Firax Tech replic series

I really like the wire supported reactor.

Every method to reduce experiment cost means more experiments for less money.

The wire does the job and causes no serious compromise. Excellent.

An even lower cost method with only two vertical wires seems achievable.

Congratulations, Denis. That system held together a very long time. Great stuff.

We should all keep in mind that it is very early days. Remember Alexander P's large collection of damaged reactors, and Rossi's claims of killing many, many, many more reactors.

One other note: If you knew you would eventually succeed, would you quit at 100 defeats? At 200? Some people never say die. Sometimes they change the world. :borg:

Hi all

The Fuelled Reactor has been around 100 degrees hotter throughout much of experiment. This may be down to just having more solids in the reactor. However the Fuelled reactor seems to be a lot hotter along its whole central length and begins to sag. Action happens at around -2:14 onwards. Significant heat shimmer has been visible for some time above the fuelled reactor it is also expanding and sagging along a considerable length. The reactor then shorts and reaches very high temperatures but this is normal in an electrical short. The fuelled reactor sensor, which dictates current, then goes and power is consequently cut off. The Control/dummy reactor then cools as per expectation while the Fuelled reactor remains hot for a considerable time, going on the continued heat shimmer as there is no longer a sensor as it has been melted.

I would suggest two boiling water systems be optioned to take off heat.

Also a fill of fuel minus Li Al H in the dummy to give a closer match on latent heat capacity of the fill in the fuelled reactor.

Kind Regards walker

Hello,

The inside tube seems intact. You could refurbish it with a new wire. And retest it with a faster growth of the temperature.

How can we tell the difference between wire breaks caused by heat from inside the reactor and wire breaks caused by wire defects?

If a hotspot manifests inside the reactor would it not first melt the heating wire before melting the alumina?

Online references cite 2072 C as the melting point of alumina and kanthal varies by formulation melting between 1200 and 1500.

This causes me to conjecture that a tube can remain intact while hot enough to melt the heating wire - leading to an open arc which then can in some cases then destroy the tube.

One way to test this would be to heat an alumina plate with a torch from one side with unelectrified kanthal on the other side.

Thats a bit of a catch 22 Firax. Telling me I have to show a working reactor before you or others will do my experiment which involves changing a single parameter of the experiment Parhomov did and keeping all other parameters the same.

Have other scientists told you that? Or are they more cooperative? I have a concept that is worth testing and cant find an experimental group. Why don't you walk a mile in my shoes Firax?

Instead of bitching and complaining about a society that says you have to have money to make money, I'm offering labs with equipment an opportunity to make joint applications for funding experiments.

Quote from Denis Vasilenko

Yes, I plan to do so with a thicker coil and operating temperatures up to 1300 C.

Good plan
You will need the thicker coil on empty reactor also, but you can heat it up fast to bring back to 1000C.

Many smart people are suggesting that the difference is temperature was because of difference in resistance of two wires in series. So I suggest to add one more Voltmeter to measure the voltage across both wires.
It is ok to have different resistances, but we need to measure it, so we can compensate later in calculation.

Hi Denis that was a nice (lengthly) show you brought us. Thanks!
Text removed. I did not read the whole thread

Denis, if you use a thicker wire, it will need more turns in spiral and so a longer wire. If its short, you will need more power to heat it to 1200C because of less resistance.

Quote from Denis Vasilenko

Yes, I plan to do so with a thicker coil and operating temperatures up to 1300 C.

1. It looks like the thermocouple placed in closed contact with the heater wire could cause the local overheating. What about to use another wider alumina tube and to place the reactor inside this tube, and the thermocouple can be placed outside, on this tube, to avoid this effect.

2. Since the temperature limit for the heater wire is close to "the more interesting temperature” – 1200 C, there is no sense to continue to use this wire (if LENR takes place, the local temperature can be far beyond the 1200 and local overheating is evident, and heater will be broken). More temperature resistant wire is needed, or additional stimulation of LENR at low temperature, below 1200 C, should be used, probably by additional alternating current.

Dennis, thank you for the experiment!

Please do also consider to use Ni-dust in the control-reactor to get the environment more similar.
Could it be that Ni -core interferes with the system differently than just air, by changing the mH -measure of the coil?

Br jouni

Tarun wrote:

"Denis, if you use a thicker wire, it will need more turns in spiral and
so a longer wire. If its short, you will need more power to heat it to
1200C because of less resistance. "

Longview comments:

Yes and No. The current will increase at a given voltage for larger diameter wire, as you say because of lower resistance. But the power delivered will equal the power dissipated in the circuit (give or take minor issues that are not important here). The work done raising the temperature will be the same, the volts and amps will change (volts down, amps up) but essentially their product will be the same to get to the same rate of work and thence to the same temperature.

If that is not clear, more details are available on request.