BTE-Dan: Replication Attempt for This Week

  • I think Piantelli has mentioned that heavy elements like Tungsten can give rise to radiation problems - or perhaps they are opportunities?


    Tungstens always needs Lead-shielding! Or you will pass away like other experimenters...


    From Craig Cassarino's notes from communications with Industrial Heat an "iron core" is mentioned, but the circumstances of how it's used and how it did come up in discussions are not clear.


    Don't forget about the Curie-T. Thus the magnet must stay "cool" or outside.

  • Tungstens always needs Lead-shielding! Or you will pass away like other experimenters...

    I'm still here for now at least. ;)


    While were at it. I also tried LiOH, aluminum, KOH, NaOH, titanium, TiH2, CaO, alumina powder mixes, stainless steel inserts, AC, DC, 120V, 240V, chopped, regular sine AC, thermal triggering, magnetic triggering, and with insulation to minimize input power.


    BTE-Dan, I came to the point where it was clear to me that either this doesn't work at all or there is a detail that has been hidden. I believe it is the former based on several lines of evidence. I understand your frustration since I felt that same after experiment after experiment came back null. My advice is to wait for some real empirical evidence of a working formula instead of applying yourself to testing out all these speculations.

  • Don't forget about the Curie-T. Thus the magnet must stay "cool" or outside.


    I mentioned that it's not clear for the sake of discussion. In another thread I've been recently involved in a short exchange with David Fojt on this matter where I concluded that if electromagnetic activation (e.g. through induced currents) has some kind of role it is likely best performed below the Curie point of the supposedly active material used. On that regard, iron or some kind of magnetic steel would be better for operation at high(er) temperature, compared to Nickel.


    [...] I believe it is the former based on several lines of evidence.


    Which ones?

  • FWIW, I tried tungsten as an additive with no effect in the past. Others have tried, if I'm not mistaken, uranium from old Fiestaware plates. I think Brian Albiston tried it with null results.


    I've seen tungsten mentioned. What I haven't seen is tungsten (or other heavier elements) with current applied to it, inside the reactor chamber, exposed to hydrogen. Curious if you tried that. When Brian Albiston mentioned that he had tried something with uranium or fiestaware (as I vaguely recall), it was something different than this, I think.


    My advice is to wait for some real empirical evidence of a working formula instead of applying yourself to testing out all these speculations.


    Despite my curiosity about heavier elements above, this sounds like good advice. It suggests that BTE-Dan and others should start from experimental writeups (e.g., from Piantelli) for experiments that witnessed (nominally) unambiguous excess heat or other interesting effect.

  • Ahlfors

    I) It depends. If you're referring to Darden from the attached screenshot, it almost reads as if in this instance he's been more personally involved in the testing process than just being an external observer.


    II) I don't, and it would find it strange if it did. And heated how?


    For example, this Russian Ukrainian group did see flashes of energy by induction heating titanium hydride tablets in air; of course it could simply be the hydride combusting and nothing else.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    • Official Post

    Rends, thanks, any evidence that this might help or just a hunch?


    http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…oReportSubmit.pdf#Page=53


    Quote

    Sample 1 was ash coming from the reactor in Lugano. Only a few granules of grey sample were
    possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same. One large and two very small
    granules were observed.
    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the
    analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca,
    Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…et-catalyst-jamie-sibley/


    Quote

    2) Lugano reactor contains more carbon than would be expected from a carby-nickel produced powder. Possibly up to 6.6% by weight. I suspect that this carbon is actually only on the surface of the particles.

    I think the purity of the fuel is the problem with any replication, if the fuel is to pure without traces of e.g. C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (and here especially Carbon) then there will be no excess heat. I personally think that Rossi has found the Carbon reaction by coincidence.

  • BTE-Dan

    A LENR researcher cannot become easily discouraged - otherwise there will be no LENR advancement. Persevere!


    I am trying to stay reasonably close to well reported and/or replicated positive experiments where the fuel mix and experimental protocol have both been disclosed. There is so much hearsay about what works and what doesn't work, it is hard to determine what is from an actual positive experiment and what is just pure speculation. I have been designing my experiments around the fuel/protocol originally described by Parkhomov.


    When looking at reported analyses of fuel, you need to know a little something about the test equipment and its potential for phantom results. Most SEM-EDS and SIMS analyses are performed on samples mounted on aluminum pedestals with the attachment means being a double-sided sticky conductive carbon laden tape. This tape causes surface carbon contamination and this shows up in almost every measurement as having carbon present on the surface. In the case of SIMS, you can ion mill away some of the surface and get past the carbon contamination. If you really want to test for carbon, you need to mount the sample without the carbon laden sticky tape. Otherwise, the first presumption is that the measured carbon is a phantom result. Another way is to get the experimenter to disclose the fuel formulation. If he adds C, then you know that the C in the analysis of the fuel or ash is likely real.


    There are obscure reports of XH generation is systems with pure Ni (Thermacore, Mizuno, Piantelli, Brillouin). Most of these reports seem to have the XH generated when the H2 pressure is low - below 1 bar absolute pressure (a vacuum), but not always. However, each report normally involves a special experimental protocol tailored to the form of the Ni. Most of these pure Ni reports are also using wire or other Ni solid forms, and not powder (is there any reviewed report of XH from pure Ni powder and hydrogen?). Based on my reading and puzzling together of the theory of why Piantelli's Ni rods produced XH, his protocol will not work for powders [my speculation, although Piantelli's says powders didn't work].


