MFMP: Further study of *GlowStick* GS3 reveals important finding

Very nice! What about direct stimulation of the fuel? We can just connect another power supply directly to the fuel container. So then we can use any heater type. This could allow to start LENR even in lower temperatures - when fuel is "prepared".

Yes, I believe that this may be the missing part.
if this is the key then it mean we do not need such high temperatures.
Also it could be the reason for tube-like design where wires are closer to the fuel. Potential difference will occupy more space thus it can activate LENR in higher amount of the fuel.
this mean greater COP.

So far everyone has been using Alumina for the tubes, while Parkhomov was using Mullite. This seems to be a major deviation. It makes sense to try mullite.

I discussed the lowered resistance of hot ceramics here awhile back. I gave numbers and link outs. Hopefully that was useful in getting someone to think about the issue.

And by the way 1000 ohm / cm, is hardly an electrical conductor. Even a resistance wire such as Kanthal AF is just 1.06 ohms / cm even at 1000 C.

At 115 volts, a 10 cm chunk of 1200 C ceramic such as Al2O3 will still see a voltage drop of 99.99%, the current distribution and hence heat generated by that bypass will be vanishingly small. P = I squared R that is 10 to the minus 4 squared in 10 to the minus 8 X R of 10^4. to give less than a milliwatt of power, essentially zero heat or power for any practical purpose. It's been some time since I did such calculations, but the basic idea remains. It is essentially a simple application of Kirkhoff's law, the sum of all the currents about a point is zero. We are comparing a fairly good conductor -- hot nichrome or Kanthal, with a very poor conductor (or fairly good insulator), hot Al2O3 or hot SiO2.

It's no contest even over short domains such as "through the ceramic to the nickel core", where the resistance differential would still be a factor of several hundred.

And, as I mentioned "arcs" are quite low resistance once they are struck, in most gaseous cases. BTW, one record lightning stroke recorded was over a hundred miles long, if I recall correctly.

[Note: There is a certain coolness developing here. Many can guess why. If the usual folks don't need my input in the mix, you can continue to do the "look" without the "like". Sooner, rather than later, I will go away, to return only well after MY provisional is filed and the funding is in place.... :censored: ]

I'm grateful for Jarovnak, Barty and David Nygren, who with a precious few others have kindly made me feel still at home. Thanks guys!]

Slad adds interesting context to this discussion:

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/270314996?access_key=key-Ynke17EDGIl0eb53RuAY&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

A great deal to digest. I particularly like the quantification - the detail.

Quote from nickec

Slad adds interesting context to this discussion:

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/270314996?access_key=key-Ynke17EDGIl0eb53RuAY&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

A great deal to digest. I particularly like the quantification - the detail.

It does seem that Slad misses the likelihood that at least some of the metallic components (all the core is metallic, even hydrogen by some standards) have formed solutions ("intermetallics") with or within one another at such high temperature. Even if one or another of the metals is not melted, the other metals are very likely to dissolve easily to a depth of 2.5 micron. Why is that important? Every alloy is not only a solution, but almost universally the alloy will have properties differing from the constituents, the packing and shared electronics greatly influence strength, rigidity, melting point, electrical and thermal conductivity and even density. This is metallurgical chemistry 301, Inorganic Chem 301 etc. You cannot simply deduce much about the behavior of an alloy from its constituents. Alloys have many many divergent properties from their components. I should not even have to write this.

I would agree that the conductivities might be intermediate between the "ingredients". But, that the melting points remain, and that the components don't intercalate, well that is for deep modeling in metallurgy. (For good introductions see some of John C. Slater's and Hume-Rothery's many books) The answer for us as experimenters, would be found in a detailed empirical analysis of the various properties in an inert atmosphere and then in a hydrogen atmosphere, that with great caution perhaps with nitrogen and perhaps finally a limited amount of air (rapid combustion is at least possible with nitrogen and with oxygen), One should also examine all of the ingredients after some runs... different samples run at several different temperatures corresponding to say the melting points know for each of the metals. Then analysis of the microscopically dissected components (if they remain as discrete in any or all of the temperature regimes).

This sort of "armchair" analysis by Slad is still valuable in that it points out some the assumptions both correct and incorrect that later reviewers will likely challenge. Such an analysis will become more useful once it is nuanced by actual inter-metallic data. It is very unlikely that such 3 or 4 component data are already done.... but a good search of SciFinder might show something. Each of the pairs have doubtless been examined, those would at least show which pairs form intermetallics, and if lucky might even show some properties in a graphical form, allowing us some interpolation.

Quote from nickec

Slad adds interesting context to this discussion:

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/270314996?access_key=key-Ynke17EDGIl0eb53RuAY&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

A great deal to digest. I particularly like the quantification - the detail.

