MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

Hi Bob, some more questions for you about the added EM coil:

Do you plan to run EM coil only without heater coil to see if/how much of heat (energy) you can transfer to the fuel that way?

What If you feed the EM coil with 4KHz square wave vs sinual wave? I think square wave would be more efficient to feed energy into the Nickel core. Not by much though.

@David Fojt 

I have tried processed AH-50 carbonyl Ni mostly, but I also ran an experiment with Ni foam that was plated with Pd + LiAlD₄ (plated foam given to me by Dennis Cravens and LiAlD4 given to me by Mathieu Valat).

Parkhomov uses an ordinary carbonyl Ni powder. Jiang may have used a different morphology of Ni powder.

I now have a small portion of metallic Li. I plan to include Li metal in the next run (along with the Ni + LiAlH₄) to change the Li/Al ratio. In addition I will have the pulsed AC magnetic field.

Mats002

With the software setup like I am now provisioning, when I source the .wav sound, the voltage input to the heater will be held constant. The temperature may rise a small amount due to heating caused by absorption of those magnetic fields - but I don't think it will be a lot. The magnetic coil is not well coupled to the core. This lack of a high degree of coupling to the core means that the peak to peak magnetic field strength should be calculable from the peak to peak current. I want to have a measure of the peak current that the DAQ records.

The coil has a reactance at 4 kHz of about +j48 ohms, but the resistance is only about 3 ohms. If I drive the coil with a +/- 40V peak-to-peak sine without resonating with a series capacitor, the peak-to-peak current will only be about +/- 0.8 amps. If I resonate with the 1uF capacitor, the reactance (at 4 kHz) goes away and the amplifier sees only 3 ohms. So with the capacitor and driving at resonance, the peak-to-peak current will be +/- 13 amps - about 17x the non-resonant case. If I drive the resonant case with a square wave, it will have a 4 kHz fundamental, a 12 kHz 3rd harmonic, a 20 kHz 5th harmonic. Because of the narrow resonant bandwidth, only the fundamental will go through anyway if driving with a square wave. If I want all of those harmonic currents of the square wave in the coil, then I cannot resonate the coil, and the currents would be ~17x lower.

BobHiggins

I had to run the circuit in a simulator to fully understand how it works and the implications (I don't really know much about electrical engineering). Now I see why a capacitor is needed to make the circuit resonant and how one can't simply run it at different frequencies without losing significantly in terms of peak to peak current (especially at high frequencies).

So I guess now the question is what this would be trying to attempt exactly. The fuel will not just generically be stimulated with magnetic fields, but currents will of course be induced within it. Perhaps one could design the circuit and materials used so that the skin depth remains within a certain optimal range? The skin depth in Nickel at 4 kHz past the Curie temperature (relative permeability = 1) will be >2mm. At room temperature (relative permeability = 600) this will be ~85µm. Skin depth calculator here.

@David Fojt

Since a picture is worth a thousands words, this is what I have in mind:

And in my mind, ideally the Li (or LiAlH4) would be configured so that there is a small gap from the metal surface:

The point of Li evaporating is that so that:

1. the surface becomes free from obstructions (assuming no other obstacle present such as Al, which won't evaporate);
2. Li atoms can excite hydrogen both in the atmosphere and adsorbed on the Ni surface in atomic by donating electrons through atom-atom collision (this is what Piantelli seems to be suggesting in one of his patents, although he doesn't explictly mention the presence of gaseous alkali metals).

However, as previously mentioned hydrogen atoms decomposing from alkali hydrides (like LiH) should also be available directly in an excited or ionized form. So, causing LiH to continuously form and decompose as you propose should achieve a similar effect (provided that there's hopefully some sort of gap between the decomposing hydride and the Ni surface).

Quote from David Fojt

I'm really interested by iron rather steel. Because Inside Lugano report we saw possible Iron particle. Following my understanding, it could be porous iron coated onto thermical stable carbo-silicon nucleus. [...]

Besides in Lugano, Rossi may have used iron in other occasions in the past (see these old analyses. Look how much iron there is compared to Nickel. However, it's not clear how representative of the entire sample they are, or if they are showing something entirely different).

Dufour et al. may have done what you're suggesting in an experiment that was reported some time ago, which I previously linked in this thread. Theirs was an iron-sodium system. The fuel also contained silicon carbide, whose function was not described.:

http://www.iscmns.org/work11/17%20Dufour.pdf

Quote

The active cell contained: Sodium 0.259 g (Alfa Aesar lumps), Iron 1.088 g (Alfa Aesar <10μ 000170 (lot A29123) and Silicon Carbide 1.088 g (Alfa Aesar <44μ 43332 (lot Q10B002).

