Tube Reactor design

    Quote from Tarun

    Sorry I missed the cool down part. What was the power for 400C?
    If it was 42W for 300C then the COP reached above 1.2 (compared to real calibration)


    Please disregard what I've previously written. I just realized that I have probably used incorrect data for power data in the graphs I previously posted, so I'm now in the process of replotting it again. I got fooled by the (apparent?) lack of decimal digit precision of its values, and thought it was something else instead.



    @me356: to be 100% sure, since I've been literally guessing what is what, could you write down what each column in the CSV files is actually representing, and preferably add this information in the files next time?

    Quote from me356

    FORMAT:
    time current_temp CPM current voltage power setpoint pwm_output


    Thanks, please add this every time as a first or second line in the CSV files, after start date information.


    Quote

    It looks like at 200°C excess heat disappeared which is correct.


    This is the the updated graph using correct power data and cubic interpolation between data points, which is in agreement with this statement.



    EDIT: updated graph (2)

    Indeed I am not able to find any other reason. But we have to be still skeptical. But in case that there is any error, it was repeated very well.


    Tommorow I want to refuel it. It is not possible right now, because humidity is 90% at the moment.
    I am very curious, if it will be possible to get higher COP with higher pressures.


    In case that it is really LENR, then adding pure Lithium can boost it extremely. Because of this, I want to buy Neutron detectors as soon as possible.
    Rossi have found the limit so that Neutron emmission is very low. It is possible that one day we will get uncontrollable reaction which may be really dangerous.
    From my point of view LENR may be very safe, but if you want, you can make really bad things.

    While these results are definitely encouraging, I must point out two two potential sources of error noted in my Glowstick experiments:
    1. The presence of hydrogen in tube reactors changes the thermal flow due to increased conduction. The hydrogen essentially fills the gap between the heat source and the filler rods (or in this case, the heating element). The thermal profile of the entire system is thus substantially changed from calibration without hydrogen of equal density.
    2. The morphology and thus the emissivity of ceramics changes with extended exposure to high temperatures, which impacts the accuracy of measurements made by IR emission. I observed and measured this effect in the tests at HUG in Feb. 2015, and described it in the MFMP article in Infinite Energy.


    The first problem can be resolved by calibration with hydrogen but no other active fuel in the reactor. A 'null' fuel load (without a key element such as Li) and all other internal parts should be in place for this. The second problem can be resolved by a post calibration using the same setup as described above. This requires a way of removing the active fuel, which in this case includes the heater wire. As an alternative, a calibration run equal in length to the active run would show any effect of ceramic aging on the emissivity.


    These issues have led me to estimate the measurement uncertainty of my own experiments as 20%. I would need to see a COP of 1.2 or better before claiming excess heat. The data from this experiment seems to meet that requirement, which I find very encouraging. Nice work me356!

    magicsound: Thank you very much!


    I think that we might exclude both cases because of thing that I have found previously (I want to re-verify it again).
    The reason for this is, that when I have opened the reactor and vented the hydrogen out there was probably 90% of excess heat that was seen during the run (before opening). In this I am perfectly sure, there was really no hydrogen in the reactor.
    And the results were even more interesting, because after couple minutes it returned very slowly to the original values (from the calibration run). This looked like the fuel was already loaded and was still in use even when it was opened.


    So if this will be verified even in this run, I am perfectly sure that we can exclude both of mentioned cases.

    Actually I was aware of these issues and I wanted to do post-calibration because of it.


    Firstly I was disappointed, because I have saw that there was still excess heat (after opening) and that the wire structure was changed for some reason.
    Then I have saw that the power consumption was increasing without any apparent reason. In few hours everything was back as in the calibration. Very small changes were visible in couple of minutes.


    This allowed me to exclude many possibilities for excess heat and changes inside and outside.

    I see two ways moving forward:


    1. Rerun many times with and without fuel to prove without doubt the mouse effect. Use calorimetry.


    2. Rerun with extra stimulation of T / P / EM looking for the Cat effect.


    I vote for 2, that way will prove both mouse and Cat, if exist. Postpone calorimetry until Cat found.

    Just a thought. There was an announcement on the MFMP about a group that claimed to demonstrate excess heat using alloys of palladium and rhodium. They stressed that they only obtained results with an alloy. Perhaps Lithium and Nickel are the complementary materials needed. However just mixing the two won't make an alloy. Perhaps you can electroplate your nickel heater wire using a mixture of nickel and lithium in the 10:1 ratio and see what effect that has.

    Quote from GlowFish

    Just a thought. There was an announcement on the MFMP about a group that claimed to demonstrate excess heat using alloys of palladium and rhodium. They stressed that they only obtained results with an alloy. Perhaps Lithium and Nickel are the complementary materials needed. However just mixing the two won't make an alloy. Perhaps you can electroplate your nickel heater wire using a mixture of nickel and lithium in the 10:1 ratio and see what effect that has.


    Carbon must first be applies in a fuel preperation step, then lithium is added.

    Experiment is running again.This time there is 250mg of LiAlH4. I have to say that LiAlH4 that I am using in this experiment has very small amount of stored hydrogen when I am comparing it with Alfa Aesar stocks. This one is from local chemist (same as in the previous experiment).


    I have carefully checked the reactor before loading and there were no visible changes inside and outside the tube and also there was nothing like I have seen before (no strange structures on the wire.

    Pressure is still decreasing which mean probably sealing issue in this case. It is also possible to see that the COP was higher for a while when comparing with the previous run. Then it decreased and is lower. Still there is excess heat. Most probably this is caused by decreasing pressure.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.