@LenzandCoLab
Great work.
I have a question about the slide with the title:
Инициирование режима теплогенерацииc разрушением реактора во время перехода 900-1000 град.
Are the upper and lower graphs showing the calibration and the fueled run, respectively?
If not do you have calibration data (empty reactor) to compare?
Thank you!
First of all congratulations for the bright Hydrogenation idea. See my comment at blog Ego Out.
I want ask you about your future plans in LENR research, how engaged and dedicated to it you can be (have no idea about the profile of your Company.
LENR critically needs people like you. Rossi's monopoly is braking progress.
Thank you for an open answer.
Peter
@LenzandCoLab: How long did your experiment show excess heat? Hours or days?
I ask this because the longer the reaction took place, the higher is the possibility to see changes in the isotopic composition.
Another question: Do you plan to setup your reactor at a official university and spread your knowledge in some physics departments?
After we achieve sustainable heat generation for at least several hours it might be resonable. I'd like to prepare reactor and test it at, for example, at Denis Vasilenko set up since last time I have to change heaters after each heat excess process and redrill the brick cleaning it from the melted metal inside.
The melting of the reactor tube can be explained by the formation of an alloy of aluminum with nickel and not excess of inner heat. The melting point of this alloy is about of 1200 C degrees. IMHO.
We calculated additional power excess using the power trendline at the 900-1000 Transition figure. You can see process during 30-40 seconds and power difference is about 15-20 watts at peak. So estimation is more than 100 Joules for the whole process. Taking account weight of all components in the reactor we have not find chemical reaction for this explanation.
So could you estimate possible heat excess from formation of alloy you proposed?
Display More@LenzandCoLab
Great work.
I have a question about the slide with the title:
Инициирование режима теплогенерацииc разрушением реактора во время перехода 900-1000 град.
Are the upper and lower graphs showing the calibration and the fueled run, respectively?
If not do you have calibration data (empty reactor) to compare?
Thank you!
Two graphs shows the same reactor behaviour during temperature transition from 800 to 900 degrees and 900 and 1000 degrees. For empty data just use the trend line for power graph of 900-1000 transition. It should be loked like 800-900 transiton graphs. Threse experiments were from very begining and shows that something really happened inside. They are supposed to not calculate heat excess accurately but only raw estimation that this is probably not chemical reaction. We were close to stop everything since had not any results with ceramic. We decided to continue after we found melted nickel tubes in a range 700-1000 degrees during temperature transitions. And remembered about Nickel excitation process described in Focardi paper.
Oh I have found similarly melted fuel container in my experiment.
First of all congratulations for the bright Hydrogenation idea. See my comment at blog Ego Out.
I want ask you about your future plans in LENR research, how engaged and dedicated to it you can be (have no idea about the profile of your Company.
LENR critically needs people like you. Rossi's monopoly is braking progress.
Thank you for an open answer.
Peter
I copy here answers to Franc Acland questions from Ecat-world. Hope you'll find information below. Photos attached to answer 8.
1. I didn't do any hydrogen loading into Nickel except using reused Nickel(tube or(and) powder).
2. Only estimation: 2-7 atm. it depends. I did several pressure tests but results are not sustainable to publish them. Actually in that tests I noticed that reaction occur with reused Nickel. Also looks like pressure behaviour depends on using reused Nickel in the reactor. I recommend to put no more than twice more LiAlH4 in the laser brazed metal tube in comparison with Parhomov recommendations. Check brazer joint for sustainability. I used air compressor up to 7.5 atm. Fortunately I have such results and everything is OK. Bricks set up saved me). Looks like that time it was more than 50 atm. Below 600 degrees is danger area, keep temperature increasing not high.
3. No any evacuation. Just cleaning and drying reactor. Keep Nickel and LiAlH4 dry.
4. Just mixing.
5. Usually I follow Parhomov recomendations. I that cases there are enough free space. Several times fuel occupied almost all internal space. Nothing special happened if you use correct temperature profile.
6. For today I suppose there are at least two important things. First thing is reused Nickel. Reusing Nickel actually descirbed in Focardi paper at 1998. They did several hydrogenation cycles before starting the process and have COP about 1.7 at around 500 degrees. Second thing is heat conductivity of the fuel surround(reactor etc). 0.2 mm thickness of Nickel tube conductivity is close to 2.5 mm of ceramic tube (10/5) of Parhomov experiment. As I remeber heat conductivity difference for Nickel and ceramic is 10-15 times (depends on ceramic types) at 1000-1200 degrees. Wall thickness differs 12.5 times- so close. Thick tube I put inside ceramic sockets at the ends. So air is around center.
7. No any experience with AC. Hope AC could help to protect from green rust of Nicrome or FeCrAl at negative end. We will use AC If we switch to inductive heating like Denis Vasilenko test set up.
8. Several times with thin Nickel tubes like described in presentation. Additional two times with the same set up with thick Stainless steel reactor. However TC were failed before reactor and heater started to melt. I checked different places of second TC( above the reactor and wired to the reactor end opposite to main TC).
9. Nearest plan is to achieve sustainable heat generation during at least several hours. Test several different tube materials. Prepare inductive test set up like Denis Vasilenko style.
10. I read several papers and discussions about it. However I have not found from theoretical papers any practical recommendations about reactor, surround design, fuel structure, hydrogenation and excitation of Nickel. So everything is as usual).
Again many thanks for sharing the details!
