MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

  • Eric,

    Can you explain your rationale a little? Are you considering a heavy metal wire/coil plus an additional Ni fuel powder or just the heavy metal wire with a current flowing through it in H2/D2? That sounds on one hand a little like Brillouin and on the other hand a little like Langmuir.


    Thanks for the link to the 238U at United Nuclear. That would certainly be an interesting ingredient in the dusty plasma reactors that BobG is presently investigating. I am preparing a drawing for a dusty plasma reactor of my own. It wouldn't be very expensive to make, nor beyond my machining capability. I estimate less than $200 to build.

  • BobHiggins,

    The question I think is interesting in this context is whether H2/D2 + electric current + a heavy element such as tungsten, platinum, thorium, uranium, etc., will lead to a minute amount of fissioning or induced alpha decay of the heavy element. Nickel may or may not do anything in addition, but it does not factor into this question except as something in the environment. When trying something that has a precedent such as Piantelli that seems to have worked, it's good not to make too many changes (e.g., removing nickel) until the core phenomenon has been isolated.

  • Bob,

    Re tungsten filament. In the early days Rossi reported that he had changed the tungsten heater wire for something else and it didn't work as well. He didn't add further details. I assumed the wire must have been in with the fuel for it to make any difference.

  • @Adrian,

    I don't think that heater was inside the reaction environment as I recall. Tungsten is poor at high temperatures exposed to O2 - that's its Achille's heel. In O2, using thick Kanthal wire is about the best. Above the performance of Kanthal you have to go to silicon carbide.

  • Bob,

    I remember that he said another type of wire did not work as well as tungsten. At the time I speculated it was because hot tungsten dissociates H2. The E-Cats were much bigger in those days & fed with H2 from a cylinder. Rossi never commented on my comment.

  • However, I will say that from the console, the reactor is continuously operated at 1150C and with 4 hour periodic TESTs that shake thing up a little. There is nothing new to report, the temperaure is regulated to less than 0.1C and the power is about the same at about 179W to regulate there. If XH does emerge, it will show as the power required to hold it at 1150C going down. If something new happens, I will be sure to post it.

  • Here is a twice as wide version of the same graph with all the plots in vector format (instead of rasterized lines at 300 dpi); it might require a fast computer to open and view and could crash web browsers: round2-pdf-1491170313.pdf

    EDIT: the latest update shows that the input power overshoot for the latest 'test' procedure went over 300W, altering the scale of the power data graph:


    EDIT: 03:00 UTC: round2-pdf-1491208587.pdf

    EDIT: 11:00 UTC update: round2-pdf-1491225035.pdf

    Edited 3 times, last by can ().

  • can,

    Thank you for the 0300UTC plots.

    I have just uploaded last nights data files. We are about 60% through the planned heat cycle. If we are not seeing XH by later today, I may send the script to the cool-down sequence. Input from the web participants will be considered here (go longer or finish?). After cooling I will be setting up the system with an identical dummy tube and will run a calibration cycle that will step the system through 1200C, settling at each step, and then back down the same way.

    The pre-processing of the AH50 Ni powder that was used for this experiment was electrolytic reduction of the powder in aqueous ammonia. It does not appear successful at this point in having restored the activity of the Ni.

    The 300W "overshoot" seen in the graph that can reported was due to the PID control software. PID control kicks in only between 90% and 110% of the target temperature. Outside of this range, the software uses a calculated accelerator power to more quickly move the temperature to withing the PID range. The calculation algorithm could still use some tweaking. It appears during that particular TEST command that the temperature dropped slightly below the PID range and got accelerated back to temperature.

  • BobHiggins

    In an update I have added a graph for the latest data in my previous comment.

    * * *

    I have a possible hypothesis/suggestion which you will hopefully consider for some of the next automated experiments, which was never completely clarified (IMHO).

    Parkhomov operated his early experiments (especially) pretty much at the limits of the materials used. The heating coil was embedded into the alumina cement and it's possible that inner temperatures were pretty high, perhaps significantly more than what MFMP usually achieved in the past. Also, his tubes didn't have hot/cold zones, which means that some of the evolved gases couldn't migrate away from the reaction zone.

