Fusionist's NiO FiberFrax experiments

  • "Another hint: it might be possible to oxidize the FiberFrax by a pretreatment with sulfuric acid or nitric acid, two very well known oxidizers, that together are even stronger. A thorough post rinse with ultrapure water or an aprotic solvent might leave the ceramic fibers hungry for some reduction by nickel...."


    This is very interesting, so if the ceramic is left active after the H2SO4/HNO3 treatment then exposure to a solution of nickel ions would result in NiO bound to the ceramic surface. This would be confirmed by the green coloration. Am I correct in interpreting your hint?


    More frustration being rocking chair bound for me. The next step to fusion replication only requires a simply equipped lab. What fun it would be!

  • Should have mentioned in the previous post. Your hint for producing thin NiO coatings that avoid nickel carbonyl is right on. Inhalation of this gas coats exposed lung tissue with nickel. The body responds with a protective activity that produces cancerous tissue where the nickel has deposited. Interesting subject, nickel is known to be a carcinogen.

  • Somewhat off thread here but I'm compelled to add ......


    KISS approach to explaining NiO initiated nanoscale fusion:


    That beautiful sphere in the sky during daylight that's responsible for our being and seeing is another replication of an infinite number of similar activity in our universe. I've measured a helium background from this activity as well as from hydrogen gas used in nanoscale fusion experiments. No need for deep physics here, the microscale NiO particle interaction with dissociated hydrogen produces the same stellar activity.

  • Somewhat off thread here but I'm compelled to add ......


    KISS approach to explaining NiO initiated nanoscale fusion:


    That beautiful sphere in the sky during daylight that's responsible for our being and seeing is another replication of an infinite number of similar activity in our universe. I've measured a helium background from this activity as well as from hydrogen gas used in nanoscale fusion experiments. No need for deep physics here, the microscale NiO particle interaction with dissociated hydrogen produces the same stellar activity.


    You did measure some helium? And deuterium?


    And of course asked the seemingly eternal question of whether the helium was from the lab itself?


    No problem with KISS here. Good idea.

  • The "helium and deuterium at just 0.025amu separation" were no problem for my quadrupole. The analyzer was a Perkin-Elmer instrument that was something spectacular in its day. I don't think helium from other sources as a complicating issue was a question.


    So the reactor loaded with NiO must be fusing hydrogen, maybe?

  • The "helium and deuterium at just 0.025amu separation" were no problem for my quadrupole. The analyzer was a Perkin-Elmer instrument that was something spectacular in its day. I don't think helium from other sources as a complicating issue was a question.


    So the reactor loaded with NiO must be fusing hydrogen, maybe?


    I recall you once indicated you had a meltdown in a Pyrex (borosilicate) system. Is that true?

  • Yes, I had the results of my first reactor as a showpiece on my desk, have been trying to locate it but haven't been able to. Big change in attitude where I worked, people don't know what I'm talking about or care. This relates to my problem deciding whether the meltdown was from a redox reaction or fusion.

  • Yes, I had the results of my first reactor as a showpiece on my desk, have been trying to locate it but haven't been able to. Big change in attitude where I worked, people don't know what I'm talking about or care. This relates to my problem deciding whether the meltdown was from a redox reaction or fusion.



    Now my concern has shifted, since the softening point of borosilicate is about 821 degrees C, that is right below 830 C.


    We need to back up and ask if the Pyrex actually failed just due to furnace heat, without need for fusion or really even redox?


    Or was it actually Pyrex? You and your lab would surely have gained experience at 830 C before, and its effect on lab ware?


    I have more questions to ask.... don't give up yet, please. The whole thing could be very important.

  • Glad you're on board with these questions. One of the reasons I'd like to get the melted apparatus is to make certain that the tube was Pyrex.


    The tubing in the lab was for work at higher temperature and the softening point was one concern I had. How rapidly the melt down occurred was unexpected. It's the reason I suspected something was unusual. I was down to either fusion or redox being responsible, now low melting point is introduced.


