Brian Albiston new run with lead jacket

All of the test data and lots of pictures can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/personal/albiston fusion/test data/Reactor 6 - Conduction 1/Test1

The test used a stainless steel fuel tube which contained 3g AH50 Ni, 0.45g LiAlH4, and 0.3g Nanoshel Li. The Ni was heated in air and Hydrogen reduced using the procedures in the MFMP "signal". The SS fuel container was contained in an 18" Alumina tube with a thermocouple butted up against the SS fuel container to measure the core temperature. The 18" alumina tube was wound with Kanthal A1 heating coils and placed inside two concentric Alumina tubes with a gap filled with lead (see the dropbox pictures). The lead jacket was then heated to lead melting and additional lead was added to completely fill the gap between tubes. A thermocouple was placed inside the lead jacket and a second thermocouple was placed on the exterior of the outer Alumina tube. These two thermocouples acted as a conduction calorimeter. A conduction calorimeter works by first having a good conductor (molten lead) accumulate and spread out the heat and then measuring the temperature differential across a second less good conductor (Alumina tube). Ideally the temperature difference will be linear versus heat generated inside. Mine turned out to be close to linear but not quite likely due to radiation from the outer layer.

Calibration:
https://plot.ly/803/~fear_nuts/
https://plot.ly/813/~fear_nuts/
Calibration only proceeded to 1000C and 540W because my power supply ran out of juice. I will run additional calibrations covering full range for future tests.

The test was started Saturday night with additional reducing/vacuum cycles. Test continued until this morning when I had to end it because of test controller problems. I'm not sure what the failure was yet, but it seems like either the core thermocouple or the thermocouple embedded in the molten lead jacket failed.

I think this chart shows the results the best:
https://dashboards.ly/ua-ocR57qTE73RUFWTYA2FkUB
The calorimeter temperature differential appears to be significantly higher on the active run, but uncertainties are large. Comparing active and calibration curve fit temperature differentials versus power input the COP can be estimated to be up to 1.2. Further testing will need to be completed to reduce uncertainties, but I consider this promising that the MFMP "signal" procedures will result in more consistent positive results.

Hi Brian, did a post-run calibration show that the behavior of the device returned to that of a resistance heater when the fuel charge was removed?

Great question Eric. I managed to get the unit working again and I've decided to run a few more cycles before concluding the test. I will plan on running a post-run calibration at the conclusion of the test.

Post run calibration completed and can be seen here compared with the fueled run: https://plot.ly/825/~fear_nuts/

Every effort was made to make the post calibration as close to the active run as possible, including Hydrogen in the cell to account for it's high thermal conductivity.

It is not much, but there is a definite shift in the data in the fueled run. I estimate that there is about a 3-4 deg C shift in the fueled run corresponding to a COP of ~1.1. A lot was learned on this test so hopefully we can improve on that COP from here.

I completed another test last night. The test used 2g Nickel and 0.3g solid Lithium in a Nickel foil capsule. The reactor was made out of 316 stainless steele with Swagelok fittings on each end. COP was measured in my Lead jacket conduction calorimeter. No excess heat was observed.

The procedure was:
Starting with just Nickel and Nickel foil, reduce at 600 C and 3.4 psig Hydrogen for 50 minutes
Vacuum at 600 C, 40 min
Absorb at 180 C, -2 psig Hydrogen, 8 hours, approximately 0.5 psig absorbed
Vacuum at 650 C, 80 min
Absorb at 180 C, -1 psig Hydrogen 60 min, no significant absorbtion
Absorb at 210 C, 60 min, no significant absorbtion
Absorb at 250 C, 60 min, no significant absorption
Absorb at 150 C, 60 min, no significant absorption
Absorb at 700 C, 60 min, Pressure drop ~3 psig, likely due to Steele absorbing? This is a problem with using a Steele reactor, you don't know if it is the Nickel or Steele absorbing.
Vacuum at 700 C, 55 min
Absorb at 180 C, -4 psig Hydrogen, no significant absorption
Cool to 30C
Remove fuel capsule, add 0.3 g Lithium, reinstall
Vacuum, add 8 psig Hydrogen, heat to 150 C 120 min
Vacuum, heat to 1000 C at -14.4 psig, soak at 1000 C. This should have been enough to vaporize the Lithium.
Add Hydrogen slowly and in bursts. No temperature change or COP change observed. A triac style supply was used for heating.