    From the scientific literature hydrogen reacts with SiO2/Quartz at a rate that appears to be exponential with temperature, see for example:…icle/pii/0022459674900929

    The reaction of SiO2 and hydrogen yields H2O (steam) and SiO. SiO2 is a substantial fraction of what composes mullite ceramics.

    I'm aware that MFMP members have already used mullite tubes in the past, but if you see the graph above, below a certain temperature the rate of reaction with H2 of its SiO2 fraction is very low.

    If this reaction somehow has been instrumental in Parkhomov's case for obtaining excess heat, could perhaps directly adding SiO2 in the form of a powder mixed with the rest of the fuel help showing it? In powdered form it would react quicker, and where it's needed.

    It's interesting to also note that according to Randell Mills (of BrilliantLightPower) the energy liberated by chemically formed (nascent) water is a catalyst for Hydrino production (in the presence of atomic hydrogen), which in turn is supposed to be strongly exothermic, so it's not that it would be a completely groundless thing to do.

    Edited 2 times, last by can ().

  • can,

    Yours is an interesting hypothesis. When Parkhomov began working on his experiments, he got the alumina tubes he could readily obtain - and that was mullite. The silicates that are in the mullite reacted with lithium and caused his tubes to fail in many of his experiments. MFMP didn't know whether the mullite was important, so when we went to replicate Parkhomov we used mullite for that reason. It was about at this same time that it was discovered that the type of glass used in the Celani wire experiments made a difference in the outcome. However, later, Parkhomov went to a high alumina tube with his fuel in a canister inside, and his heater wound on a separate external tube, and it seemed to counter the argument that the alumina type or heater wire contact was complicit in the reaction. Note that the SiO2 can react with Li and Al in a thermite-like oxygen exchange reaction and generate chemical energy - that is probably the more likely chemical reaction that would occur (I think). Zhang Hang appears to have seen this kind of chemical reaction when he used an alumina (mullite) wool plug between his fuel and the vacuum system. The Li-Al metal wicked into this wool, reacted, and locally heated the high alumina tube so hot that it formed a bubble and burst (outside the fuel charge area).

    Also note that the liquid Al is a wonderful oxygen getter. When O2 or H2O is present, it quickly forms Al2O3 and precipitates as an extremely stable oxide - alumina (polycrystalline sapphire). This is probably why in the Lugano experiment and in Parkhomov's experiment that evacuation was apparently not needed. However, the fact that neither the Lugano experiment nor Parkhomov's was pre-evacuated is also evidence that water was initially inside the reactor.

    Also note that Piantelli's Ni-H reaction does not require any SiO2 or H2O (reportedly, but he does have a MACOR support inside). Mizuno's Ni wire experiment in a high vacuum system with added H2 did not have H2O - I am sure it would have showed up in his RGA to be minimized.

    I will continue to consider your hypothesis and look for other evidence of complicity of H2O and SiO2.

  • BobHiggins

    For Mills-like Hydrino reactions water formation is definitely not a strict requirement, but one of many possible mechanisms able to kick hydrogen atoms into a lower energy state, liberating significant energy in the process. Therefore, to clarify, I am not implying that excess heat cannot arise with other methods. If I remember correctly in Mills' case even hydrogen recombination (again in the presence of excess free hydrogen atoms) can do the same, without involving water or oxygen.

    In the very specific case of early Parkhomov experiments internal temperatures were extremely high and those have not been explored during MFMP experiments with mullite tubes. But if what's going on is indeed a Mills-like reaction, then it could be done without necessarily having to use mullite tubes as reactor containers.

    EDIT: latest experiment graph update (1400 UTC): round2-pdf-1491235363.pdf

    EDIT: 16:00 UTC update: round2-pdf-1491241184.pdf

    EDIT: 17:00 (almost 18:00 actually) UTC update: round2-pdf-1491245762.pdf

    Edited 3 times, last by can ().

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.