    If only I could move and get back to my old job, It would be so simple to get an alumina tube, soak some FiberFrax with the NiO paint, stuff into the tube, wrap nichrome onto the tube, place thermocouples and set up the reactor for hydrogen gas. Plot temperature with linear increase of power to reactor and see if run away occurs at 830 C. If so we've created something starlike on earth.


    Why do you think this may be important? Even with my poor imagination I foresee a very bad economical effect. Would be interesting if it replicates, but left well enough alone beyond that.

  • Glad you're on board with these questions. One of the reasons I'd like to get the melted apparatus is to make certain that the tube was Pyrex.


    The tubing in the lab was for work at higher temperature and the softening point was one concern I had. How rapidly the melt down occurred was unexpected. It's the reason I suspected something was unusual. I was down to either fusion or redox being responsible, now low melting point is introduced.


    That is interesting, that is an indication that most likely fused silica was the intent-- especially back then when those were the two typically available glass-like lab tubings, other than flint glass which we are not even considering, and is surely not used . But, the presumption is on the side of the more probable event, given what I have read from you over the last few months, that the parsimonious (not necessarily correct) explanation would be that somehow a Pyrex, Kimax ie. borosilicate tube was accidentally used... so of course it melted as the softening temperature around 821 C was exceeded.


    But, I get the idea you may have done at least one re-run. I assume you would have double checked the type of tube used in that case?


    Please stick with me on this, there are other important questions. I'm taking the issues one at a time, deliberately, so we have some chance of understanding what actually happened in your NiO hydrogen meltdown, perhaps without a replication.


    Thanks,
    Longview

  • Glad you're on board with these questions. One of the reasons I'd like to get the melted apparatus is to make certain that the tube was Pyrex.


    The tubing in the lab was for work at higher temperature and the softening point was one concern I had. How rapidly the melt down occurred was unexpected. It's the reason I suspected something was unusual. I was down to either fusion or redox being responsible, now low melting point is introduced.


    Here was my first question [paraphrased] from my last post in this thread... your best recollection please:


    'I get the idea you may have done at least one re-run. I assume you would have double checked the type of tube used in that case, and then got a similar result? '


    [I'm looking at questions one at a time.-- With your permission, of course.]


    Thanks,
    Longview

  • Glad you're on board with these questions.


    I'll restate that there is likely a finely divided NiO "paint" available from ceramic arts stores. One would likely have to separate the ingredients by filtration, centrifugation and / or solvent partitioning. It would be interesting to see how "fine" that pigment is. Perhaps the pigment itself is in the commercial market---

  • Here is abbreviated summary of your reactor prep, which emphasizes several points:


    1. Smallest possible sizes of nickelous oxide (nickel monoxide) particles requiring ball milling for one week minimum)
    2. Pre-reduction of the surface of the Fiberfrax with hot hydrogen
    3. Applying the NiO colloidal suspension to the Fiberfrax and draining off the excess


    But, here in my inferred last "step" ----if there was such a step:


    4. Finally, heating the combined NiO and reduced Fiberfrax product.


    I would ask your best recollections as to that "last" step:


    Also under vacuum ?
    How long ?
    What temperature ?


    Or was the reactor just run up with hydrogen directly?


    Thanks,
    Longview

  • I think it is time for a professional glassblower to examine your melted reactor. Time to determine if it is Pyrex or other borosilicate glass with a softening point at 821 degrees C. Or is it actually fused quartz a.k.a. fused silica, softening temperature hundreds of degrees higher.


    That is, assuming external heat brought your reactor to 830 degrees C, then the actual melting point of the housing is a critical and decisive piece of data. I hope that is obvious to readers here. If not, any of those readers please let me know.


    Some time ago you indicated it was "in a storage cabinet". I hope that might help your search.


    Longview

  • Would it be accurate to say, Longview, that you hope simpler chemical preparation methods might exist for both the Fiberfrax and the Nickel Oxide? (Simpler than those used by ogfusionist - meaning less time, less tooling, less cost.)


    Methods which experimenters of modest means might implement?