One of the problems with the long slow chirp is that at this early stage, I cannot be sure of the integrity of the temperature measurements while the excitation is active. You could hit a resonance that uniquely disturbs the DAQ and think you have hit on a unique excitation for your system. Best to ignore the data when the excitation is active. I am going to rectify the audio voltage from the amp and supply it to the DAQ so I will know precisely in the data when the excitation was active.
MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH
-
-
Couldn't a run with a dummy load (for example, plain Ni powder in air) be arranged so that the effect of a similar signal on the system at varying temperatures can be assessed?
-
-
Is my understanding correct that the hoped effect here is that temperatures and/or gamma counts would remain elevated (or increase) after applying the signal?
-
Yes, that is exactly it. Of course, if the effect is much larger than the disturbance that the field causes in the temperature measurement, we will be able to ascertain roughly what happens during the excitation. The temperatures are going to be acquired during the stimulation, but it is not clear how much measurement interference there will be. The effect on measurement will be tested. The thermocouples are in metal cans that are grounded and the couples are not connected to the can. The effect of the field on the measurement may be really small. I won't know until it gets measured. The best way to measure this is to put in a keyed sinusoid - on for 5 seconds and then off for 5 seconds and then look how big the 10s temperature variation signal turns out to be.
-
I was thinking more of real-time effects/response while the signal is applied rather than the after-effects so I didn't quite understand your reply at first.
On a slightly different but related subject, I've checked your values with this online calculator and realized that they're valid for an air core. Wouldn't the fuel load affect the inductance and generated magnetic field? Or worded differently, couldn't specific materials be used to directly affect these? I guess this depends on what one is trying to achieve exactly.
I've often thought that Piantelli's bars/cylinders would also make for good magnetic cores compared to powders, even if the specific surface area is lower (but one could simply use more material, surface treated of course).
-
None of these materials have a magnetic curie temperature that would leave them with a relative permeability >1 at temperatures above 500°C. So, forget about the magnetic effects of the materials in the reactor. However, these materials are still conductors. The conductors will "block" the magnetic field and will tend to reduce the inductance a little. Actually the resonance will be measured at low temperature, where some of these materials have magnetic properties which will increase the inductance slightly. At high temperature, this will go away and the inductance will go down from conductor blockage effects. Depending on how narrow the Q is of the resonant circuit, it may be necessary to have a small sweep in the frequency in the excitation pulse to be sure to cross over the resonance (there are better ways to handle this). Fortunately, the large coil will change little with the small bits of metal in the core. If the coil was smaller and more coupled to the core, the inductance/frequency change could be much larger.
The large coil is not the most efficient way to couple magnetic fields to the small reactor core, but it has the advantage that the system can easily be switched from no excitation to with excitation.
-
Would nickel, being part of the fuel and having relative strong paramagnetic properties above the Curie temperature not have a relative permeability greater then 1 at higher temperatures ?
-
The large coil is not the most efficient way to couple magnetic fields to the small reactor core, but it has the advantage that the system can easily be switched from no excitation to with excitation.
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.
-
I want to congratulate BobHiggins for taking the open NiH LENR science one step further than anyone before him!
Parkhomov took the first step with the addition of NiAlH4 to the Nickel grains and reported a positive result at high temp and low pressure.
We have seen MFMP Glowstick evolve in a number of steps with pressure control, pre-treatment of fuel and more accurate COP- and radiation measurements finding COP ~1.1 and the 'signal' of gamma/x-rays. I cannot recall if Jack Cole, Wizkid or Brian Albiston aka Wishful Thinking ever claimed COP>1 or radiation but they all are worth to be mentioned as pioneers in how to engineer and run NiH systems as open science.
Freethinker used a 'Clamshell' approach like Bob Higgins but disappeared after reporting gamma/x-rays. Freethinker might used some kind of EM field to produce his radiation results but we simply don't know - he has gone into the dark.
The case for EM field as an important parameter have been in the discussions for a long time; Rossi with pictures of power supply voltage patterns, Parkhomov with 'dirty' chopped power supply to the heater coil and last but not least Brillouins Q-pulse claimed to be the solution for starting and stopping the reaction at will.
The Me356-reactor to be tested by MFMP later this month is a black box test and we cannot expect to learn the parameter space used in his solution. I guess that the control box of Me356 include EM stimulation by inverter technology (pulsed, high dI/dT) and not by an analogue amplifier which would need some (probably) visible cooling solution.
