Great work - that graph is very interesting! 
Thanks Brian! 10 hours is a long time, hopefully we can get valuable feedback from our visitors.
How does the future look like? Planning new test?
Question, 10 hours, I guess it's too little time to see the isotopic changes?
I suppose it can take a long time to accumulate enough isotopically identifiable products to register. But if the flux of events creating such isotopes is sufficiently high, then the decay rates should allow ready registration of the nearly always beta emissions from any of the following taken to be the likely isotopic products of neutron acquisition:
[Half-lives in seconds unless otherwise noted]:
11Li 8.7 ms
10Li 4 X 10-22
9Li 0.178
8Li 0.84
34Al 0.05
32Al 32 ms
31Al 0.64
30Al 3.68
29Al 6.5 min
28Al 2.25 min
74Ni 1.1
73Ni 0.9
72Ni 2.1
71Ni 1.9
69Ni 10
68Ni 19
67Ni 21
66Ni 54 hours
65Ni 2.5 hours
63Ni 100 years
59Ni 74,000 years
Data taken from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, David R. Lide Ed., CRC Press 1995 and earlier, section 11, pp. 38-143
With kind regards,
Longview
Hi Brian,
First, let me say that I think you are doing great work. I think that we hobbyists can learn a lot from each other.
I did a quick analysis on your data and the method I used showed a max COP of ~1.06 at the 4th and 5th temperature steps (looks like between 1050 and 1100).
Since we don't have a calibration, we can use the reactor as its own calibration. We have reason to believe that any gain below 1000C would be small. Therefore, you can generate a calibration curve with data points below 1000C.
I average power and temperature values at each step. I eyeballed the cell ranges from a chart, so it won't be 100% accurate, but it's close enough.
| Temp Average (all TC's) | Input Power | Calculated Output Power | COP |
| 338.228339 459.884108 550.46236 667.617531 706.555159 740.78757 745.76839 |
98.6354622 151.555773 200.915493 252.387476 279.930096 342.030201 338.126231 |
96.5859369 147.761193 195.475392 269.358123 296.952688 322.465124 326.274843 |
0.97922121 0.97496249 0.97292344 1.06724045 1.06081015 0.94279722 0.96494981 |
| Average COP | 0.99470068 | ||
I averaged the temperature values of all the thermocouples together, which will probably give the best overall measure. I generated a polynomial calibration curve from the first 3 power/temperature steps (core temp <1000C). Using the polynomial curve, I used the temperature values to calculate the output power. I divided Output Power by Input Power to get the COP at each power/temp level. I used the data contained in the spreadsheet on Power Compiled and TC compiled.
Anyway, hope this helps. The COP increase of 6-7% is something that I have often seen, and probably should not be discounted (but certainly not seen as clear evidence either). I have seen results like this after more successful runs (and other times where it is better). Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
Feedback from Edmund Storms
QuoteDisplay MoreDavid, two problems have to be solved.
To measure power, the design must follow several rules in order to create a calorimeter. In this case, the method used is isoperibolic, which requires a delta T be measured across a thermal barrier. This method requires calibration under identical conditions used to study the sample. If these conditions are not met, nothing can be concluded. I do not see any effort to create a functional calorimeter. A significant amount of on-the- job-training is required before even a properly designed calorimeter can be trusted. Even under normal conditions, this is not an easy measurement to get right.
Second, measuring nuclear products is difficult when powder is used because we do not know which particle of the powder is nuclear active. Clearly, the nuclear active material is rare and difficult to create. All of the power is expected to be made by a relatively few particles. Finding these particles among the inactive ones is not easy. The result depends on where you look.
In this case, the challenge is even greater because the LiAl liquid wets the Ni grains, cementing them together. If nuclear products are present, they would be buried under the LiAl coating where they would not be detectable without vaporizing the sample. This treatment would create many vapor species that would need to be identified. So few nuclear products are made that detecting them among the large amount of other vapor would be very difficult. I do not believe has been done effectively in the past. Therefore, the claimed isotope shifts are not creditable.
