Hey! No passing notes in class!
The true value in learning is not being spoon-fed answers, but in the discovery of the Answer by Oneself.
To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat
-
-
Quote
Any consumed power will have to be dissipated either by radiation or conduction or (unless in a vacuum) convection. If it isn't , the temperature rises . With a higher temperature i.e. delta T vs the environment, heat exchange grows until things converge. Sometimes the resistor will melt before. Sometimes the latter will be interpreted as a mysterious runaway of a reactor...
I have seen an alumina reactor post melt-down. No way you could reproduce that effect with an external heater- this had obviously melted from the inside first and the outer casing was the last thing to go.
-
Quote from Wyttenbach
So we end up with a bunch of free paramaters. Particle (grain) size, particle density (porous?), cement used to glue the alumina -->relation particle size/count glue/powder...
You do not really need to say that, since I've already done so! The point is that it does not change its properties with time. Also, microstructure makes a big difference but the same features still persist, so you can get a decent ballpark figure from book values whether 50 years ago or now. And the various experiments that have been done show pretty good correspondence with book values.
I'm not going to argue for accuracy in the Lugano experiment. In my comment a long time ago now I put errors at +/- 30%, and that was not a precise error estimate since some of the error sources could not be bounded. As some here have noted errors a tricky thing. You say 1.07 +/- 30% (approx) and many people take that to mean that excess heat is likely. And except where you can bound all error mechanisms - certainly not here, the +/-30% is a guess.
So we have an experiment with pretty loose calorimetry, as well as a few other mysteries in the electrical power measurement which however may just be report write-up errors.
What I find extraordinary is how anyone can take this loose calorimetry and think that this implies extraordinary excess heat. The ash/fuel measurements have been dealt with by others but are similarly unconvincing
-
Quote
I have seen an alumina reactor post melt-down. No way you could reproduce that effect with an external heater- this had obviously melted from the inside first and the outer casing was the last thing to go.
the inside is always going to be hotter than the outside because of the heat gradient. However, in absence of exothermic chemical reactions you have everything inside the heater coil on an isotherm. But, with Li, Al, H, Ni you sure have possible exothermic chemical reactions!
-
Quote: “I have seen an alumina reactor post melt-down. No way you could reproduce that effect with an external heater- this had obviously melted from the inside first and the outer casing was the last thing to go.”
the inside is always going to be…But, with Li, Al, H, Ni you sure have possible exothermic chemical reactions!
Describe what -in the absence of Oxygen these might be?
-
The Lugano report describes the fuel insertion procedure as follows:
Quote... The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.
An evacuation is not described and in the pictures i can't see any other fittings to connect the reactor to a vacuum pump.
So there must have been oxygen (and other elements from normal air) present in the reactor.
-
There is oxygen from the Ni powder which will have oxide surface unless passivated (and then will have carbonate etc surface). and as Tom points out there are other sources. (Somone will correct me if wrong on this).
Otherwise LAH is not highly stable. The reactions in which Li,Al,H form hydride alloys with Ni are very complex. I have no idea what the enthalpies are but some will inevitably be exothermic.
Experimental evidence of this comes from the "heat bumps" observed by MFMP and others with these systems.
I'm not actually saying I know that chemical core overheating happens in any specific case, just that it is possible.
-
In the other Lugano thread (yesterday Page 51) I linked the wrong full disclosure Report of the IH/Rossi application. The one below contains the full Lugano report and some add on's like the heater coil (photos p.56) etc...
-
[quote='Thomas Clarke','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3232-To-discus-the-science-behind-the-dispute-between-Rossi-and-Industrial-Heat/?postID=19972#post19972']There is oxygen from the Ni powder which will have oxide surface unless passivated (and then will have carbonate etc surface). and as Tom points out there are other sources. (Somone will correct me if wrong on this).