So - the parameter space not yet openly explored is EM stimulation and thanks to Bob Higgins we now are about to take part of this important step.
Maybe we will see some interesting new results before MFMP test of the Me356 reactor later this month? I have popcorn
-
Would nickel, being part of the fuel and having relative strong paramagnetic properties above the Curie temperature not have a relative permeability greater then 1 at higher temperatures ?
I cannot say whether this would be measurable. First of all, the Ni is a carbonyl powder with randomly oriented surfaces - even on a single particle there are multiple randomly oriented surfaces. The particles are clearly polarize-able at room temperature (I use this for separation from a liquid), so the relative permeability seems high at room temperature. With the coil ID area so large (3.5" square), having a region 1/8" in diameter in the center with a relative permeability of even 10 would only make a tiny change in the inductance of the big coil. It is a non-issue unless the resonant Q of the coil turns out to be super-high, which it will not be. These presumptions can be verified after everything is assembled.
-
well, I have a stethoscope... I am more worried about the coil shaking from Lorentz forces in the setup. The coil will be relatively loosely mounted. DC magnetic fields would be more problematic for the mount as there is some steel in the heat shield mount that would have to be replaced with aluminum for DC testing. -
Thank you. I hope to begin first testing in this space within a week. There is still more mechanical and SW work to do. EM excitation is a publicly unexplored space in the testing of this Parkhomov-like system, but not necessarily the last one. One thing not tested is the issue of hydrogen isotope involvement. We don't know if it is the H providing the XH or the residual D in natural H2. Piantelli seems pretty convinced that it is the H (H- anion). Others, more senior in the field, have commented that they do not see a nuclear pathway for H as the reacting species. Ni-H doesn't have the equivalent of a "Heat vs. He" experiment, which in the case of Pd-D points to D-D fusion. We don't even know if Ni-H is a nuclear reaction - it could be supra-chemical. So, another important area to explore is what happens when 50-50 H/D is used. What happens with 100% D2? Seems like plenty of fun left in the field.
-
Bob, I had the impression from what i remember from some Parkomov tests (But it is only an impression based on limited data, you will probably have more data from Parkhomov) that some of his tests with smaller diameter tubes had lower COP values compared to those with larger diameter tubes.
If his drive was the same, then in the smaller diameter tubes, the magnetic field would have been larger, This would be an indication that magnetic stimulation reduces the COP instead of enhancing it.
Would value your opinion on this.
-
Steven Krivit of New Energy Times this reported this in 2008 following a visit to Piantelli's lab. Your mileage may vary:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#dpnr
Quote[...] Piantelli has some very interesting things to say about deuterium. New Energy Times asked him whether he had ever tried using deuterium instead of normal hydrogen. Yes, he said, but if you put the deuterium inside a hydrogen-based experiment, it stops the reaction instantly. Piantelli said that, if he uses just normal hydrogen with very high purity, which may have a trace amount of deuterium, it works fine. But if he injects even just 2 percent or 3 percent of deuterium with respect to the hydrogen, it stops the experiment, kills it. Whether Piantelli had ever tried pure deuterium, rather than pure hydrogen, was not clear.
-
Bob, I had the impression from what i remember from some Parkomov tests (But it is only an impression based on limited data, you will probably have more data from Parkhomov) that some of his tests with smaller diameter tubes had lower COP values compared to those with larger diameter tubes.
If his drive was the same, then in the smaller diameter tubes, the magnetic field would have been larger, This would be an indication that magnetic stimulation reduces the COP instead of enhancing it.
Would value your opinion on this.
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'.
-
Would nickel, being part of the fuel and having relative strong paramagnetic properties above the Curie temperature not have a relative permeability greater then 1 at higher temperatures ?
According to litteratrure it goes sharply down to 1!
-
The following graph is showing the magnetic susceptibility of nickel above the Curie temperature. (Curie temperature is at the left vertical line)
Left scale is times 1000.
Since relative permability is the magnetic sucseptibilty plus one, the relative permeability is still relatively high for nickel above the Curie temperature and not going sharply down.
Or are I missing something ?
-
Parkhomov made a number of changes to his reactor design, and one of them was to change to a larger heater coil wound on a separate alumina tube so that the heater could be re-used. When he did this, the heater coil became larger diameter and would have provided a different axial magnetic field per amp of current. So the magnetic excitation, was at least different in these later reactors. It is hard at this point to draw any conclusions as to what was caused an apparent drop in COP when so many things changed.
-
