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.
In an old post I told this grain was just a normal dust/fire/ash particle and I just repeat it ...
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.
I looked at the paper. It is a paper on theory and it does not show the detailed steps needed to create an experiment that can be replicated. If Rossi did that he'd have to give away his IP, assuming he has some.
No one has created the ultra-detailed procedure for how to build and test a reactor that can be replicated by others. This is the fundamental problem in the LENR field, and it's why most of the scientific community ignores the field. To outsiders it looks like a bunch of guys working on perpetual motion machines.
I looked at the paper. It is a paper on theory and it does not show the detailed steps needed to create an experiment that can be replicated. If Rossi did that he'd have to give away his IP, assuming he has some.
No one has created the ultra-detailed procedure for how to build and test a reactor that can be replicated by others. This is the fundamental problem in the LENR field, and it's why most of the scientific community ignores the field. To outsiders it looks like a bunch of guys working on perpetual motion machines.
Let us go through that paper and dig out the details that you need. To start out, what is your most pressing issue?
can yes you got it right it must be 'of electricity' not 8T. Sorry I also had somehow missed your quote where correct text was already presented. Still wondering role of middle wire if there is no current fed to it, it will become place of eddy currents like in ukranian induction heater video you posted. But if you put strong enough current both in coil and inner wire, eddy currents (means also hot spots, magnetic fields etc.) will get formed in conducting material (Ni powder?) between wire and coil. Really a puzzle.
Btw. Those squares in top left of pic. are also strange. They look like explanation of how to approximate volume between wire and coil but why to mix basic geometry in this pic? Must be something else?
For the sake of clarity, the middle unconnected wire was used in Alan Smith's customer's device (reported in post #7), not Rossi's.
I don't think it has to be this complicated. Are induced currents important? Is the current density important? If yes, then you want the active material to be conductive, have a high magnetic permeability and be suitable as a magnetic core for usage in a high frequency alternating magnetic field.
So the iron core could either be the active material itself (perhaps after some treatment), or be a support onto which a different active material is affixed. I imagine that preferential usage would be below the Curie temperature of said material.
Btw. Those squares in top left of pic. are also strange. They look like explanation of how to approximate volume between wire and coil but why to mix basic geometry in this pic? Must be something else?
I'm not sure what that is. Somehow it reminded me of valve timing diagrams.
@David Fojt
I didn't imply that it's a hard limit for induction, but it would certainly have a significant influence on the efficiency of the process. Try using this calculator:
http://www.rfcafe.com/referenc…skin-depth-calculator.htm
Above their Curie temperature all materials have a relative magnetic permeability (μr) of 1.
@David Fojt
If he wanted to efficiently induce currents in the material as part of the process, then preferably yes.
But also keep in mind that in iron/carbon steel the disappearance of magnetism is related to the appearance of the austenite phase, and viceversa. In other words, an iron-carbon alloy with a lower austenite transition temperature would also have a lower Curie temperature than pure iron.
For my point of view curie point is really a secondary problem if you compare with the need of massive H+.
A "1000x" stronger magnetic field with an iron core as noted by Craig Cassarino in the previously linked note can only occur below the Curie temperature of the material. But admittedly, we don't know under which circumstances this was brought out; it's not even clear if they were actually referring to Rossi or speculating about other things.
@David Fojt
I found this explanation easy to understand:
https://www.scientificamerican…why-dont-magnets-work-on/
QuoteDisplay MoreWhy don't magnets work on some stainless steels?
There are several different types of stainless steels. The two main types are austenitic and ferritic, each of which exhibits a different atomic arrangement. Due to this difference, ferritic stainless steels are generally magnetic while austenitic stainless steels usually are not. [...]
The metallic atoms in an austenitic stainless steel are arranged on a face-centered cubic (fcc) lattice. [...]
In a ferritic stainless steel, however, the metallic atoms are located on a body-centered (bcc) lattice. [...]
Alloying the stainless steel with elements such as nickel, manganese, carbon and nitrogen increases the likelihood that the alloy will possess the fcc crystal structure at room temperature.
