MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    I have added the previous calibration curve I did on 20170310. It is in a file called, "CalibrationCurve_20170310.png". This has an excel least squares fit and the equation is shown. The fit is fairly low residual. This was done with the tube before its primary ceramic to metal seal was re-done. Originally the tube was 8" long with a Swagelok seal pretty much directly to the OD of the tube. The calibration run was done with tube open, and with no contents. When the tube was modified for the new brass seal, the length was reduced by 1/2" but the brass seal stuck out beyond the tube end by about 0.8", so about 0.3" longer than the original design. I will have to run another calibration after this active run and will do it with an identical tube to what is now in the heater. Still the calibration should be pretty close.


    Right now the reactor is approaching 500C and in calibration, this would have taken 61 watts according to the fit. It looks like the power of the active cell may be about 60 watts when it settles.



    I expect to see some departure from the calibration curve between 650C and 700C with the fueled reactor. As the material begins to melt, more heat must be supplied than the calibration to cover the heat of formation of the lithium and aluminum materials. After the melting, it should get back on track, largely matching the calibration curve ... unless of course, there is excess heat (not expected until >1000C). There is 1.3g of fuel in the reactor in a 2" section at the end of the closed-one-end tube. Of that 10% is LiAlH4.

    I think the biggest difference was the open tube. However, it was not like the opening was a big gaping hole - just the 1/16" tubing was not in the 1/4" to 1/16" compression adapter. Anyway, we can use that calibration curve until we get a new one after the experiment is run that is more apples-apples.

    Another possibility may be the insertion location within the heater tube. The heater tube is 4" long and 3" of that is wound with coil. One end of this heater tube is closed off with the K-26 brick while the other end has a carved out tube that is about 1/2" ID (in 2 clamshell halves) that is open toward the side where the reactor tube is inserted. Since the tube length changed and the 1/16" lead tubing was changed, it is possible that the two tubes were not inserted to the same location (and thermocouple to the same location) within the 4" heater tube assembly. The is a likely gradient in heating temperature from one end to the other because one end is closed. If the reactor tube and thermocouple are inserted somewhat farther into the heater tube assembly, it would be more efficient at reaching temperature.

    Hi Alan, I don't think it is an issue of radial position of the thermocouple, but insertion depth into the heater coil tube. But you are correct that it is probably a positioning issue. I am going to insure that the follow-on calibration is similarly positioned. Thanks for chiming in!

    Quote from BobHiggins

    So, I believe Ni-H is a LENR domain which is capable of excess heat.

    Thanks for taking time out to answer my question. It helps me clarify things. I did not mean to derail this thread, which is occupied with far more important and pressing matters (sorry, Alan!). I wish you the best of luck (and skill) with your experiments and fleshing out your hypotheses. I admire your dedication and abilities.


    Without derailing the focus of this thread, I want to suggest that if you ever have a down moment and are looking for some interesting reading, you could do worse than the scientific work of Miles Mathis. His papers are not the usually academic slog and are often quite humorous in their biting critique of establishment physics. If nothing else it should give you food for thought. As evidence that it is not complete balderdash, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA, Tahir Yaqoob, wrote the preface to his first book. Here is my paper outlining his physics and how they can be used to understand LENR (and all "over-unity" energy schemes): https://goo.gl/5kgB0G


    If you wish to discuss it further, you can e-mail me at the address given in the paper.

    09:00 UTC graph update: round2-pdf-1491040139.pdf


    EDIT: The calculated output power can't be correct since it gives such a COP curve (disregard short peaks occurring when power and temperature didn't settle yet):



    Also, since the reactor is well insulated, my expectation is that any real excess heat would prominently show up, not just cause a power gain in the order of 10% or so.


    EDIT

    10:00 UTC graph update

    round2-pdf-1491043593.pdf

    can,

    I entirely agree regarding the COP - it will be overestimated by the present calibration constants. However, we can use the present calibration to look for big COP that we are hoping for in a more insulated system, which should be obvious. XH is not really expected until >1100C, but may occur as low as 1000C. Keep your fingers crossed.


    Thanks for continuing the real time analysis!

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.