Could you detail how the pressure varies with temperature in your Li/LAH system?
Do we have a vaccum at low temperatures, and sudden higher pressures when you reach 700C?
me356: Reactor parameters [part 1]
- me356
- Closed
-
-
Me356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and cat.
"First process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2."
That is the mouse."Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiHThe higher rate mean higher COP."
That's the cat!hep!
-
Piantelli also claims in his latest patent that he can throttle his device by putting a barrier between the nickel and the lithium. Thus some of the excess heat comes from the nickel, some from the lithium.
-
Piantelli also claims in his latest patent that he can throttle his device by putting a barrier between the nickel and the lithium. Thus some of the excess heat comes from the nickel, some from the lithium.
That is interesting to know. It might be that the rydberg matter that the lithium produces is blocked from access to the nickel thereby blocking the catalytic reaction cycle.
-
Rossi explicitly stated the the Cat was a reactor that was identical to the Mouse. The Cat/Mouse combo is required for Self Sustained Mode. To convince yourself, scan all reference to cat and mouse in rossi's responses to questions: it's all in there.
Display MoreMe356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and cat.
"First process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2."
That is the mouse."Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiHThe higher rate mean higher COP."
That's the cat!hep!
-
Good to see your progress.
Perhaps temperature cycling is important. You need to keep increasing and lowering the temperature around the decomposition point of LiH.
We know that in the E-Cat a chopped AC waveform is used, but we do not know how its RMS value varies over a longer time period. Probably he cycles it up and down in a few minutes intervals.
If you see the older patent of Rossi, there is a clear mention of on-off cycles of input power (with a graph). -
From progress report #6
see comments @ http://lenrexplained.com/2015/09/progress-report-6/QuoteDisplay More
Edmund Storms says: October 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM
The only issue from an engineering view point is how much NAE can be created in the material. Once the NAE is created, energy can be extracted simply by putting a little D in the lattice using gas loading or electrolysis and then heating the sample under the required equilibrium pressure. When enough insulation is used, the sample will self-heat.The same requirements have been found to apply to Ni+H2. In other words, gas loading and electrolysis will produce identical behavior and this same behavior applies to the Ni-H2 system.
Once temperature is accepted as being the important variable, rather than the electrolytic current, all of the behavior shown by Pd-D, regardless of the method used, and Ni-H start to make sense. Both systems are able to make energy with a high out/in ratio. -
Good to see your progress.
Perhaps temperature cycling is important. You need to keep increasing and lowering the temperature around the decomposition point of LiH.[0052] Original source of the electric field is preferably a dielectric material that can be polarized comprising piezoelectric material (electric polarization is induced by mechanical vibration, e.g. by an ultrasonic source), pyroelectric material (electric polarization is induced by variable temperature) and/or multiferroic material (electric polarization is induced by a magnetic field). Polarization of a material creates the electric field near the material. [0053] Fusion reactions are initiated at the nanoscale (at least one dimension smaller than about 100 nm) by the combination of three control factors: sufficiently high hydrogen gas pressure in the reaction container, sufficiently high temperature in the reaction container and the polarization of a dielectric material.
-
Quote from me356
There is major issue that we have to solve.
Lithium is trapped on the alumina surface and even destroying it. This mean we have to find the material that can be used and can't react with lithium.
This material still have to stand high temperatures without oxidation. Without a proper construction we can't be successfull and LiH decomposition will not happen.On the other hand, when it is made from a steel, pressure measurement is not possible so easily as it can damage manometer.
I think you should ask yourself: is liquid lithium really needed? What are you trying to achieve?
In my opinion, there are only two reasons for it being needed in these cells:
1) Having a reversible hydrogen getter to achieve a controllable hydrogen flux through the active material with temperature control;
2) Forming stable lithium compounds on the surface of the active material in order to decrease its work function, as also highlighted by Celani in his latest paper. Positive results by other researchers also strongly depend on the surface work function of the active material.For point 1 you don't really need to have it wet the entire reactor surface. For point 2 there's no need either for it to wet the active material as long as stable lithium compounds are formed on it (like LiAlO2 or LiO2). If you need liquid Lithium mainly as a getter, you could replace it with a different, specialized getter compound that won't damage the reactor surface like for example one made of Zr-Al. However you would need a vacuum pump as this getter will absorb most gases, including that of the starting atmosphere. And if you start using a vacuum pump then you might as well get away with the LiAlH4 (assuming the active material has already been prepared) and supply hydrogen externally at the beginning of the experiment.
Just my 2c.
-
Someone mentioned that pure Iron (Fe) will not react with Li.
It needs to be confirmed. -
It was suggested on this paper I posted a few weeks ago on Freethinker2's thread that iron has a "good" resistance to liquid lithium. I'm not sure if it's totally unreactive to it however.
Iron is on the other hand susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…Public/09/410/9410560.pdf
(page 48/58) -
Axil Axil wrote:
" Mats002, Rossi explicitly stated the the Cat was a reactor that was identical to the Mouse. The Cat/Mouse combo is required for Self Sustained Mode. To convince yourself, scan all reference to cat and mouse in rossi's responses to questions: it's all in there."Axil, I have spent some time searching through Rossi Blog Reader, the first mention of mouse was March 25th, 2013 at 8:03 AM in an answer to Steven N. Karels. The sum of all Q/A and especially A:s from Rossi makes this simplified conclusion:
- The reactor we see in the Lugano report is one single unit with combined mouse and cat.