Chromium, molybdenum and silicon make it more likely that the alloy will exhibit the bcc crystal structure at room temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenite
QuoteAustenite, also known as gamma-phase iron (γ-Fe), is a metallic, non-magnetic allotrope of iron
QuoteFrom 912 to 1,394 °C (1,674 to 2,541 °F) alpha iron undergoes a phase transition from body-centred cubic (BCC) to the face-centred cubic (FCC) configuration of gamma iron, also called austenite
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.
I did apply current directly. The tungsten wire was coiled within the alumina tube. The nickel and LiAlH4 were also in contact with the tungsten wire.
can thank you for clarification I thought it was about Quark-X schematic.
Top left section still does not make any sense to me. Also top right part of pic doesn't seem to relate to anything on else there.
I don't understand enough what we are searching from that design, but again looking at pic. right side, to me it looks like some kind of surface effect. If you look just strong magnetic field put iron bar inside instead of wire and maybe minimize air gap between coil and bar. But I'm lost enough about possible surface effects, so I think it is time for me to bail out messing this thread further.
I believe most of the evaluations of the Me356 reactor as a black box and the ECCO DC plasma reactor as a full open description should be completed by early June - testing is imminent. Let's set some expectations. The test of the Me356 reactor will only be a measure of COP - does it produce real XH? Me356 will not provide any additional details of how it works. In the case of Suhas' technology for his DC dusty plasma reactor, he has indicated that he will tell MFMP everything, including how the fuel is made. Suhas will also help MFMP build a replica reactor. Many of the details of his device have already been revealed. Measuring its COP credibly is a first step and that should happen by early June.
Then there is also the dusty microwave plasma work of George Egely. George has already described his apparatus and operation. He is going to bring a reactor to the university, load it with materials that will be sampled and analyzed; operate the reactor (it only takes a few minutes), and then the ash will be immediately analyzed. Egely's apparatus is a transmutation machine, not an XH machine (XH is not known). I believe this test is planned within 1 month, but I am not exactly sure the final date has been selected.
My personal goal is to see that the experiment you describe (truly repeatable, completely laid open) is produced. That's what it will take to get the universities involved. I personally believe we will not get the breakthrough in understanding of LENR until the universities are involved.
It might be that the LENR reaction wants to run hot at just below 3000C. This could be why Rossi has had problems with burnouts over the years when the balance between cooling applied to the LENR reactor's structure and LENR heat production is lost. It may be that a LENR reactor that loses cooling of its structure will fail when the temperature of the plasma produced by LENR begins to rise to its stability point at 2700C.
Rossi's solution to the reactor meltdown problem as deminstated by the QuarkX is to ensure that his reactor can survive the highest temperature that the LENR reactor can produce.
This could mean that any LENR reactor that depends on external cooling to keep its operating temperature under the LENR reaction stability temperature is subject to meltdown if the external cooling is lost.
Rossi's sigma 5 testing could be a method to check high temperature endurance in the Quark structural material.
One thought that I have in the back of my mind is that the SunCell reaction can sustain a self-sustaining plasma for minutes on end without any external stimulation of energy input. This indicates that a plasma can reach a state of equilibrium where it can maintain its own temperature that does not increase beyond a certain stability point.
Similarities between systems sometimes lends insights into their underlying mechanisms.
Could the QuarkX be a tiny version of the SunCell? If so, this insight could imply some important reactor design principles.
For example, it is interesting that the boiling point of nickel and the 2700C operating temperature of the QuarkX are the same.
It might be that the stability temperature of the plasma based LENR reactor can be set through the use of the metal used in its electrodes. For example, a QuarkX using silver electrodes might have a stable plasma temperature at 2200C which happens to be the boiling point of silver. An alumina tube in a QuarkX configuration just might be able to handle that operating temperature.
There could be a relationship between the boiling point of conductive metal used in the reaction and melting point of the insulating structural material used to confine that metal plasma.
Brian Ahern has given us critical insight into the underpinnings of LENR when he postulates that nanoparticles are central to the LENR reaction. But there particles must be energized when they are newly formed during condensation out of vapor.
Quoteuse the link below to find the boiling point of elements
A lead electrode might be in the operating range of alumina at lead's boiling point of 1800C.