One thought comes to my mind. What if the excess heat was caused by a local overheating of the heater? Then we can get very high temperatures just before the heater will fail in some spots. Does the heater always failed in each experiment after excess heat was observed?
In one of my experiment I have also melted the heater to the state when part of it was basically in the fluid state. Actually I think that it happened because excess heat occured, but I was unable to measure temperature in the center/core of the reactor. So it is important to check implication. If the heater failed because of excess heat inside the tube or failing heater caused excess heat. From your photos I think that it was the first option so there was real excess heat.
I am looking forward for the experiments with AC. It would be nice to find if there is any difference between applying AC or DC to the heater.
Display MoreAgain many thanks for sharing the details!
One thought comes to my mind. What if the excess heat was caused by a local overheating of the heater? Then we can get very high temperatures just before the heater will fail in some spots. Does the heater always failed in each experiment after excess heat was observed?
In one of my experiment I have also melted the heater to the state when part of it was basically in the fluid state. Actually I think that it happened because excess heat occured, but I was unable to measure temperature in the center/core of the reactor. So it is important to check implication. If the heater failed because of excess heat inside the tube or failing heater caused excess heat. From your photos I think that it was the first option so there was real excess heat.
I am looking forward for the experiments with AC. It would be nice to find if there is any difference between applying AC or DC to the heater.
FeCrAl heater meting point is 1500 C and you see melted ceramic with melting point more than 1700. So FeCrAl can not melt the ceramic.
In my experiments I was using ceramic tube with melting point around 2000°C but it was melted too - I was using Kanthal A1. But when the winding is failing arcs may occur. Arcs temperature can be much higher than 2000°C and can last for tens of seconds. You can see my heater after failure - to this day I dont know if it was caused by arc or excess heat. Actually both phenomenons could appear but still we dont know if excess heat from inside caused this failure.
It was so hot, that stainless steel plate that was 5cm away was melted too (by air heat transfer).
You can see small bubble at the bottom that was formed during failure. Alumina cement was rated for 1800°C.
IMHO, the main you can see on the pictures of melted tubes is that the melted paces looks like the heat release beginning in one point and as an avalanche, other words the heat release is exponential with the temperature up to some temperature, may be than the density appear smaller some critical value.
Hence, first - It can be expained namely as LENR, and second, in addition - by not gomogenic start condition, I mean pressure, concentration and temperature tougether in a small region.
The advise is - to try to add C, Be, and H, for to make exponent slowly.. Tnis nuces have to be better in very homogeneous form, not as simple nanopouder. Nanopouder could be not enough gomogenity.
"The initializing of the regime of thermogeneration for the reactor with thin walls (0.2 mm) can take place already at 800-900 C"
I've posted many times on this forum that my reactor initiated hydrogen fusion at exactly 830 C. Also posted protocol for exact process for replication. All this has been effectively ignored. There must be a hierarchy relative to acceptance in LENR research.
The question of whether the arcing or local heating caused meltdown can be answered very easily by heating a reactor without fuel (or better filled with Al powder etc). If you see the same kind of meltdown at same power and similar conditions then you can conclude that there was no lenr, else you have anomalous heat. Of course, you will need to sacrifice a reactor for that. If it takes a lot of power and higher temperatures to melt it down, then also you have a clear answer.
Since we are on the bleeding edge and in the realm of experiment, no amount of intellectual reasoning can clear the doubts 100%. Only experiments and control tests will give you confidence in results.
In my experiments I was using ceramic tube with melting point around 2000°C but it was melted too - I was using Kanthal A1. But when the winding is failing arcs may occur. Arcs temperature can be much higher than 2000°C and can last for tens of seconds. You can see my heater after failure - to this day I dont know if it was caused by arc or excess heat. Actually both phenomenons could appear but still we dont know if excess heat from inside caused this failure.
It was so hot, that stainless steel plate that was 5cm away was melted too (by air heat transfer).
You can see small bubble at the bottom that was formed during failure. Alumina cement was rated for 1800°C.
Looks like You have not cured cement before you applyed power to coil. In this case arcing is possible but any way not melting the ceramic tube. If you can not cure heater correctly just decrease amount of cement. Nicrome heater works fine without any cement. Ufortunately FeCrAl(Kanthal A1) should be cemented. Use cement as low as possible. Another problem is green rust at negative end if you use DC. In general I'd like to say there are several issues on this way that have to be overcome. Arcing, green rust, gas tighting, hydrogenation,steel type etc. Be ready to analyze and separate them. Prepare the solution.
Thank you very much for your suggestions.
I am working on a much better design now that is using SiC element and will solve all the problems - you can check "Reactor parameters" thread here.
First from all. we have to make sure that the heater can't create local overheating and also that it can't fail at these temperatures.
Local overheating can be, from my point of view, simply seen as an excess heat if your temperature sensor is near the hot spot.
Even when the heater is melted on a few places it can conduct and thus heat. Resistance can change abnormally and the heater can behave very strangly. So even there is less power then previously, it can heat much more on some places. If alumina tube or cement is holding it, you can melt ceramic tubes too.
In our test that was performed few hours ago we have observed similar behavior that looked like excess heat, but because of failure of the heater we can't be sure.
So we have to exclude all these issues so nothing can't really fail.
Ash analysis should assure us in the results always.
If the fuel container is not damaged (and you can re-use it), it would be perfect if you can reheat it with a new heater.
