--- and which which I should have made explicit in my comment earlier. By the way, the Curie temperature for iron is 770 degrees C. I recall that Ni-Fe alloys have been reported with at least some LENR properties. I don't recall seeing Curie readings for magnetic alloys, but I bet they are out in the literature... that would be interesting data for Nd/Fe/B and SmCo, as well as Alnico.


    We have seen the temperatures generally quite high (700 degrees C sounds like a reasonable low so far) in the Ni-H systems for supposed excess heat, we need to keep looking to see why that is. I would agree that "transmutations" is an excellent endpoint.... one usually NOT observed in real time in most of this work.... except Lipinski UGC (who I have repeatedly recommended to those here, with little response except from Jarovnak).


    Is spin orientation the whole story there? It sounds like a good or at least interesting idea. Has someone written on that in detail? A strong applied field is likely to match the spins, or so I would imagine. Does that make the spin pairing up/up, down/down or only naturally up/down? Some other parameter might also be manipulated to further ensure spin/spin (up/down?) pairing to favor reaction i.e. catalysis. I suppose atomic hydrogens can easily flip in a magnetic field, but that a ferromagnetic is more easily constrained to assume some spin orientation, say by an applied electrostatic field, or a tuned and polarized RF signal.


    Thanks for the input Majorana! I appreciate it.


  • MFMP fb page




    Quote

    Here is an overview of the in-progress set-up of the equipment for non-contact long term control of reactors - currently attached to the Padua cell.It is hoped that data for the following will be available.PCE-830 power monitoringOptris Pi 160 monitoring1000 5V pulse per 1kw hour pulses in streamAmbient temp K-TypeTemperature from IR gun (outside core, outside cement)Temperature from K-Type (outside core, embedded in cement)Pulse to triacPressureCounts per minute from Geiger Counter

  • Bob, check also the start of the Padua data for a zero gauge pressure reference point. The sensor has an accuracy spec of 2% of full scale, so the possible error at zero is ±32 psi. I suspect it may be showing atmospheric pressure within the error margin. You'll also have to account for any difference from the supply voltage used at Padua.


    AlanG


    MFMP fb page




    Quote

    Here is an overview of the in-progress set-up of the equipment for non-contact long term control of reactors - currently attached to the Padua cell.It is hoped that data for the following will be available.PCE-830 power monitoringOptris Pi 160 monitoring1000 5V pulse per 1kw hour pulses in streamAmbient temp K-TypeTemperature from IR gun (outside core, outside cement)Temperature from K-Type (outside core, embedded in cement)Pulse to triacPressureCounts per minute from Geiger Counter

    [/quote]

  • I am testing my new reactor with SiC element and tightness of the core tube.


    Everything seems to be good. But I have reached SiC limitation around 1200W. I am getting just around 900°C. Then power consumption is exponentially higher. This issue should be addressed with a proper insulation. The highest core temperature was just around 1200°C.
    Also I have checked that SiC element is producing so intense EM field, that my IR meter (that is reading data from TC) was unstable at 800W and more.

  • I am testing my new reactor with SiC element and tightness of the core tube.


    Everything seems to be good. But I have reached SiC limitation around 1200W. I am getting just around 900°C. Then power consumption is exponentially higher. This issue should be addressed with a proper insulation. The highest core temperature was just around 1200°C.
    Also I have checked that SiC element is producing so intense EM field, that my IR meter (that is reading data from TC) was unstable at 800W and more.


    I see that its heating up again now. Is there fuel inside ? If yes, which one ?
    By the way, I think its unlikely that Sic element can produce Em fields of high strength. Did you check?

  • Also I have checked that SiC element is producing so intense EM field, that my IR meter (that is reading data from TC) was unstable at 800W and more.


    It is possible that EM from the heater coil could be causing interference but the mains frequency is quite low and interference is more likely to be common mode. I am not sure how your TC is bundled but if you twist the TC wires all the way down its length you can reduce effects from outside fields. However I would suspect that a ground loop from the heater coil, through the TC and through the USB connection is more likely to have an effect on the measurements if the USB is not isolated. Perhaps remove the wired TC and just use the Pyrometer as that is really why you got it as I understand so that you don't have to rely on contact methods to measure the temperature. That is assuming you had the wired TC on the reactor.

  • I believe he might be in the process of testing a heat reflector or some sort of insulation. Temperatures appear to be significantly higher than in the previous test for the same amount of input power.


    Yes, the shield is working well, if its there. The power required is 1/10 or less.

  • I have checked that the core tube is tight to 1350°C perfectly.
    I have checked it with another heater, thats why consumption was much lower.


    I am sure that the noise is extremely high as it affects computers and USB peripherals 2 meters away.
    Everything is contactless.


    TC is used to measure temperature of the core which is not possible in other way. TC can fail anytime, which is not a problem.

  • Thanks, I am studying Piantelli, Focardi papers and it seems that hydrogen absorption is occuring around 120°C and more. Actually with temperatures under 200°C it can be few times faster.
    I think that we are doing this process incorrectly all the time. If it is done properly, we could see excess heat even at low temperatures.
    The problem is, we are not seeing it. Maybe it is prerequisite for Rossi effect, which is boosted by the temperature + Li.


    It seems as these papers are very usefull. Even excess heat triggering is described here. There is nothing different then in Rossi system, I think that Rossi found how to move from few watts to few kilowatts but the matter is very same.


    I am sure that we are incredibly near the success.