In their case their reaction occurs when:

Quote

[...] For the reaction to occur, electrons must be present in the reacting medium, where hydrogen is adsorbed on the metal (transition metals, like iron, adsorb hydrogen). Electrons are available when the vapor of an alkaline metal like sodium or lithium is present in the reacting medium and if the temperature is sufficiently high.

There is no mention of electromagnetic trigger system, but there aren't many details in this very short report anyway. At the temperatures they used (>1000°C) the magnetic properties of iron wouldn't have made an effect, however.

Quote from David Fojt

Another hypothesis is austenitic steel powder coated onto a neutral core, why ?

Because we see a lot of Radial grain gaps where could help to form H entities areas Without being disturbed by lithium.

Therefore we need for this a special steel with exactly 0,77 % of carbon to allow breathing ( loading/unloading) from 750 °.

I think I've read a similar suggestion in the past, besides from Piantelli's patents (if I understand correctly he's also used AISI316 stainless steel as an active core).

However steel with 0.77% carbon content (where did you get this precise percentage?) would not exactly be austenitic steel anymore.

My pet theory on magnetic field stimulation: spins align with the field which confines one degree of freedom. Heisenberg says a confined particle gains momentum. Some are already tightly confined within the lattice, lining up their spins makes their environment still more confining. Something has to give. Abrupt switching of the imposed field plays "crack the whip" ... it's a mini-particle accelerator with a very short free path length ... or ... momentum could increase through a change in mass. Hmmm.

can

Nice pictures to communicate your point. Li-Al alloy (not necessarily 1:1 ratio required) will wet to the Ni. If there is no Al, the Li will not wet to the Ni. In the experiments that showed XH, the Al was present. So, Al presence in my experiments should not prevent XH even if the 1:1 ratio is non-optimum. SEMs of the Lugano ash, the Parkhomov ash, and the MFMP !Bang experiment (no XH) ash all showed the Li-Al wetting to the Ni surface. Note that I still consider that the Lugano experiment likely produced XH, but only with a COP about the same as Parkhomov. In the Lugano case, the ratio of Li and Al were not measured, and so may not have been 1:1. We know that the ratio in the Parkhomov case was 1:1 based on the use of LiAlH₄ as the ingredient.

What has not been explored in my experiments is the EM stimulus of the Parkhomov (or Lugano experiment). The electric field stimulus in these experiments was low, but the magnetic field was non-consequential. What I am trying to do now is to replicate the magnetic fields of these experiments to some extent. I don't imagine that 50Hz or 60Hz is going to be a fundamentally required frequency for the reaction (but I am not ruling out that low frequency may be important). In my case, I can explore the frequency range, but to do so, I must change out the series resonant capacitor (lower capacitance = higher frequency). I want to explore magnetic stimulation in a way that I can readily characterize in terms of magnetic field strength. Right now, the 4 kHz I am starting with is low enough that the field will still be predominantly magnetic and should behave largely as the magnetic fields from the switched AC heater excitations.

What the magnetic field may do to enhance LENR is still unknown; the first step in discovering how the magnetic field excitation may be complicit is to find a variable combination that does produce LENR effects (XH/radiations). Then the variables can be dithered to optimize the system. In my system, I have separated the magnetic stimulation from the heating so that these variables may be evaluated independently.

@David Fojt

I consider it highly likely that Rossi included Fe in some form as an ingredient in his LOW TEMPERATURE eCat fuel. It has not been shown to be present in the Lugano fuel, and was not part of the fuel in the Parkhomov, Jiang, or Zhang Hang experiments as far as we know. I believe the eCat fuel is different. It may have an F-T catalyst (Fe based) as an ingredient. It is known that Li was also present in the low temperature eCat ash (but that may have been a part of the F-T catalyst). This low temperature eCat fuel appears to operate below the melting point of LiH. Ash analyses of the eCat fuel has not shown any Al.

If one is trying to replicate experiments in a variable space that has shown XH, I believe it is important to not combine protocols from Rossi's eCat fuel (which has never shown XH in a report by anyone other than Rossi) with the high temperature experiments having credible reports of having produced XH. In other words, stick with real, credible reports of experiments that have produced XH.

hendersonmj

Any number of theories are possible for why the magnetic stimulation could prove useful to Ni-H LENR. To find out which theories fits, we need a quantified stimulation that produces a quantifiable LENR effect that can be optimized. It is how the stimulus variable moves in optimization that will tell a lot about which theory is consistent with the observed behavior of the system. Even after an optimize-able variable space has been found, it will be a long haul to get enough data that theories can be pruned.