Since de-oxidation of the Nickel is a standard part of the preparation procedure (and I do not think CO2 passivation of anything except the very small amount of nano-lithium present in some experiments is the norm) it is very difficult to see how you could dredge up enough to be useful - or sufficiently energetic to melt a steel fuel tube wrapped in Alumina. And melt the Alumina. And if the Oxygen has already reacted with the Nickel, it is hard to imagine where else it might go -recombination with free Hydrogen gas seems unlikely and because of the small quantities involved equally unlikely to produce much in the way of exothermy. A gram or two of Nitroglycerine might release enough energy to bust a reactor, but that would result in fragmentation -not a meltdown. As for other sources capable of the relatively slow release of this kind of energy, what are they?
-
Is thre a link to an online report of what you are describing? You say the reactor had a steel fuel tube wrapped in allumina, but was there an electrical heater? Would this be a coil wrapped around the steel tube within the alumina coating?
-
Quote
or sufficiently energetic to melt a steel fuel tube wrapped in Alumina.
if you got these melt-downs in the absence of large energy injected via a heating coil that might be convincing?
I notice no-one with a meltdown who puts their reactor in an oven to provide heat...
-
@Thomas Clarke
My last comment on the now-closed "fog" thread has nothing to do with you or your Comment. -
AndreaS.No. This was what might be termed 'a private show'. And the reactor was very similar to the Lugano device.
-
Quote from randombit0
As Usual poor little Mr. Clarke you are wrong. The parameter in the two formulas IS THE SAME.
Proof by repetitive assertion does not convince me, or many here. I actually find it quite difficult to work out why you make this comment. You remember it is a repetition, and was answered in detail before?
Best wishes, Tom
-
Someone is losing countenance here...curios to see how long moderators will watch this kind of "private war" from randombit0, who seems to have a huge problem with some of Thomas' findings or statements...
-
I wait eagerly for poor little ramdombit0's explanation how the air was removed from the reactor chamber after the fuel had been inserted.
Or maybe, the air in Lugano contains no oxygen.
-
I suggest the use of some ferrosilicon group alloys as a getter for nitrogen and oxygen, as well as a hydrogen releaser when reacted with alkaline hydroxides. The ferrosilicon-sodium hydroxide reaction is one such reaction, but there are several others.
-
Just for background, this is from an interview with one of the Lugano testers (Bo Hoistad), on Dec. 12 2014:
Melis (or interviewer):
“Professor, there are some who cast doubts on the experiment for the fact that it was
Andrea Rossi, albeit in your presence, who introduced the fuel powder into the unit and then removed it at the end of the process. Do you think Rossi could somehow have manipulated these powders under your eyes?”Bo Höistad:
“Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes. Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation.”Melis (or interviewer):
“Did you choose the sample that was to be analyzed?”Bo Höistad:
“Yes, of course. We picked the sample ourselves. But really, what can I say. In principle it is possible to fool anyone, if a person really has this gift.”.
Melis (or interviewer):
“In short, a magician or something.”Bo Höistad:
“Exactly. But no, we don’t operate on that scale.” -
First NO OXIGEN in the reactor chamber.Randombit, I eagerly await your explanation of how it is possible to have NO oxygen in the reactor chamber in this configuration. Talk about a lack of understanding of science...
-
Alumina does not change its characteristics with time, and there is no reason to think the surface microstructure then was different from what was used in Lugano. The problem is that surface microstructure is known variable (at any date) so there is uncertainty. But as long as this is considered, I don't see anything wrong with the book values used.
There are a lot of different possible uncertainties in the methodology, although my guess (which seems about right still) is that added together they did not make for a large total error proving the band emissivity was used correctly. I'd be reluctant to claim that there could be no quite large error (more than +50% - 30%), just think it unlikely.
Tom
I wonder is any light generated in the core of the reactor would change the assumptions about the spectral characteristics of the light that would have been radiated from the surface of the alumina. Microcavity optics can upshift and/or downshift light regardless of any LENR effects.
Would infrared or UV light production in the core make a difference to the analysis?
