Tube Reactor design

  • I want to share my design that seems to be very easy to build.
    It look like it has good potential as well.


    If you have all the parts, it can be built in 10 minutes without any special tools.


    It is consisted from 29cm 99,7% Al2O3, OD=10mm, ID=5mm.
    Inside there is 32AWG Nickel wire coil wrapped on the tube (can be rod).


    Swagelok fittings are used for powering the coil, the connection is mechanical through washer with OD<=10mm, in my case it is just a part of old ball bearing.


    Coil has 4-8 Ohms and require less than 100 Watts for high temperatures.


    As a fuel you can use LiAlH4 and possibly Lithium. It can be putted inside the tube or just somewhere around the heater.


    In my experiments the coil is able to trap electrostatically LiAlH4 around the surface.


    Here are some photos.
    https://imgur.com/a/CcnKE/all

  • @me356: with the nickel wire in contact with the alumina tube like that, would you be interested checking out (even in air) if at a sufficiently high temperature the alumina tube becomes electrically conductive enough so that the apparent resistance of the wire visibly changes? You might be potentially having a sort of Nernst Lamp at high temperature and I think this effect could be exploited in interesting ways (I would think this would happen especially if the LiAlH4 attacks the surface of the tube).

  • I think that I can share my findings.


    I am doing experiment right now, it is running for few hours and it looks that there is excess heat for long time.


    With increasing temperature/pressure excess heat is higher. This is second time that I have achieved it with very similar results.
    Unfortunately COP at the moment is roughly 1,1 only so still we can account it to a various factors.
    It is very stable and pressure is holding well.


    The important is, that it can be achieved even with relatively low temperatures.
    Still I have to exclude some failures and measurement errors to be sure what kind of process it really is. It could be just chemical process and/or heater mechanical changes.


    I am attaching the calibration file and file from the current run.
    We have some photos and info on the MFMP page.


    Soon I will increase the temperature.


    www.lenr-experiment.tk

  • With the power analyser you can measure the input power, but how is the output power measured, because I assume there is no calorimeter?
    I do like this test, because the current is running through the nickel. That was one of the reasons why I believe LENR will more easily start. As ECCO above already mentions, the conductivitiy of the Alumina tube may reduce at higher temperatures, especially when lithium attackes it and I have already said previously that the change in resistance of the heating coil during the Lugano test was being caused by the change in conductivity of the aluminia in the hot-cat. LENR requires a trigger and a current through the nickel may be such a trigger. Small high peak currents may improve the COP.

  • I have did calibration run that I am comparing with.
    Power is compared only between steady temperatures that we have measured previously.


    So to achieve same temperature, different input power level is needed when there is hydrogen inside.


    Because there is also Optris Pi camera, it should be possible to calculate output power as well.

  • If this is a replication of the Lugano test, why was there no fuel preprocessing done where the nickel powder comes out covered with lithium and the 5 micron particles were sintered together at high temperatures into at least a few 100 micron particles?


    The fuel particle after preprocessing had a large amount of carbon on the surface of the 100 micro particle, but the ash had no carbon. Does that not mean that carbon was a consumable element in the fuel?


    Where is the carbon on the surface of the fuel for this test?


    Lithium will alloy with nickel at high temperatures and a lithium carbide will form that will release lithium Rydberg matter as well as hydrogen Rydberg matter. Carbon is important as a contaminate when combined with lithium.


    Parkhomov has a very high carbon content as a contaminate in his nickel powder. A poorly cleaned particles of carbon might be needed.


    A initial fuel preparation step might be needed to coat the very clean fuel particle surface with carbon to contaminate it properly, for example, cover it with a fine coat of graphite powder then heat it at high temperature to form surface imperfections. When the lithium is added in the next fuel preprocessing step, it will then combine with the carbon and latter during the test run, leave a vacancy on the surface where the carbon had been melted into the nickel surface of the particle.


    Sputtering with graphite using vapor disposition might also be considered as a first step in the fuel preparation process. This will imbed carbon nanoparticles into the nickel that will later become nanocavities on the surface of the nickel powder where hydrogen Rydberg matter will form.

  • Hi Axil, If I'm right i don't think this experiment is meant to be a strict Lugano test replication but rather a Lugano/Celani Hybrid based on the use of a wire. It's an interesting idea to check out I think.