Just to give himself some operational safety factor, Rossi may be using Boron Nitride (melting point -> 2,973 °C) for the structural tube for his QuarkX reactor.
The SunCell is sure to melt down when tungsten is used as its electrode metal with a boiling point of 5555C. Using silver makes for a colder reaction. If you use tungsten in your reactor you are asking for a meltdown.
A zirconia tube (2,715 °C) might be able to handle a nickel electrode. A zirconia tube will handle a silver electrode boiling temperature for sure.
An aluminum electrode (2519C ) used with a zirconia tube looks like a good match with some meltdown safety factor tossed in. This apparent materials michmatch Rossi may have had some meltdown issues when he started out using an alumina tube in his hot cat.
If you want to use lithium aluminum hydride to supply your hydrogen, it might be wise to use a zirconia tube.
If you use titanium(3287C) hydride for your hydrogen, you are askings for a meltdown.
do you have a writeup for the tungsten experiment? If not, can you describe it?
I have a writeup for a similar set of experiments using the same method (internal heating element, but not tungsten). My first two experiments seemed promising, but then I ruled out excess heating as calibration error. BTW, followers of the Lugano debacle might enjoy the fact that the tube appeared incandescent at 350C on the surface because of the translucency of the alumina.
Here is the third experiment.
BTW, followers of the Lugano debacle might enjoy the fact that the tube appeared incandescent at 350C on the surface because of the translucency of the alumina.
Interesting, so a very bright internal source can indeed make it appear incandescent even at lower temperatures.
Interesting, so a very bright internal source can indeed make it appear incandescent even at lower temperatures.
That is hard to beleive. There must be a way to test this assumption by setting up a resistive heat source inside the tube that could produce the same blue white light production effect.
That is hard to beleive. There must be a way to test this assumption by setting up a resistive heat source inside the tube that could produce the same blue white light production effect.
I'm referring to the Lugano alumina tube reactor, not to the QuarkX.
In the Rossi vs Darden thread I half jokingly proposed that an internal bright light source or filament could render the tube incandescent at low temperatures but I wasn't aware that Jack Cole actually verified this in his own experiments.
C
I'm referring to the Lugano alumina tube reactor, not to the QuarkX.
In the Rossi vs Darden thread I half jokingly proposed that an internal bright light source or filament could render the tube incandescent at low temperatures but I wasn't aware that Jack Cole actually verified this in his own experiments.
There is something wrong with this experiment. The production of that light can't be from a 350C heat source. Alumina is NOT transparent at 350C. When something looks wrong in an experiment, then the results of that experiment must be reexamined.
The production of that light can't be from a 350C heat source. Alumina is NOT transparent at 350C.
Axil, you are just wrong! Do the experiment. Even at room temperature alumina is translucent. The material has a high degree of scattering, but passes most of the incident light. You can easily make this measurement with a laser pointer and a stack of flat alumina substrates. The spot gets bigger and bigger as it passes through more substrate, but most of the light makes it through. In Jack's experiment, as in Lugano, a hot internal filament will produce much more emitted light (and a different spectrum) than would be expected based on the temperature of the envelope. An old incandescent light bulb may have a 2500°K spectrum, but the bulb glass envelope may only be 150°C.
Also, don't forget that alumina is polycrystalline sapphire, the crystallites of which each have a very broad range of transmission.
Axil, you are just wrong! Do the experiment. Even at room temperature alumina is translucent. The material has a high degree of scattering, but passes most of the incident light. You can easily make this measurement with a laser pointer and a stack of flat alumina substrates. The spot gets bigger and bigger as it passes through more substrate, but most of the light makes it through. In Jack's experiment, as in Lugano, a hot internal filament will produce much more emitted light (and a different spectrum) than would be expected based on the temperature of the envelope. An old incandescent light bulb may have a 2500°K spectrum, but the bulb glass envelope may only be 150°C.
Also, don't forget that alumina is polycrystalline sapphire, the crystallites of which each have a very broad range of transmission.
How can a blue white light be produced in an experiment that uses resistant heat at 350C. Is the reaction producing a laser like effect? The measured heat at 350C and the observation of a 5000K light source does not make sense to me. It is not blackbody or is it?