    The only way we will advance is if we share what we find and what we know. We have to be careful about what we claim as fact and what is speculation [Axil] so as to not confuse other experimenters.

  • Ahlfors

    TiD2 seems expensive to waste with fireworks. In these videos this Ukrainian group (not Russian as I previously wrote) used Titanium Hydride (TiH2), as well as Ni powder in H atmosphere. TiH2 seemed to work better.


    But apparently they've also used TiD2 in a different laboratory. The main researcher involved with these experiments also answered some questions on LENR-Forum some time ago, from a quick search:


    Ask questions to Andrew Hrischcanovich (Ukraine)

  • Hot pressed Boron Nitride can be coated with an oxygen resistant micro layer via vapor deposition.


    See


    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3541


    During the Boron Nitride hot pressing operation, a axial channel can be prefabricated through the positioning of a capillary Tantalum wire placeholder that could be drilled out after the hot pressing manufacturing process.

  • StephenC says:



    The indications that you highlight imply that there is a hot spot that is generated at the center of the QX tube. This characteristic is reminiscent of the concentration that occurs in a magnetic and/or electrostatic trap.


    At 2700C, the hot spot is far too hot to support a metal coil anywhere close to it. This implies that the end caps may be the place where the quadrupole magnetic field is produced that supplies the confinement that may form the hot spot.


    Here is an example of a trap that is forms using a dual quadrupole field produced by the lower temperature endcap regime.


    Left-cut-from-a-3D-CAD-drawing-of-a-novel-Penning-trap-developed-for-single-ion-trapped.png

  • A LENR researcher cannot become easily discouraged - otherwise there will be no LENR advancement. Persevere!


    I am trying to stay reasonably close to well reported and/or replicated positive experiments where the fuel mix and experimental protocol have both been disclosed. There is so much hearsay about what works and what doesn't work, it is hard to determine what is from an actual positive experiment and what is just pure speculation. I have been designing my experiments around the fuel/protocol originally described by Parkhomov.


    ... The only way we will advance is if we share what we find and what we know. We have to be careful about what we claim as fact and what is speculation [Axil] so as to not confuse other experimenters.


    Thanks Bob. I have based things I am doing on what's known about the eCat from the Lugano report, Parkhomov's work, and some on me356 comments. I'm not trying to following any of them exactly. For that matter, none of them completely spell out what they have done. I don't plan to stray far from their work because the amount of guess work shoots up exponentially. For example, there are a zillion chemical additives that could be tried beyond Ni, LAH, and Li.


    Does MFMP have a timeframe for doing tests on the me356 and the India team reactors? And if there are positive results, when will there be summary papers describing how the reactors are made?


    It's amazing after all these years no one has published an ultra-detailed procedure to define an experiment to show excess heat. I know MFMP put out a protocol, put it's too high level. A truly repeatable experiment needs to include every detail - like mechanical drawings and tolerances for every part, the sources for all chemicals, exact steps to pre-process the fuel, and so on. I hope MFMP works toward that goal. There has to be zero room for misinterpretation of the procedure to build and test the reactor. Not easy, I know.


    BTW, I really respect the work that MFMP is doing. It's a true public service.

  • It's amazing after all these years no one has published an ultra-detailed procedure to define an experiment to show excess heat.


    The Rossi Gullstrom paper describes such an experiment. The paper also reveals some technical hints and in fact is pushing out such reaction clues as the quadrupole magnetic field.

  • From Craig Cassarino's notes from communications with Industrial Heat an "iron core" is mentioned, but the circumstances of how it's used and how it did come up in discussions are not clear.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-01-Exhibit-22.pdf#page=5

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/amped-up-on-ampenergo/


    can I don't quite follow your and @David Fojt discussion, but here is my interpretation of the screenshot in your post

    ?thumbnail=1

    Raw Handwritten texts:
    1) Magnetic field 8T (teslas) electricity flowing M (middle?) wire electric wire

    2) Magnetic field strength of magnetic field (emphasizes importance of magnetic field strength?)
    3) Coils and iron core B (Bm=Maximum induction (Tesla) in formulas?) 1000x stronger than coils only.

    My interpretation of that picture:

    They mean that when you put metal (wire) inside coil, you can achieve 1000 fold increase in permeability compared to pure air core (see iron core "Core material" chapter and Inductance formula in this article. )
    BUT BUT now comes the interesting part (on which I'm not quite up to date in details). When you connect current to both in coil around reactor AND wire inside reactor you get strong magnetic field (8 Teslas is quite high). What that becomes in practice, is not just coil anymore, but transformer! What is interesting is that now metallic (Ni) powder between coil and inner wire becomes 'core' material passing magnetic field between coil and inner wire (simplest form of coil). Lots of formulas here

    Normally when you put Voltage/current in to one coil of transformer, you get another voltage/current ratio out from another depending on turns and wire diameter of coils etc. Absolute maximum power that can be transferred through core depends on dimensions and permeability of core material. When that max is reached it is called saturation point, output doesn't increase further even you increase voltage of input. What then happens in saturation case inside core material, is that extra feed energy turns into heat in core material, because it doesn't get transferred to output anymore (can't remember are they eddy currents or something else).

    So could it be that they feed current both to wire and coil and make magnetic field to max out in 'core' which is Ni powder etc. in this case! Eddy currents, hot spots in powder... Anybody? What that could mean

    Also that 8Teslas sounds very high number, without calculating, I could guess you would need quite a coils and high current?