MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

can

Regarding Piantelli's experiment ... I don't think that all aspects of Piantelli's rod Ni-H experiment carry over to Ni-H in general. In his rod experiment he uses a unique excitation means (thermal waves) that does not carry over into powder. I believe Piantelli has said that his experiments with Ni powder failed. So, would his H vs D result carry over to other Ni-H LENR? Maybe, or maybe not.

However, that experiment is probably largely responsible for why Piantelli believes that H is the reacting isotope.

He wrote about powders again in an email to Krivit in 2010, referring to Rossi's original patent. In addition of commenting on the non-novelty of Rossi's process he explained (in short) that a high surface area, which powders may give, is not necessarily useful if there's not a sufficient number of active sites: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…actionToRossiClaims.shtml

His 1995 patent also covered the usage of powders: https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…telli)&tab=PCTDescription

David Fojt suggested in another thread - I'm assuming according to observations from his own experiments (he is a known researcher who attends LENR meetings, etc) - that:

• The decomposition of LiH (H release) is what promotes the reaction in these cells.
• Internal pressure can be advantageously lowered in order to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.
• It is useful to cause the LiH to form and decompose cyclically.
• It is useful to prevent this reversible hydride reaction from ever reaching equilibrium.
• It is useful to use only LiH (or Li and external hydrogen) and no LiAlH4 to better study its effect on the system.
• Parkhomov apparently obtains results because the powder is mixed in a way that makes hydrogen travel a certain distance from the liquid lithium (paraphrasing).
• LiAlH4 is primarily used to provide the hydrogen that Li takes to form LiH and to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.
• It's not necessary to wait for a very long amount of time for LiAlH4 to decompose if Li+H/LiH can be provided directly.

These practical observations could be applied to the next GlowStick ClamShell experiment(s).

(EDIT: here I actually meant Bob Higgins' experiments)

@David Fojt

If that discussion started in the other thread can be continued here, that's even better.

Quote from David Fojt

It's one point of the process but not the main one following my understanding

That's my understanding too. I assumed that to be in reference to the usual Ni+LiAlH4 powder cells that are the main subject of the experiments described in this thread.

Quote from David Fojt

Sorry i don't catch the meaning could you help me ?

I meant that it can be useful to use a lower hydrogen pressure in the cell, so that LiH can decompose at a lower temperature; this is what you've written too.

Quote from David Fojt

Don't understand..

I understood that if the cell is maintained at a temperature where LiH is not forming or not decomposing, then it's not "breathing".

Quote from David Fojt

Yes Me356 said the same

Unfortunately suggestions coming directly from me356 ('me356 says') aren't accepted yet in this thread. That's also why I found very interesting to read the same from you.

Quote from David Fojt

Yes, it's my idea completely in opposition with which is suggested here but..may be i'm wrong..Therefore I am not afraid to hurt my ego, but is this the case of everyone?

Actually that's my opinion too. However it's not Bob Higgins' opinion. (and he is the one who is running the experiments, so...)

Quote from David Fojt

and to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.

No

The LiAlH4 decomposition has several steps called R1, R2, R3 (see Wikipedia). The R3 step (2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H₂) in presence of Al occurs at a lower temperature compared to pure LiH. I thought you also implied this; maybe you actually didn't.

Also see this source (excerpt below):

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…12a015?journalCode=inocaj

Quote from David Fojt

We need to take time for LAH+ Li transformation but if we use directly LIH let's start at 700° after it remains slow..

Do you mean that it's slow because you still need to make the LiH form and decompose several times, which is going to take time?

@David Fojt 

I don't think superparamagnetism can occur in grains that are on the surface and are also part of a greater condensed matter. I think superparamagnetism requires the freedom of a single domain nanoparticle to physically rotate into the field direction.

Quote from David Fojt

Yes, breathing is blocked then this is the only point that Me356 has never understood very well.

I think he advanced to a different point of view on the reaction.

In some of his later messages, he wrote that the reaction can be started (meaning that it does not necessarily start spontaneously) when the lithium begins to evaporate. I suspect (also given other comments) this is in reference to Piantelli's suggestion from his patents that alkali atoms like for example Lithium (but other ones may be better) are electron donor elements, which means that they tend to donate electrons to more electronegative atoms like hydrogen.

According to Piantelli when hydrogen comes in contact/collides with an electron donor element it can get negatively ionized (forming H-). My guess is that when lithium evaporates many more collisions than normal between Li atoms and hydrogen, both adsorbed on the Ni and in the atmosphere, can happen. When a sufficient amount of adsorbed hydrogen undergoes this excitation, the reaction then can occur following a suitable impulse.

