Tube Reactor design

Quote from StephenC

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.

Quote from me356

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.

@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 )

200°C is a nice low starting temperature.

@David Fojt: or one could use a specialized Zr-Al getter with a dedicated heater somewhere in the reactor tube:
https://www.saesgetters.com/sites/default/files/St 101 Brochure_2.pdf (detailed explanation and usage instructions)

However, this would make using a vacuum pump to purge the initial gases and activate the getter pretty much mandatory.

There was a peak of 49 during calibration.

Quote from me356

Radiation peaks are around 50 CPMs.

Are you using a GM tube? Do you have access to an instrument that will give the energy spectrum of whatever is causing the clicks? Have you tried your current radiation detector against a calibration run to verify that there are no clicks at that time?

Good luck with this new approach. I spent approx two years on and off attempting to get positive COP from a Piantelli-type experiment. During that time I learned a lot, especially about the need for accurate calorimetry. Based on the 1999 S.Romanowski paper in "Langmuir" dealing with H2 dissociation, I elected to use Ni/Cu thermocouple wire, but pure Ni should work also. The H2 dissociation energy is 2.444 eV, and that of the Ni surface is >3 eV. A 50/50 Ni/Cu alloy has an even higher dissociation potential, which is why Piantelli chose to use it.

I cannot confirm that I was ever able to conclusively obtain a COP >1, although there were a few runs where ~5W excess power was indicated.

Jeff

1.11 doesn't sound a lot but as more information is coming in, from Rossi patents and other replication info, it is significant. All the negative results of the past replication attempts would have been expected if we were party then to the information we have now. It also adds credibility to the open and accurate reporting that is being done in the LENR field.

Quote from jeff

Good luck with this new approach. I spent approx two years on and off attempting to get positive COP from a Piantelli-type experiment. During that time I learned a lot, especially about the need for accurate calorimetry. Based on the 1999 S.Romanowski paper in "Langmuir" dealing with H2 dissociation, I elected to use Ni/Cu thermocouple wire, but pure Ni should work also. The H2 dissociation energy is 2.444 eV, and that of the Ni surface is >3 eV. A 50/50 Ni/Cu alloy has an even higher dissociation potential, which is why Piantelli chose to use it.

I believe the one who chose to use Cu/Ni due to its higher dissociation potential compared than pure Ni was Francesco Celani, see here: https://drive.google.com/file/…kED9WWjZISEZrYXE3ZE0/view

I don't want to sound like broken record, but research from others not really involved in the LENR field, like Leif Holmlid (known for his Rydberg Matter / Ultra-dense hydrogen research), is pointing too that a material suitable for catalysing hydrogen dissociation in its atomic form would be best. As the reaction (or better, Rydberg Matter formation) in his case subsequently occurs when atomic hydrogen tries to recombine back to its molecular form, a direct implication of this is that one should want to maximize the amount of hydrogen flowing into the active material rather than just looking at the quantity absorbed (which in the case of Ni it would be very little anyway).

I think that the concept of "loading" (ie making the material absorb hydrogen) has never really been about producing excess heat, but rather preparing the material for doing so. Edmund Storms also seems to be suggesting this here: http://lenrexplained.com/2015/…nding-fpe-is-temperature/

Quote

1. The LENR process is not initiated when a sample of Pd is initially loaded to high composition. Additional treatment is required to cause the LENR process to start. Once this additional treatment is successful, LENR will take place over a very wide range of deuterium concentration, even after all D is removed and the sample is again reacted with D.

This should also sound familiar:

Quote

5. The activation energy for excess power production based on the temperature effect is similar to the value for the activation energy for diffusion of D in PdD. We can assume excess power production is controlled by how fast the D can diffuse from the surrounding lattice to the NAE where the nuclear reaction occurs.

I tried graphing the data. A COP of 1.22 seems a bit too far-fetched to me.

http://i.imgur.com/PQ6fn56.png

EDIT 2015-10-15: it appears I might have used the wrong data, investigating.

What are the COP estimates based on? Difference in temperature at a fixed power level? Temperature at a certain power level surely can be influenced by a number of factors such as tube pressure, gas type, local ambient, cooling drafts etc.

EDIT: Apologies, I see this point has already been raised earlier in the thread.