Simple New 'Differential Calorimetric' Reactor Design.

  • I guess the challenge would be keeping all the particles electrically separated and preventing them from sintering, not an easy task. I asked because I tried searching some information about it and found that for the previously mentioned Fe-Ni material a frequency of about 1-2 kHz would have a skin depth in the range of the radius of the metal particles typically used in these experiments. Recalling that there have been suggestions in the past of frequencies along this range being used in more successful experiments I was wondering if there could be any benefit in matching the skin depth effect with particle size.

    But it's just a simple thought I had and any correlation with that piece information is likely coincidental.

  • I think that Rossi's system certainly operates at around 1- 2kHz, plus sum and difference harmonic effects if more than one heater wire is used and they are 'out of synch'.

    To explain - The 3 separate 'phase controller' boxes visible in switch-gear cabinets in the notorious 'Stethoscope' shot from Doral are of a type I am familiar with, and they can each comfortably generate pseudo AC at up to 700Hz. Depending on how you organised things, 3 x 700 = 2100Hz with harmonics above and below is thus possible. There may well be something in this idea, which is why I built the H-bridges, which are happy up to (probably) 5 kHz if required.

  • I remember about that; if I'm correct the idea was that the particles would start moving under the influence of the rotating magnetic field, as in an electric motor. I'm not sure if that would also work with a single coil/phase however. For what I proposed on the other hand the particles would preferably have to be embedded in a dielectric material, which is not what gets typically done in these replications. This idea isn't new: for example I believe that Brian Ahern in his rejected patent had something similar, but with nanoparticles embedded in zirconia. Water was also used in some embodiments.

    EDIT: here's Brian Ahern's abandoned patent application, linked here mainly in reference to the dielectric matrix as in practice he did something different than these replications:

    US 20110233061 A1 - Amplification of energetic reactions

  • Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking this but would you say it's comparable to the DSC PT1000? That's the differential calorimeter we've got in our lab and I'm never quite sure how exact its results are. Also, would you be interested in developing a software that digitizes all the data?

  • snotty

    Welcome! Comparable is a big word. I think the main difference in use would be that this will take a sample up to 10mm in diameter (though preferably less) and 120mm long. Most commercial DSC's only take milligrams.

    Now the calibration phase is coming to an end. both channels are repeatedly and reliably within 1C and 1W of supplied pure DC electrical heat of each other at 1050C. As there is no direct thermal or electrical contact between them I think this is remarkable. 1W makes a 7C difference btw, even at that temperature, though I would not claim that such a simple device is accurate to the 0.1% that this suggests. After all, this is a $500 machine, not a $50k one. IW btw is around 0.6% of the electrical input per channel at 1050c.

    Next step is to push the calibration temperature comparison up to 1250. Beyond that there is no point while I'm using inexpensive k-type thermocouples, they usually die!

    Thank you for your offer of help with sofware design btw, but our asses are clad on that one at least. We ( actually build and sell data loggers to cope with any reasonable requirement. I haven't been using them for calibration but that is simply because there can be many stops and starts involving finding the power inputs