Quote from BobHiggins

Nice pictures to communicate your point. Li-Al alloy (not necessarily 1:1 ratio required) will wet to the Ni. If there is no Al, the Li will not wet to the Ni. In the experiments that showed XH, the Al was present. So, Al presence in my experiments should not prevent XH even if the 1:1 ratio is non-optimum. SEMs of the Lugano ash, the Parkhomov ash, and the MFMP !Bang experiment (no XH) ash all showed the Li-Al wetting to the Ni surface. Note that I still consider that the Lugano experiment likely produced XH, but only with a COP about the same as Parkhomov. In the Lugano case, the ratio of Li and Al were not measured, and so may not have been 1:1. We know that the ratio in the Parkhomov case was 1:1 based on the use of LiAlH4 as the ingredient.

In the second diagram above I propose that there may also be Al if there is a gap between the decomposing hydride and the metal surface, i.e. that there may also be LiAlH4. This implies that the powder mixing method might be important; one that allows gaps to develop between the hydride and the Ni surface could work better. This variable hasn't been explored in these experiments. With this I still mean that the Ni and the LAH would have to be in a line of sight, not segregated in opposing areas of the apparatus.

Quote from BobHiggins

[...] What the magnetic field may do to enhance LENR is still unknown; the first step in discovering how the magnetic field excitation may be complicit is to find a variable combination that does produce LENR effects (XH/radiations). Then the variables can be dithered to optimize the system. In my system, I have separated the magnetic stimulation from the heating so that these variables may be evaluated independently.

There is logic to this iterative plan, but there is also a starting point from what other researchers/inventors (not necessarily engaged in Rossi/Parkhomov replications) report doing in their experiments. Inducing currents in the fuel with an alternating magnetic field would make sense in this context.

Quote from Can

This implies that the powder mixing method might be important; one that allows gaps to develop between the hydride and the Ni surface could work better.

I am not sure I believe this. Once the LiAlH₄ decomposes and subsequently melts, it becomes a frothy, foamy liquid. We have seen that the insides of the reactor tubes (horizontal for heating) have the coating of the LiAlH₄ film around the entire circumference of the tube, essentially uniform in thickness (tube dissection). I think segregation is harder than you think. In my reactors, I place a zirconia wool plug after the fuel powder to help keep the powder in place. Then I put a loose fitting alumina rod filling about 5" of the tube between the wool and the open end. What I see is Li-Al coating the alumina rod for about 2cm past where it touches the zirconia wool plug. I am open to suggestion as to how the segregation you propose can be done.

Quote from Can

there is also a starting point from what other researchers/inventors (not necessarily engaged in Rossi/Parkhomov replications) report doing in their experiments

Can you be more specific? Until researchers publish their claims, and are verified to have a working LENR system (evaluation or replication), it is hard to consider modifying the research protocol on the basis of their claims. Also, some specifics of Piantelli's stimulation are very specific to his rod (thermal waves for example) and will not work for powder.

Quote from BobHiggins

I am not sure I believe this. Once the LiAlH4 decomposes and subsequently melts, it becomes a frothy, foamy liquid. We have seen that the insides of the reactor tubes (horizontal for heating) have the coating of the LiAlH4 film around the entire circumference of the tube, essentially uniform in thickness (tube dissection). I think segregation is harder than you think. In my reactors, I place a zirconia wool plug after the fuel powder to help keep the powder in place. Then I put a loose fitting alumina rod filling about 5" of the tube between the wool and the open end. What I see is Li-Al coating the alumina rod for about 2cm past where it touches the zirconia wool plug. I am open to suggestion as to how the segregation you propose can be done.

If it's foaming it means it's evolving too much gas too quickly in concentrated spots. Make it decompose slower and at a constant rate (might not be possible with heating power steps), distribute it over a larger area (again might not be possible without mixing it with the Ni in significant amounts without using a wider tube); or ultimately use less LiAlH4 so that the inner surfaces will only be partially coated even if the compound foams completely.

This foaming depends on several factors and will hardly be a perfectly reproducible process. It sounds almost like it could be a good candidate for a random variable responsible for the exceedingly low degree of success that people are having with these experiments. Or why anecdotally there are positive reports from people who use an initial very slow, constant rate heating ramp. That could be completely coincidental, however.

Quote from BobHiggins

Can you be more specific? Until researchers publish their claims, and are verified to have a working LENR system (evaluation or replication), it is hard to consider modifying the research protocol on the basis of their claims. Also, some specifics of Piantelli's stimulation are very specific to his rod (thermal waves for example) and will not work for powder.

I was referring to the general idea of providing in a way or another electrons/a current to the fuel, not specifically to induction heating that Rossi might have used, according to previous speculations.

I agree with can that part of the script can be to seek a sweetspot with variable temp, not only with distinct steps. Each cycle of temp up and down can have bursts of EMF at different temp levels. Adding pressure variants to that it will probably be a long run to cover all variants but that might increase the chance to find some anomali.