As you know, I believe LENR is real, but people now seem to be so desperate to demonstrate heat using the Rossi effect that they pay no attention to the basic requirements of good measurement. If the skeptics were paying attention, they would have great fun showing just how gullible people have become about LENR.
Ed
Thanks for the estimate Jack. The fact is there is just too many unknowns in this experiment. It wasn't designed to find COP and therefore it's impossible to determine an accurate COP from it. If I decide I want to determine COP I'll use calorimetry in a future experiment.
Brian, I agree. David Roberson does believe this experiment of yours showed excess heating. It probably would have been obscured by the way i did my analysis. Please see David's analysis.
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg102532.html
New attempts by Brian Albiston soon. We activate the chat and let people discuss.
Hi Brian;
I got an e-mail that says you have doubts about the optimum particle size and that your stuff might be too small before sintering increases the particle sizes.
What factors determine optimum particle size in your opinion? Almost everything I've seen says that nickel particle sintering is also blamed as the number one cause of LENR failure.
Do you have SEM or TEM pics to show?
Display MoreI think I observed excess heat for over 10 hours in my testing this weekend. I would like the forum's help in analyzing the results and trying to estimate the amount of heat released. A full description of my test can be found at: hydrogenfusion.blogspot.com
data at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vuw…li0AGxoigqyK8W2fkjma?dl=0
Thanks in advance.
Brian
Did you chop Variac sine wave to power your fuel element? Jim
Interested in EM content introduced to fuel element like Lugano PCE 830 showed current input & frequency spectrum content. Cheers Jim
New attempts by Brian Albiston soon. We activate the chat and let people discuss.
Nice to be able to interact thru LENR forum! Jim
New attempts by Brian Albiston soon. We activate the chat and let people discuss.
Hey, what happened with this...? I noted that the experiment started, but a few days later nothing is mentioned about this.
What was the result?
Breaking news! Brian Albiston running new test NOW! started 10 hours ago, using calorimetry and with extra Li powder.
QuoteDisplay MoreBrian Albiston running LIVE TEST NOW! with added passivated Lithium Nano Powder!
Test in progress:
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/590/temperature-power-pressure/
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/593/calorimeter-mass-energy-cop/
Nanoshell was the supplier of the passivated Lithium nano powder which cost $300 for 10g and took 2 weeks from order to delivery.
Brian Says
"I will be holding at 500ºC for several hours waiting for the water to boil. That is the annoying thing about heat of vaporization calorimetry, you don't get any measurements until the water boils.
Here are the details:
- 0.5g INCO 255 Nickel, baked
- 0.3g LiAlH4
- 0.2g Passivated Li Powder, APS 80-100 nm, 99.9% Purity
I thorougly ground the Ni and LiAlH4 together using a mortar and pestle. I then added the Li powder and lightly ground and mixed using the mortar and pestle. All of the powders were mixed in my Redneck glove box which was continuously purged with Argon.
Powders were then loaded into a 5/16" OD, 316 stainless thermocouple protection tube. The open end of the tube was plugged with alumina wool. The tube was then dropped into 18" long alumina outer tube. The alumina tube was evacuated before the start of the test.
Let's cross our fingers. We may have the right ingredients now, but there still are a lot of unknowns, i.e. nickel type, pressure profile, em stimulation, etc."
See more info and links to plotly at MFMP link:
https://m.facebook.com/MartinF…sts/1051914348172597?_rdr
The graphs look very interesting at the moment:
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/590/temperature-power-pressure/
Input Power is decreasing, while temperature is slowly increasing.
Uh la la
What is passivated lithium powder? Does it have some type of coating on it? What coating?
Replicate a replication of a scam. Whut? Beats me.
Tyy, your postings are not worthy of any answer, but if this is a scam, replicating is the scientific way to test it. Your consistent message is 'I already know the outcome' which you of course do not.
That is why you are a clown here.