  • Just a thought, why not control input power instead of trying to regulate temperature to a fixed point. Bar rapid changes in the reactor, a certain power should give you a certain temperature unless some other factor suddenly comes into play. It might be easier to spot any excess heat occurring if the temperature fluctuates with fixed input energy. I would imagine that coil power would be slightly easier to control than a somewhat non-linear temperature. Having a coil power that is fixed might reduce temperature and power fluctuations due to the temperature measurement/control process. Temperature limits or trips could be added to prevent runaway reactions if required but don't serve as the primary control.


    A question regarding the suspected EM noise interfering with equipment. Did the interference occur with or without the wired TC being used in the reactor?


    Regarding pressure. Aren't there safety valves that "burp" gas when the pressure exceeds a certain threshold? Perhaps in the future a safety valve could be added to the reactor tube so that if and only if the pressure should rise above expectations, the excess gas would be burped and you would not have to abort the experiment.

  • GlowFish: good idea. Unfortunately the result can be worse as power measurement is mostly "slower" and not so precise so the regulation reponse is delayed. This will result in greater instability than in measuring the temperature. With faster input it is always better. But it may be really good to implement to have both.


    TC may not be connected at all to observe interference.


    I am thinking about making hydrogenation process better. For now it seems that it is needed to hydrogenate nickel in cycles. Maybe succesfull replicators did it by mistake or intentionally.
    Also it is possible that if we want excess heat with just one hydrogenation procedure we have to met more strict conditions (for example vacuum from the beginning, optimal pressure range, certain nickel type, ..).

  • Thanks, I am studying Piantelli, Focardi papers and it seems that hydrogen absorption is occuring around 120°C and more. Actually with temperatures under 200°C it can be few times faster.
    I think that we are doing this process incorrectly all the time. If it is done properly, we could see excess heat even at low temperatures.
    The problem is, we are not seeing it. Maybe it is prerequisite for Rossi effect, which is boosted by the temperature + Li.


    It seems as these papers are very usefull. Even excess heat triggering is described here. There is nothing different then in Rossi system, I think that Rossi found how to move from few watts to few kilowatts but the matter is very same.


    I am sure that we are incredibly near the success.


    I think you are going along the right track, but I would be careful about conclusions from temperature readings. Was 120°C inside or outside core? How was it measured? Hot spots/cold spots not only from the heater coil, but also locally inside the fuel material itself could be very different from any reading with a TC.


    If the cause for pressure decrease is not H packed into the lattice of Ni, but because of surface SPP and Rydberg matter formation then - as learned from Svein and Axil - the process we want to trigger is extremely fast and local. Debye temp for Ni (~178°C) can be a threshold that must be passed, but the average/slow and by that integrated temp readings of a TC or even a pyrometer is far from the true temp in each small spot of the Ni micro powder.

  • I think you are going along the right track, but I would be careful about conclusions from temperature readings. Was 120°C inside or outside core? How was it measured? Hot spots/cold spots not only from the heater coil, but also locally inside the fuel material itself could be very different from any reading with a TC.


    If the cause for pressure decrease is not H packed into the lattice of Ni, but because of surface SPP and Rydberg matter formation then - as learned from Svein and Axil - the process we want to trigger is extremely fast and local. Debye temp for Ni (~178°C) can be a threshold that must be passed, but the average/slow and by that integrated temp readings of a TC or even a pyrometer is far from the true temp in each small spot of the Ni micro powder.


    Note that the Debye temperature for Ni probably is pressure dependent, eg.


    Magnetic Susceptibility of Superconductors and Other Spin Systems:


    https://books.google.se/books?id=_KwACAAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=debye+temperature+pressure+dependence&source=bl&ots=g2MbmNS76O&sig=qrdGRHl56mXZlPB4xXYc0UyhH8A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCGoVChMI9pKev5eoxwIVChUsCh0FrQ6d#v=onepage&q=debye%20temperature%20pressure%20dependence&f=false

  • Yes but the linked page cover superconductors at very low temps, < 100 K, nevertheless I find this information interesting:


    lattice stiffens under pressure giving Debye temp increase giving superconducting temp decrease
    and if so we also have the opposite:
    lattice softens when pressure decrease giving Debye temp decrease


    Most LENR experiments are performed at low pressure or vacuum which would trigger the effect at lower temperatures, "loading" start at a lower temp.
    Lugano and Parkhomov hotcat experiments are performed at normal atm pressure, "loading" start at a higher temp.


    Just thinking and saying... :huh:

  • I am thinking about getting excess heat.. I believe that to achieve it, we need contant pressure change.


    Following steps should be performed periodically:
    1. load hydrogen with nickel (slow process)
    2. release hydrogen from nickel as fast as possible (theoretically fast process)


    During hydrogen release we can observe excess heat if the pressure change derivation is high enough until nickel absorb hydrogen again.


    The problem is, we don't know how to release hydrogen from nickel correctly. At least after latest experiments I know how to absorb hydrogen by nickel quite well.


    My theory is, that this is only caused by abnormal temperature change and possibly EM stimulation. Thus the heater should be as close as possible to the fuel, because thermal transfer is faster too.
    Hydrogen release from nickel can be easier, if Nickel has already enough hydrogen in it and/or if the temperature is higher. Thus few cycles of hydrogenation may be necessary.


  • I noticed ( see figure 4 and 7 in https://docs.google.com/docume…dxmOoX4FRhZOu6pnGNCFEBdho ) that when I had a dramatic drop in temperature, the pressure increased. It did it at time of death, twice, but it also happen a bit before death, once, making it a bit more interesting. It could be the core melting due to arcing, and degassing, but for the singular event before the first death one can speculate...