Tube Reactor design

Quote from colwyn

That is true for the 'muon flux' app, you want this one instead:
http://wipac.wisc.edu/deco

Very interesting. I'm really skeptical, since CCDs are highly sensitive to infrared, and thus have a high amount of charge background (working with CCD cameras for dark field imaging teaches you a lot of their physical aspects and limitations). Phone CCDs are even worst, with very small wells (1.2-1.5 um^2 and such for high MP cameras) that have very high current noise in pure dark just from natural electronic current jitter, and low sensitivity (due to the small amount of liberatable electrons in such a small area). Particles like muons would be both rare and not cause a lot of charge displacement, so I am doubtful they'd be above the electronic or IR noise for the low sensitivity of cell phone cameras.

But, love to see hard data showing if it does work!

&"ID is surely complete crap. e.g. Who designed the designer?"

Surely because of your position on this forum you are of above average intelligence. Your response surprises me. The designer designed the designer of course. The design of complex life forms didn't appear out of nowhere. Having the life forms stick to the sphere they inhabit required designing an inertial effect that we call gravity. Just one example of the designer's brilliance let alone designing the life forms themselves.

&"Even that LENR is relatively very safe, it can surely cause serious troubles."

LENR or nanoscale fusion is far from being very safe. When the process initiates it self destructs and is inherently safe for now. This will be different in the future when there is no magnetic field or distance for protection from the reaction. The designer used distance and magnetic field to protect us from the solar radiation.

Sorry for the crap, it's far from anything practical.

So natural selection is the designer. Fair enough. I can live with that.... at least until I'm selected out. :dead:

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
On the practical side I am working on a new reactor that shouldn't self destruct. Hydrogen fusion at the helium level is easily initiated, control is the problem.

Omega Z: As to WHY they only had a limited sample.The reason Rossi was involved with extraction of the sample was he didn't want the Professors to analyze the internals of the reactor. Rossi stated this at the time. Everyone seems to have missed that.I don't have that link but,Follows is some additional info provided by Rossi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexvs October 19th
Why the sample withdrawn from the E-Cat in Lugano was only 2 mg from a 1 g charge ?

Andrea Rossi October 19th

Alexvs:Because that was the maximum amount that was possible to withdraw from the E-Cat by the Professors without breaking the reactor, due to its complex internal design.Warm Regards, A.R.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone assumes the reactor is a smooth bore. It could contain ridges internally as it does on the exterior, or fluted along it's internal length.It could also be of a threaded nature having been molded around a piece of threaded ready rod.

These could have various effects. One is it could allow increased heat transfer in from the resistors & out when producing excess heat. It could also aid in the circulation of the Li/H around & into the Nickel catalyst reducing hot spots. The internal shape of the reactor can even control the temperature zones and focus the heat to specific zone of the reactor. It would definitely provide more surface area and definitely make it much harder to scrap out the used fuel.

Axil Axil: Particle 2 of the ash assay on page 45 of the Lugano report shows a particle that is a silicon dioxide particle. This leads to the speculation that the inside of the Lugano reactor is filled with silica based Aerogel. Particle 2 might have been a peice of the silica that has broken off the aerogel. Like carbon, silicon is a Hydrogen Rydberg matter catalyst. Silicon monoxide is also LENR active since it mimics potassium in terms of electron outer shell bonding. It also may be necessary to keep the nickel particles separated to avoid overheating at startup in order to blowout and to give the reaction some time for the reaction to establish itself. Futhermore, Parkhomov is said to use a tube that was 20% silica and 80% alumina.

@me356: do you have a vacuum pump to remove the initial atmosphere from the cell? If the titanium powder oxidizes, it will be hard to reduce it again.

See: Why is it hard to reduce titanium dioxide?

EDIT
The reason I am saying this is that I once thought it might have been cheaper to just purchase titanium dioxide and reduce it with hydrogen to obtain titanium powder. After looking up if this was feasible, I quickly found out that it wouldn't have worked.

This could be interesting and relevant (re: TiO₂ instead of Ti/TiH₂ powder):

http://www.okabe.iis.u-tokyo.a…de/RMW3_15_Sekimoto_O.pdf
TiO₂ reduction is easier if it's alloyed with a different metal, such as Ni.

@me356

Out of interest, if you are using Titanium Hydride purely as a hydrogen source, are you attempting to see if Lithium is not required for the reaction? Or are you adding Lithium separately?

I see that the reactor is now alive with a temperature of 500`C at 90W.
Is it the same reactor or something has changed?

&"Ecco: unfortunately no at the moment. Titanium Hydride is actually 2x cheaper (at least for me) and with better purity than LiAlH4. More importantly, it is much safer and is not toxic. So I want to use it primarily as hydrogen source."

Always apply KISS in these experiments! Avoid all forms of lithium as a hydrogen source. Bottled H2 much safer.
I don't understand why these experimenters want to live dangerously by using closed systems for this simple form of hydrogen fusion. A closed reactor is a bomb waiting to detonate.

&"This could be interesting and relevant (re: TiO2 instead of Ti/TiH2 powder):"

"TiO2 instead of Ti/TiH2 powder?" What a complex route instead of simply bottled H2.

Quote from ogfusionist

"TiO2 instead of Ti/TiH2 powder?" What a complex route instead of simply bottled H2.

That was an extra link as a follow-up to the failed Titanium oxide reduction idea I mentioned in a previous comment. I was implying that in case one is really determined reducing titanium dioxide with hydrogen, mixing it with Ni powder might be a better idea, according to the linked pdf. The document also reinforces the notion that TiO2 cannot be easily reduced with hydrogen only.

Were I to personally set up a LENR experiment at my place (unlikely to happen due to costs of starting from scratch with no equipment at all, and lack of lab experience), I would probably use bottled/externally supplied hydrogen, since I would also likely want to use a vacuum pump to clean the initial atmosphere and have more flexibility in the experimental protocol (for example, heating the reactor before admitting hydrogen at a controlled rate, etc.).

FYI from Jones Beene

Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two … but read on.

Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.

However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P&F cold fusion, and explain the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is released than in fusion !

There were about 35 people in attendance including a few heavy hitters who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate.

The only thing needed now is replication.

A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended shelf life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson ** weeks to accumulate **.

As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense hydrogen all along?

The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident that if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor – we can believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2 see Bob’s white paper).

I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a 2-stage orcompound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first he seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But thisstrategy would allow a very low powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitymseems to be: do NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into heat (this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert it to heat).

IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense Rydberg matter in situ(in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not see harmful radiation. It can be doneat the subwatt level, but those two processes are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high power.

Actually a really great bit of data seeing no excess heat with the new Ti setup. Looking at the data, it's clear how special the two successful, back to back, excess runs were. This TiH2 failure strengthens the two successes. This is why failure is sometimes a success in and of itself.

Is that really what me356 meant?

I tried plotting the latest data point at 500°C alongside with old data. It seems consistent with the old trend using Ni+LiAlH₄, perhaps even higher for some reason.

EDIT: added 400°C data point.