Ionic hydrides like LiH can also form negatively ionized (or otherwise excited) hydrogen when they decompose. When it's bound together LiH is composed of Li+ and H- atoms. When the hydride decomposes, at least for a short period of time the freed hydrogen atom will be in a negatively ionized state (H-), or perhaps just in an excited (Rydberg) state. Free hydrogen atoms in this form may have special properties.

By making LiH "breathe" continuously one is essentially producing excited hydrogen atoms, so that would be would be in the end doing the same thing that can be achieved in other ways, but with the added impulse provided by the continuously varying temperatures, needed to cause this process. Or at least, that's what I'm thinking.

Quote from David Fojt

It is secondary here..

Al is indeed secondary if LiH alone can work. From the point of view of decomposition temperatures it's probably not useful for these ClamShell (or Parkhomov-type) experiments anyway, since very high temperatures, far exceeding the decomposition temperature of LiH, are used.

There was also a discussion earlier on in this thread that Al helps forming a coating on the Ni/transition metal surface, which is what one actually wants to avoid, according to the theory of operation described so far.

Quote from Can

In some of his later messages, he wrote that the reaction can be started (meaning that it does not necessarily start spontaneously) when the lithium begins to evaporate. I

Me356 evaporated Li in a different part of the raction chamber. May be he just inverted the Lipinski setup. Instead of "beaming" protons on Lithium he is "beaming" Lithium on a Hydrogen loaded surface!

Wyttenbach

I'm aware of the Lipinski setup although I have to regretfully admit that I've never read about it much in detail. However I find that if alkali atoms excite hydrogen atoms adsorbed on a transition metal surface, this would be more similar to the theory of operation behind Holmlid's experiments (without the Nd:YAG laser, but other triggers should be suitable too).

I am making progress in preparation of the coil on the reactor assembly:

The block with the banana connectors detaches from the top, because the coil must be readily removable to access the inside of the insulating blocks to replace the reactor core. Tomorrow, I will measure the resonant frequency on the bench.

Quote from David Fojt

Li evaporate at 1342° following Google, what you suggest to explain How Me356 works in this case ?

May be close to 0 bar absolute, it should evaporate a little before ? Sorry it's over my knowledges..

He has suggested that when starting (triggering) the reaction, pressure should be maintained very low, in the order of 1 millibar or less. During the preceding hydrogenation phase it can be higher. At 1 millibar Lithium evaporates at about 772°C (see this page). From what he writes it doesn't sound that just causing the Li to evaporate will start a reaction, there has to be a trigger of some sort (so far undisclosed), in addition to a properly prepared metal surface.

See this link to the comment by me356 I'm referring about.

Quote from David Fojt

About Piantelli , my friend JL Paillet who works on Dirac Deep Level doesn't believe that an H- can cross electronic layers of Ni, i shares this.. [...]

I would agree with that too. My personal and only opinion is that the H- is an intermediate step needed to achieve something that is not explicitly mentioned (or in other words, that has been omitted) in the theory described in the patent. Perhaps, kind of like how Leif Holmlid uses Rydberg (excited) atoms to eventually obtain what he calls ultra-dense hydrogen.

Quote from David Fojt

You spoke about Al, but at first Piantelli experiments, he played just with Ni and H2. By this way he saw some " radiation" , this is why he added Li plates externally, that's it.

No Al used..

I think the role of the Lithium-containing plates there is different than what has been proposed for LiH (hydrogen release) in other experiments by other authors. In that patent they're acting as a target for the multi-MeV protons emitted by the reaction occurring at the Ni surface, in order to produce useful secondary p+Li nuclear fusion reactions. So, they're more or less overall acting as passive components in the reaction. However, nothing prevents the same from happening in other systems where the Li has a more active role.

On the other hand, while Al is reported in the literature to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH, according to me356 it also makes the reaction less powerful (see these posts: 1, 2, 3, 4), so perhaps as you say it would be indeed better to not use it at all in these Ni+Li powder experiments, at least when starting out.

EDIT: In a more recent patent (EP 2754156 B1) Piantelli mentions a more active usage of alkali elements in order to ionize (by collision) hydrogen atoms in an additional manner than just adsorption on the special Ni surface. There, these alkali elements are referred to as "electron donor elements". Under this usage, Cesium is preferred because it's significantly less electronegative than Lithium (which means that it has a greater tendency of donating electrons than Lithium).

Quote from Alan Smith

I agree entirely, not the best but very practical. You might consider buying a stethoscope to listen to the cores while you tune your circuit btw- or of course just look for current dips- but the stethoscope might work better- wait till you hear the core start to rattle. I am not entirely joking, either.

Isn't the one in this photo the "low-temperature reactor" ?