Hopefully @me356 will be able to shed some light on what critical parameters I'm missing.

https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/800…re-power-pressure-stream/

Quote

I completed another test last night. The test used 2g Nickel and 0.3g solid Lithium in a Nickel foil capsule. The reactor was made out of 316 stainless steele with Swagelok fittings on each end. COP was measured in my Lead jacket conduction calorimeter. No excess heat was observed.

Even if you did see a little "excess heat" it would have to be extremely massive to make up for all the energy used in your processing to be a net gain.

@Contrarian
Net gain isn't really the point of these experiments. I am a long ways from that. Understanding if an interesting phenomena exists and how to eventually control it is the point. Hopefully net gain will be the eventual result of that.

One or two questions.

When you added the Lithium, did you mix the nickel and lithium through?

I suppose only me356 could answer but does the nickel have to be in powdered form? Powder would give you more surface area but is it still strictly necessary? If nickel powder is not necessary then perhaps you could electroplate the inside of your steel reactor with nickel (perhaps add the lithium then so that the resultant electroplate would be an alloy of nickel and lithium?). Then you would not have to worry as much if the steel reactor was absorbing Hydrogen as it would have to go through nickel first.

Could it be that you would only observe hydrogen absorption once the internal pressure went over a threshold?

Quote from wishfulThinking

I completed another test last night. The test used 2g Nickel and 0.3g solid Lithium in a Nickel foil capsule. The reactor was made out of 316 stainless steele with Swagelok fittings on each end. COP was measured in my Lead jacket conduction…

Hi Brian,

according to Etiam Inc. patent application, your reactor should contain a dielectric material. LENR excitation (polarization of a dielectric material) is also missing.

Etiam Inc. patent application in a nutshell

@GlowFish
The Lithium was solid and the Nickel was powdered so they really can't be mixed. The Lithium was inserted at one end of the fuel capsule on top of the previously inserted and treated Nickel. The hope is that boiling the Lithium mixes it with the Nickel powder. I haven't had a chance yet to open the fuel capsule and inspect the mixing but it is very likely that not much mixing occurred. To my knowledge @me356 has used powdered Nickel in only one of his recent reactors and it is not his preference. Hopefully he will explain why. Electroplating the reactor is possible. Add it to the endlessly growing list of reactor variations.

@barty
That would be great if @me356 wanted to share any suggestions with me.

@John Littlemist
Other replicators have used Steele reactor tubes and fuel capsules and claimed success. It's possible a dielectric material matters, but most dielectric materials are eaten by Lithium. Add another addition to the growing list of reactor variations.

Quote from GlowFish

If nickel powder is not necessary then perhaps you could electroplate the inside of your steel reactor with nickel (perhaps add the lithium then so that the resultant electroplate would be an alloy of nickel and lithium?).

How do you electroplate Li? I'm not very hot on chemistry, but I would think the Li would immediately be dissolved?

Alan Smith

True, pure Lithium would just dissolve again. I was suggesting a mixture of nickel and a small proportion of lithium but that might still be too far out.

Just for interest, apparently (according to some Google searches) it is actually possible to plate lithium but you have to use a less reactive solvent (i.e not water) for the plating to stick. Some methods even suggest plating a second layer of less reactive metal over the lithium to shield/protect it once the process is finished. Also Lithium ion batteries seem to have a detrimental effect when overcharged in that the lithium comes out of solution and plates the electrodes internally causing shorts in the battery.

Peter E. I am not sure why or what reaction is the expected result. So forgive me. Speculating along this line and looking at the design of the dogbone type reactors. Since Nickel is ferro and Li is para, why not use an external electromagnet to attract? Something like a stator? An external device. Would the elevated heat (curie pt.) mimic the binding you are looking for?