- There is only one charge (fuel) to share between mouse and cat
- if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between mouse and cat vanishes
- The mouse is the only one with external energy input (as electric current in a coil, at one time replaced with a gas burner without success)
- The mouse have COP > 1, but not much over 1.The statements below about the first and second process described by Me356 are still valid:
"Mats002 wrote:
Me356, I think you just solved the puzzle of Rossi mouse and catFirst process that I am talking about is Excess heat from Ni + H reactions. From this process you can get probably COP of around 1.2.
That is the mouse.Second process is LiH composition and decomposition. With ratio between Hydrogen and Lithium you can control the rate (how fast you can change the pressure, respectively how fast LiH can be composed/decomposed).2 Li + H2 → 2 LiH
The higher rate mean higher COP.
That's the cat!" -
ME356, others have found that very pure iron is one of the best candidates.
-
There is major issue that we have to solve.
Lithium is trapped on the alumina surface and even destroying it. This mean we have to find the material that can be used and can't react with lithium.
This material still have to stand high temperatures without oxidation. Without a proper construction we can't be successfull and LiH decomposition will not happen.On the other hand, when it is made from a steel, pressure measurement is not possible so easily as it can damage manometer.
A yttria-stabilized zirconia tube is chemically inert and may tolerate lithium well. Yes, it is somewhat more expensive, but you must pay a little bit more for superior performance. This type of tube is a no hassle replacement for the alumina tube; no fabrication required.
-
-
Me 356 wrote:
"Lithium is trapped on the alumina surface and even destroying it. This mean we have to find the material that can be used and can't react with lithium."
Longview responds:
Replicators need to be cautious following that idea. That interaction may be precisely what is necessary for over unity COPs.
The interaction of oxides with lithium and possibly other fusion fuels such as hydrogen or deuterium may be the exact site and perhaps even much of the cause of anomalous heat production. That interaction is very likely destructive of the oxide, not necessarily by reduction (electron gain) but by some form of unconventional bond scission. One possible path may be to allow a regenerative cycle of some sort.
If the oxide can be regenerated and then a re-association with the electron-rich metal or hydride, then another round at that same molecular site might proceed. However, the exact high energy site and neighboring sites of dissipation of MeV levels of energy may well be irreparable (since such a site may well include transmutations and or structural alteration). Nevertheless, many other sites should either be available, or be repairable. A typical "reactor" should contain on the order of a substantial fraction of a mole of reagents.... that is around 10^23 potential reacting entities. (Review: Avogadro's # is 6.022 X 10^23, represents ~22.4 liters of any "ideal" gas at STP, and represents one GMW of any substance, for example ~58 g. Ni, ~102 g. Al2O3 and so on).
I've written here several times on aspects of this subject, that is the apparent necessity of refractory oxides or other low "work function" materials in intimate contact with transition metals. My ideas on this continue to evolve.... mainly thanks to other's good empirical efforts, such as the replicators here and elsewhere.
-
@axil: most ceramics are probably incompatible with liquid elemental (pure) lithium. This includes yttria, zirconia and likely mixtures thereof. See this from the previously linked document:
High temperature lithium corrosion seems to be presenting a major problem in material engineering of the LENR ceramic tube reactor. Using a metal tube is problematical because lithium dissolves metals through a voracious alloying process and ceramics are short lived because lithium readily combines with oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon until a saturation point is reached. When a lot of lithium is needed that saturation point might not occur until after the ceramic tube has failed.
I would bet that Rossi is trying to find a lithium resistant material for the tube of his new the E-Cat-X reactor. Very high operating temperatures that the E-Cat X is running at makes lithium vapor corrosion intense.
One solution to this very difficult high temperature corrosion problem might be to uses a ceramic that contains lithium that has already reached the saturation level. "LITHIUM DISILICATE GLASS" might be resistant to lithium corrosion. A test of this material that is an alternative ceramic material used in dental crowns might be worth testing for high temperature lithium corrosion resistance.
http://sgiglass.com/ is a supplier and fabricator of this material. Such a fabricator might be tasked to produce a tube made from this material.
This solution might be out of the price range of the typical replicator.
Another idea is to use this glass as a surface coating just a few nanometers thick on both the inside and outside of a refractory metal tube using vapor disposition. Because we would be using a minimum of bulk material this method would not cost too much to do if the replicator can do it himself. The expansion of the coating would need to match the expansion coefficient of the refractory metal that is being used(tungsten?).
-
On a related note, it turns out that nickel is among the metals which are corroded the most in liquid lithium, so I guess one should expect extensive modifications up to the bulk upon high temperature exposure. Perhaps this is important in preparing the reaction in Rossi's case.
http://i.imgur.com/RVJm4Qz.jpg
Alan Goldwater posted a related observation on E-Cat World at about the same time I wrote this comment:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…age-1/#comment-2293204720 -
Longview
Easier to add Al2O3 powder both to the mix with reactor tube steel..?
You told 2 times more than Nickel powder ?David Fojt, you may have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I have ever written anything close to the attribution above. I certainly would not recommend mixing Al2O3 with "reactor tube steel". Long ago I discussed here the properties and composition of "Thermit" or Thermite (spelling in US, perhaps UK), and how very exothermic the reaction is. While metallic oxides such as Fe2O3 are used as oxidizer in Thermites, none to my knowledge uses Al2O3. I understand aluminum metal is often the fuel in Thermits.
I can't even find that old Thermit post now... so it is in some sort of archive. In that old post we likely would see my discussion of Al2O3 and iron powder, or perhaps other pyrotechnic compositions involving lithium, in some form potentially resembling Thermit.
So, it seems a baffling post you have written, probably in answer to someone else, and my name got edited in by mistake (???).
Perhaps it is best to quote directly from the post in question here at the Forum, rather than paraphrase what someone may or may not have written. That way errors and their sources can seen and tracked.
Thanks,
Longview