Really some exellant ideas to ponder & Longviews comments as well - Just a great find Nickec. Jim

Longview - A reply to you here: A THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LUGANO E-CAT

Quote from Slad

Longview - A reply to you here: A THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LUGANO E-CAT

You would like to move me over to ECW. I don't care to post there at all. It is too proprietary a site for me. I hope you understand. If AR wants to do full disclosure in his patent applications along the lines of the Lipinski's or even George Egely, then I might consider some sort of accommodation. But, AR already surely benefits from our critiques, our analyses, our replications. I'm certain making his venue more diverse and interesting will benefit his interests, while we are out here with little to work from. Sorry to be a party pooper.. Here at LENR Forum is the place for the unbridled disclosures. Not at a unilaterally controlled venue such as ECW..

I am not a doctrinaire critic of AR, I think he has done a lot for the whole field. And I appreciate what ECW does, and how new stuff often shows up there first. It's juist not for me.

@Longview

I was trying move move you to another thread over here: I have a question about boiling alloys I had hoped you could help me with. I understand you motivations, however, so I shall repeat it here:

Please forgive my lack of metallurgy 301... But I was thinking about the boiling points of alloys: I understand the ideas of eutectic mixtures, but I've never seen an alloy phase diagram that goes much above the 100% liquid stage. What prevents an alloy from having two boiling points? Similar to distilling alcohol, for example.

Or... are there still two boiling points, but they both change?

Quote from barty

Please don't get demotivated! Maybe we should try to get some people from vortex mailing list to discuss your ideas?

Thanks Barty. It was not so much the lack of communication. That is OK. Perhaps I was getting addicted to "likes", so to speak.

This is a great place, I appreciate all you and the other admins, David, Nickec, Alain have done to make this work. It is an environment where things are loose enough to allow enough speculation to keep things interesting. And that is balanced by reasoned critiques, and the force of enough real experimentation to allow progress.

Quote from Longview

...

It does seem that Slad misses the likelihood that at least some of the metallic components (all the core is metallic, even hydrogen by some standards) have formed solutions ("intermetallics") with or within one another at such high temperature. Even if one or another of the metals is not melted, the other metals are very likely to dissolve easily to a depth of 2.5 micron. Why is that important? Every alloy is not only a solution, but almost universally the alloy will have properties differing from the constituents, the packing and shared electronics greatly influence strength, rigidity, melting point, electrical and thermal conductivity and even density. This is metallurgical chemistry 301, Inorganic Chem 301 etc. You cannot simply deduce much about the behavior of an alloy from its constituents. Alloys have many many divergent properties from their components. I should not even have to write this.

I would agree that the conductivities might be intermediate between the "ingredients". But, that the melting points remain, and that the components don't intercalate, well that is for deep modeling in metallurgy. (For good introductions see some of John C. Slater's and Hume-Rothery's many books) The answer for us as experimenters, would be found in a detailed empirical analysis of the various properties in an inert atmosphere and then in a hydrogen atmosphere, that with great caution perhaps with nitrogen and perhaps finally a limited amount of air (rapid combustion is at least possible with nitrogen and with oxygen), One should also examine all of the ingredients after some runs... different samples run at several different temperatures corresponding to say the melting points know for each of the metals. Then analysis of the microscopically dissected components (if they remain as discrete in any or all of the temperature regimes).

This sort of "armchair" analysis by Slad is still valuable in that it points out some the assumptions both correct and incorrect that later reviewers will likely challenge. Such an analysis will become more useful once it is nuanced by actual inter-metallic data. It is very unlikely that such 3 or 4 component data are already done.... but a good search of SciFinder might show something. Each of the pairs have doubtless been examined, those would at least show which pairs form intermetallics, and if lucky might even show some properties in a graphical form, allowing us some interpolation.

Display More

I wonder what experiments might clarify the fuel state at different temperatures. A hurdle is reversible reactions which might muddle the analysis.

Is there a way to examine the fuel state in situ during operation? Would such observation, even if not covering the complete continuum of temperature, be instructive?

If in situ examination lies beyond our present technological tools, can clues be garnered by repeated partial heating runs? Such as ash analysis after various soak times at various maximum temperatures.

Examples:

2 hours at 200C
2 hours at 400C
2 hours at 600C
...

Using much smaller amounts of fuel might also provide answers to fuel operation states.

I would not avoid using literature and consensus, yet I feel a great need for experiments which can reduce reliance on what is thought to be known, attempting to instead actually know what a given set of parameters will produce. When we presume that systems act similarly to previous art we tread dangerously. Fortunately adventures sometimes lead to new vistas.