    Regarding the use of carbon, I'm wondering if Boron Carbide might be interesting as an alternative. In-particular Li dispersed Boron Carbide Nanotubes. See attached reference:


    http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0703519.pdf


    If the particles were coated in B4C could this act in a similar way you describe for Carbon? Could it account for the Boron seen in the fuel and ash of some tests?


    I speculated a while back about BNNT but B4C nanotubes in particular Lithium doped have high conductivity where as BNNT are insulating. both are stable at high temperatures.

  • This is not replication of A. Parkhomov at all and should not convince anybody about LENR.
    This is one from series that I am doing where interesting results happened.


    There will be tens or even hundreds more until it will be usable. Then there will be no doubt that it is working.

  • Hi Axil, If I'm right i don't think this experiment is meant to be a strict Lugano test replication but rather a Lugano/Celani Hybrid based on the use of a wire. It's an interesting idea to check out I think.


    Regarding the use of carbon, I'm wondering if Boron Carbide might be interesting as an alternative. In-particular Li dispersed Boron Carbide Nanotubes.


    We need to educate ourselves on the proper method to build fuel. There are chemical rules to be discovered. One rule from Holmlid in how to form hydrogen Rydberg matter is to keep hydrogen from combining with another element to avoid the formation of covalent bonds, when hydrogen is absorbed and desorbed. It might be best to kept the elements in the neighborhood of the hydrogen as limited as possible. Specifically this means nickel, carbon that does not bond with hydrogen at high temperatures, an alkali like lithium and or potassium and hydrogen. Carbon desorbes hydrogen because carbon holds on to hydrogen at low temperatures by releases it at higher temperatures as the temperature rises. Boron might be disruptive of the chemical bonding formation process.



    What carbon does chemically is based on how its atoms are bonded. Carbon comes in many forms based on its bonding. Graphite is the optimal form of carbon for hydrogen absorption and desorption. I don't know is carbon nanotubes are considered graphite. Diamond is chemically inert because all its atoms are bonded to each other in a lattice. Diamond might be a preferred coating to prevent lithium corrosion.


    For example, I would coat tungsten with diamond in a long lived reactor shell to protect that metal from corrosion.

  • This is not replication of A. Parkhomov at all and should not convince anybody about LENR.
    This is one from series that I am doing where interesting results happened.


    There will be tens or even hundreds more until it will be usable. Then there will be no doubt that it is working.


    It still might be prudent and a time saver to look at the lessons learned from the Lugano test and use those methods to optimize the current experiment.

  • You are right. But the field of LENR is very large. We are at the beginning with it, so we should learn it in a small, separate steps so we can be more confident in the results.
    If you master such small steps, you can then join it together to make it much more efficient.
    So I want to learn about it as much as possible and this will always cost more time.


    It is same as when you are in elementary school and learning how to write sentences. You have to learn elementary basics first such as letters. If you will try to write sentences without knowing letters, it is unuseful, because you don't know what you are really doing.


    I am convinced, that we have to be able to replicate Piantelli-Focardi work first, because Rossi effect is much more sophisticated from my point of view.
    And this is what I am doing.


    I have realized that Rossi effect is on another level and what we are doing with Parkhomov replications is pure luck. If we will succeed, it will be just big coincidence.
    In the latest experiments I have found a lot of interesting phenomenons. I am sure that we will achieve much higher COP very soon.

  • Yes, it is related with the pressure and loading process. I have mentioned it more times, but because results are not perfectly reproducible yet and I don't know for sure why, then I can't tell you anything particular. I think that we have to control the pressure so we will be able to release the hydrogen as quick as possible and then load it as fast as we want.
    I know it is possible even in range of 250 - 400°C very well.


    I think that this is the most important thing that we should investigate right now. As soon as we will know how to control it, we will be able to drive LENR in a very stable way with great possibility for SSM. I have found only basic principle how to control it. Also without pure lithium it is not possible (at least in a lower temperatures).

  • @me356: this might sound a bit wild (so regard it as a possible idea to explore in the future), but speaking of "tube" reactors perhaps you could attempt designing some sort of resonating thermoacoustic device? That way, pressure changes wouldn't be very large, but they would be very frequent and continuously occurring. The sound pressure in well designed systems can exceed 0.1 bar. Of course, some challenges especially with tuning and pressure sealing would await.


    Example:



    Which reminds me a bit of:



    (source )