Freethinker's replication attempts

Quote from me356

Very nice. I have observed very same behavior of the pressure.

When I saw this behavior it looked quite crazy. Then it jumped to even higher pressure than initially was in the tube which excluded any leak.
I think that what we have to do is as fast as possible hydrogen release to initiate LENR.

And this loading/releasing cycle is what I have talked about in regards to "breathing". It should be performed periodically to maintain excess heat for long time.
As soon as we will be able to control the pressure on will, it will just work.

You mean that once the very low pressure has been established and kept so for a while, on should make a jump up to operative temp immediately, say 1000C , and work it, and after a while drop it down to the phase at 150 - 250 where the LiAlH4 reactions (2 first) take place and where Li is liquefied, again waiting for low pressure at 450-500 and then back up to 1000C quickly, and work it again for the second time?

Quote from GlowFish

A question. Are you sure the "pressure drop" wasn't due to the transceiver breaking at the pressure peak then reporting false measurements afterwards, for instance if the sensor diaphragm ruptured?

Valid question.

No, I cannot be certain, except what I see from the behavior. It has proven itself over and over, and today the pressures were no extraordinary straining for a device according to spec being able to handle up to double full max of 250 bar, thus being then able to sustain 500 bars.

On the other hand it is an over pressure device, not set to work below 1 bar absolute. Is there is such a period in time, where the pressure is likely considerably lower than 1 bar (I recall roughly 45 minutes), and that it AFTER that period is unable to parse more than 4 mA, being 0 bar over pressure, then from causality, it is reasonable enough to make the assumption that the failure occurred because the device was used outside (possibly considerably) spec.

But good point.

@Ecco

Thanks.

Good information. Conditions seem reasonably alike, apart from the hardness if vaccum is not known, and that we have other elements/compounds present as well.

But you are right. When I replace the payload I will try to check.

Analysis of the reactor, which suddenly lost pressure indication, after an unprecedented period of unknown and very low pressure, show that the reactor Alumina tube likely was compromised by molten Li. The pressure transducer has been verified, and seem to work fine.

So the reactor tube was penetrated by molten Li at one point, fixating also the coiland the outer shell. The Alumina appear very brittle in the region.

Regarding the realism of my pressure measurements prior to reactor failure to hold pressure, I can only say that it is similar to what has recently been reported by other replicators.

I have today started a new run, using a new reactor. In an attempt to avoid to abundant escape of molten Li into the reactor tube vessel, I am using a SS core tube without a gas release hole. The H2 will find its way out. Also I am using a considerably lower amount of Li. Further, the run is fueled with baked Ni.

@Ecco
@Tarun
@ GlowFish

Thanks guys for the input. I don't personally my hydrogenation has much to do with the Lugano experiment, because it is my opinion that they used pre processed fuel. No pure Li or LAH.

My run today went OK, pulled power with hard vaccum in the tube. Will continue tomorrow.

https://drive.google.com/file/…U1U/view?usp=docslist_api
https://drive.google.com/file/…Uzg/view?usp=docslist_api

Ecco:

My estimate is that the internal temperature is between 50-100 C higher than the coil temp, if there is no intrinsic heating inside the reactor (LENR). My guess is in this case that the temp is slightly above 500C.

The two 50 cpm peaks are enticing, and I also saw them and reacted, but one would be hard pressed to make anything statistically out of those. Small number statistics is always risky...

Also the pressure transducer should work down to absolute 0 bar. What happened is that the meter went below this and hit the deck actuall some 0.06 mA below at 3.94 mA (normal op is 4-20mA). My interpretation is that the meter consider the pressure to be really hard vacuum.

It was a good run, because it settled any question marks about I really did see last run. It is simply so, that when the melted Li get a hold on the H it suck it dry. From wiki we get about 2Li+H2->2LiH : " This reaction is especially rapid at temperatures above 600 °C.". Well there is also Ni and Al2O3. The Ni can be instrumental in serving up H+/H/H- as to have Li binding directly to H. I think this is a lower temperature than 600C in the reactor. reasoning is based on the seen pressure behavior , thermal equilibrium and energy dissipation in the insulated test bed and the fact that the onset of LAH reactions are happening at about Tcoil=150-50= 100C. Also on another note, the third leg of LAH is said in wiki to have equilibrium at 0.25 bar @500C. Maybe that play in as well.

It will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.

The continuation of the run has gone well. The vacuum persisted up to 600-700C, and then rise modestly, mostly appearing to obey the general gas law. At about 1000C (Tshell), after seeing no special behavior or activity in the run, I switched from manually voltage control, to PID control based on temperature. I tried a couple of voltage settings, and went for a quite high value of 100V giving me in excess of 500W, witch is a very high value for my insulated setup. This created a constant over/under shoot in temperature so the end to the core was not only electrically erratic and pulse like, but the temperatures also on an oscillating state (especially Tcoil).

In the last period of the run, with the erratic pulsing of power, I got a slow descent of the pressure, which I would attribute a loading mechanism, possibly Ni. The confirmation that I have achieved what has been sought fo 6 weeks, came when power was pull, to end the day, when the increase in pressure came as the power was zero.

My take away from the day:

1. Sealed SS core, with no gas venting hole, works fine. No leak of Li, no breach.
2. To achieve the state I am looking for, it is REQUIRED to have pulsed power, as the constant EM field produced by a constant voltage and current will not do to achive loading of Ni (that is my presumption what is taking place)

I have attached graphs from my lab console. Note that data was briefly lost with the temperature logger, hence there are other colors than what is usually the case.

Thanks, Ecco, for the input.

Quote from Ecco

Have you considered operating the reactor tube at a temperature/power range where pressure cycles between vacuum and a relatively low pressure (no more than 1-2 bar)?

I did progressive voltage increases, and 100% duty cycle. In retrospect using the PID would be nice. Will see next run, after refuel.

Quote from Ecco

This could be done by applying power intermittently at a slow rate (see the Levi report on ArXiV, page 25 onwards) or by setting the PID to somehow work with pressure, rather than temperature.

Agreed that pressure could be a good input signal to use. The PID I use is best used with a TC. In later projects I will for sure go for more control. I will have a small embedded Linux based unit. Likely Raspberry Pi. But not now.

Quote from Ecco

EDIT: by increasing the amount of lithium in the cell (you've previously written that you used a very little amount of it this time) you could probably make these pressure changes with temperature stronger, achieving a deeper vacuum when pressure is in the "low" state. This would also likely increase the operating temperature range as the higher the temperature, the less lithium will be able to retain hydrogen.

I don't think the vacuum can go any deeper but possibly there might be lower pressure to somewhat higher temperatures, when ramping up power. I will not increase Li at this point, because a leak is terminal for the reactor.

Quote from Ecco

EDIT2: I think that the slight and brief pressure (and apparently also temperature, to a lesser extent) increase when you removed power is a further incentive for attempting to apply it intermittently.

That has been the plan since six weeks back. I will try cyclic downs and ups in power to see if excess heat can lured out. Actually, killing the power give a pressure rise, and a temperature fall. See the close up attached.