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm not Bob, but scuttlebutt from the general area of Rossi is that EM fields are able to both start and stop the reaction. In other words they are trigger and safety catch both. This is the reason for the heater coil in some early Rossi documents (or perhaps discussions) being referred to as a 'safety heater'.

I remember the "safety heaters", they were reportedly adopted in the table-top low-temperature reactors that didn't even glow red-hot.

If the magnetic trigger depends on the magnetic permeability of the material used, then crossing the Curie temperature, which would bring it to 1, would inhibit it. However this would imply that the reaction is self-regulating, unless the safety heater is needed for other undesired effects.

If this community of experimenters and armchair scientists are right about the outer frames of the parameter space then Bob Higgins setup should have all needed to produce a positive result by script only - supposing the fuel has the right characteristics.

By scripting temp, pressure and EM in an intelligent coverage of variants - at some point a sweetspot should be revealed. Hope is up!

Alan Smith

Induction heating can be used to melt non-magnetic metals through the heat generated by eddy currents, so the answer to those questions would be yes. However this heating process is more efficient with high magnetic permeability metals below their Curie temperature.

I only presented a possible scenario where a "safety heater" could be indeed used to stop the reaction simply through heat like Rossi used to claim; it's not necessarily correct.

EDIT: under this scenario one would also have to assume that somehow it's more desirable to increase temperatures outside the useful range rather than shutting off the heaters/coil completely. There could even be valid reasons for this, but elaborating on them at this point would be speculation.

Alan Smith

Red hot Ni is indeed still a conductor. Even if it is molten magnetic fields can still induce currents on/in it.

Keep in mind that Rossi's low temperature "technology" is different than this high temperature Ni+LiAlH₄ system. His low temperature reactors may operate below the curie point of Ni, in which case, a heater could heat the system above the curie point and speculatively stop the low temperature reaction. This reaction is speculative, in that it has never been disclosed or replicated.

If one wants to apply heat to the powder/fuel directly and excite adsorbed hydrogen atoms with the induced currents, Nickel might not necessarily be the best choice. Other ferromagnetic materials could be used instead. Iron has a Curie temperature of 770°C; Cobalt would bring this threshold to 1127°C (source: wikipedia).

I have measured the coil around the reactor. The result is that the inductance is somewhat higher than calculated (1.94 mH), the capacitance is somewhat smaller than labeled (0.82 uF). The resulting resonance frequency is 3.99 kHz and the effective series resistance at resonance is 3.05 ohms. The Q is relatively low which means that resonance drift with temperature shouldn't be much of a problem.

@David Fojt

The value of the boiling of Li is not established. At the high temperatures and low pressures where the Ni + LiAlH₄ reactions have been shown to produce XH, the fuel is coincidentally near the boiling point of Li. In my last experiment, I raised the temperature to 1200°C and reduced the pressure to about 1 PSIA (50 Torr). This should have caused the Li to boil, yet I saw no XH or radiations stimulated by that action.

I am 70% through modification of my Labview control application to add both the .wav file command and to provision the DAQ for a 3rd counter input for the neutron detector. The next run will included neutron counts along with the SI-8B and scintillator ROI counts. There will be added another column in the .csv data for the neutron count. Also, another physical connector must be added to my bulkhead for the neutron counter output to be wired to the DAQ module. Today I am also epoxying a new reactor tube. I will probably want to run a calibration run with the magnetic field coil in place before the next fueled run. This will allow me to test that all of the hardware and software mods work as expected.

BobHiggins

About the coil measure up; what does the curve with a negative peak at 4KHz mean for the experiment? Does it say that energy is transfered into the fuel with a maximum at 4KHz? Or something else?

@David Fojt 

In the last experiment, the reactor was running at 1200°C and 9 PSIA. The temperature was set to 900°C at 9 PSIA for 10 minutes (it took basically that long to fall to 900°C). Then the pressure was set to 1200°C and the pressure was dropped to 1 PSIA both at the same time. The pressure probably took less than 30s to go from 9 PSIA to 1 PSIA, and it took about 5 minutes for the temperature to exceed 1200°C. When I say "XH", I mean "eXcess Heat".

I designed my own neutron detector and neutron source to test it. I published a paper on its construction - pick the latest version from this folder:

https://drive.google.com/drive…I1MVpNc2NhOWM?usp=sharing

It is based on use of a surplus 3He Russian Neutron Corona Counter Tube. The HDPE moderator is not designed to be omni-directional as are most neutron detectors that are designed to look for neutrons from any direction (they have a spherical moderator). I am only looking for neutrons coming from my reactor. There is also a slot in front for guiding low energy neutrons to the tube. I am going to release an updated version of the paper soon where I discuss optimization using a neutron source (Be + 110Po).