BobHiggins - what is your plan for scripting?

@David Fojt

I think now I understand what you were referring about.

http://i.imgur.com/cojuBHW.png

About Piantelli and stainless steel, in the 1995 patent there is an example where it's used:

Quote

Example 3

On a 90 mm long bar with a diameter of 5 mm, made of AISI 316 steel which has been tempered at 400°C to eliminate internal stresses, natural hydrogen (D/H = about 1/6000) was made to adsorb with the method of immersion into acid solution and then both immersion in gaseous environment at the absolute pressure of 600 mbar [...]

Mats002

I am still working on a plan for the next experiment. It will include magnetic field bursts, probably at every temperature where I have a soak.

@David Fojt

I can't really give you a number for the H₂ permeation rate, at least because of lack of description. It depends on the stainless alloy, linearly on the pressurized area, inversely on the thickness, and exponentially on temperature. I probably have a paper that describes this if you really want to calculate it for a particular system. From 200°C to 800°C, the change in proton conduction is amazing. It would be different for deuterium.

@David Fojt 

(maybe this off-topic is getting a bit too long for Bob Higgins?)

There is a discontinuity in hydrogen solubility at the gamma-iron phase (austenite) transition point.

http://www.iei-world.org/pagin…ess/19/congress_19_13.asp

So I guess one could design the material so that this transition temperature is decreased (~0.8% carbon content according to the other graph), and arrange the experiment so that temperatures change around that point to promote this sort of breathing effect that you mention.

From what I remember from past experiments for steel there is a kind of threshold temperature after which hydrogen diffuses out markedly more rapidly than at lower temperatures; it's probably associated with this transition point.

@David Fojt

This is in-topic.

Now that you make me remember, some Parkhomov replications had stainless steel in them. For example, besides the fuel capsule(s), notably the GlowStick GS5.2 and GS5.3 experiments had stainless steel filler rods (I don't recall why they've been used instead of alumina). So, if temperatures were cycled around the austenite transition point of the steel used (SS316 in this case), or perhaps even just with a temperature gradient along at least part of the length of the rods, some sort of H-breathing action within the material may have occurred.

I guess it cannot be excluded that these steel parts inside the cell may have contributed to some of the anomalies reported during those experiments.

Hi Bob and all,

I am pondering if it is favorable to have an asymetric EM-signal with the purpose of driving ions (H+ and H-) towards different directions. With a symetric AC signal, or square symetric signals, the magnetic flux will go back and forth with the same magnitude, but maybe LENR is favoured by separation of H+ and H- ions and longer acceleration paths.

Maybe driving ions against Li separated from the fuel enhance the reaction? Me356 said so as I recall.

Indications of asymetric EM-signals can be found in a picture from Rossi (as a possibility):

It is also a possibility that Parkhomov used it in his Triac circuit like this:

'normal' Triac dimmer with a symetric signal:

The magnetic flux of this signal (as I understand it, roughly drawed):

Rectified Triacs with asymetric signal and flux:

I have a memory that Parkhomov used a rectifier and two triacs in his circuit but could not find that information for verification. If so he might hade the thought of a directional ion drive.

Me356 said that it works with both Triacs (chopped AC) and FETs (chopped DC) but never disclosed his signal what I know of.

Because magnetic flux is proportional to current change (dI/dt - steepness of the curve) an asymetric EM-signal could make a difference.

Plausible or busted?

Quote from Mats002

I am pondering if it is favorable to have an asymetric EM-signal with the purpose of driving ions (H+ and H-) towards different directions. With a symetric AC signal, or square symetric signals, the magnetic flux will go back and forth with the same magnitude, but maybeLENR is favoured by separation of H+ and H- ions and longer acceleration paths.

At the best the signal must induce a sin² wave for directly exciting of the nuclear orbit. Only square shaped waves can fully resonante with the coulomb cloud. A sin- shaped wave can only work indirectly by stimulating the environment.

You can find all details in the early ICCF proceeding dealing with superwaves!

I only have a few minutes before I have to leave.

Parkhomov used an AC drive for his heater with a switch that selected between two different AC voltages. So Parkhomov's drive was largely sinusoidal with long period steps between the lower and higher voltage. Parkhomov did not use triac/SCR phase angle control. Many of the other researchers, including MFMP's Alan Goldwater use phase angle control of the AC drive to the heater. Phase angle control causes a lot of harmonics - perhaps up to 100 kHz. Rossi/IH's Lugano reactor had a 3-phase heater coil and I believe it was controlled with a 3-phase phase angle SCR controller.

None of these experimenters created a waveform that had a net DC component. A sine² wave will have DC + higher frequency harmonics.

In these experiments, there was no way to independently separate the magnetic stimulation from the heating.